Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. I will take just a couple of minutes. I rise in opposition to the McCain-Levin amendment on base closure. It is a difficult decision for me because I am persuaded there could be some closures that would make us more efficient in terms of our mission in defense. I remember my friend, Dick Cheney, whose place I took in the House, said that defense is not for economic development; it is for defense. I appreciate that, and I believe that. I was not at all impressed with the last process. I was not at all impressed with the way the administration handled it, so I do not believe that it is appropriate at this time to bring in the politics again of base closure. Frankly, the military ought to come forward with their views as to what is necessary to carry out their mission. That, of course, should be our particular desire. Amendment No. 395

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I also rise in opposition to the Kerrey amendment. It seems to me that it would be a mistake to begin to downgrade our position with regard to missiles until START II is agreed to by the Russians. We have already approved that treaty; the Russians have not. I do not think we should weaken our position. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views on those two amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of critical importance to the domestic lamb industry and to producers in my home state of Wyoming. In September 1998, a coalition of individuals from all segments of the U.S. lamb industry filed a Section 201 trade petition with the U.S. International Trade Commission under laws embedded in the Trade Act of 1974 and every trade act this nation has agreed to since that time. Our domestic industry filed this trade case in response to the surging, record-setting levels of imported lamb meat from Australia and New Zealand. These individuals, although representing different sectors of the U.S. lamb industry, collectively signed onto this legal battle because each entity has witnessed a drastic impact from lamb imports-- imports that increased nearly 50 percent between 1993 and 1997 and continue at an aggressive rate still today. Under a Section 201 petition, the International Trade Commission is required to conduct an investigation to confirm or dispel the claims asserted within the trade case. Twice the Commissioners heard arguments from both the domestic industry and the importers. Twice the Commissioners rejected the importers arguments. In both instances, the Commissioners voted unanimously--during the injury phase in February and again in March, when they recommended that the President impose some form of trade relief. The Commission's report, and the industry's trade case, now await a final determination by President Clinton. According to the Commission's report, wholesale imported lamb cuts consistently undercut the price of identical domestic cuts. Evidence of importers underselling domestically produced lamb was found in 79 percent of the product-to-product comparisons with margins of 20 percent to 40 percent. Other comparisons have found margin disparities reaching as high as 70 percent. It is evident that our domestic industry is suffering from the flood of cheap, imported lamb that has swamped the U.S. market and forced prices below break-even levels. Time is of the essence in this matter as President Clinton has until June 4, 1999, to render his decision on what trade relief, if any, to implement. It is important to remember that under our own trade laws, the requirement of demonstrating that imports are threatening serious injury to the domestic industry has been met. As a result, I urge the President to impose strong, effective and temporary trade relief. More importantly, I urge the President to act on behalf of our producers by seriously considering the undisputed facts outlined in the Commission's report.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on the East Asia and Pacific Affairs, I have been very much interested in the unfortunate bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade over the weekend. Clearly, in my opinion, this was a tragic mistake. It has been suggested by some that it was done on purpose. I don't believe that. I think it was a mistake--one for which there is no excuse. It boggles the mind to think that someone could make such a mistake. It is my hope that the matter will be thoroughly investigated and that a proper explanation will be made. It was a mistake for which both the President and the Secretary of State have apologized to People's Republic of China. I add my apology to theirs. There is no minimizing this unfortunate accident. But I also must say to the Chinese that it would be a mistake to inflame the situation, and to fail to adequately protect our embassies and our consulates in China. The Government there has apparently organized busloads of students to travel to the Embassy in Beijing. By the way, I was there not long ago. This is one of the least protected embassies in our system. It is very old, and it is not satisfactory from a safety standpoint. While public security officials in Beijing apparently prevent their citizens from storming the Embassy, they do nothing to prevent the throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails, and people have damaged the Embassy. Our consulate in Chungdu was partially destroyed by fire. The Government has allowed citizens to effectively hold the Ambassador hostage in our Embassy for the past 3 days. The Chinese press has failed to mention, purposefully I suspect, that we and NATO have apologized for the bombing, nor has the media noted that the bombing was accidental rather than premeditated. We have had and continue to have a strategic relationship with the People's Republic of China. Certainly we have not agreed on many things. Certainly we have been critical of many things. On the other hand, that relationship has grown over the last several years. China has changed substantially. We have a great number of things going on between our countries. Almost everyone would agree that, assuming we could get over the main obstacles, a relationship between that large country with 1.2 billion people and our country is something that is jointly advantageous. We have an economic relationship. We are working on and I think have been coming rather close to, an agreement on the World Trade Organization, which I favor. I think we would be much better off dealing with China within the WTO rather than having to do it unilaterally. If we are going to be in the world community, then these are things which I think are particularly important. I suspect that some Chinese are using this incident as a way of responding to some of the criticisms of them and their practices that we have had over time. We have had it on espionage; we have had it on human rights, and properly so, I suspect. But they are using this, in my view, as a means of responding to some of the criticisms we have had. I think it would be a mistake if we let this unfortunate incident interfere with the opportunity to have a stronger relationship. I think it would be a mistake if we let this be an opportunity for Milosevic to begin to do something with his image and come out with a better deal than he deserves. I hope that doesn't happen. We both have--a great deal at risk. Mr. President, I hope, despite all the problems, that we can solve this. I think it would be wrong for either side to use this bombing and subsequent reaction of Chinese citizens to poison the bilateral relationship which we have an opportunity to develop in the future. As we know, there is a great deal at stake in all of our relationships throughout the world. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to come in this morning when we had a break in regular business to talk about something that is very important to me and to Wyoming. As a matter of fact, it is also important in States such as Kansas. I am speaking about promoting health in rural areas. I am joining with several colleagues in introducing a bill promoting health in rural areas, a bill designed to increase access to quality health care services in rural areas. Rural health care has been a priority of mine since I have been in the House and Senate. As cochair of the Rural Health Care Caucus, I am pleased that health care in rural areas is an issue that we can address in a bipartisan way. So I am very pleased to work with colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, Senator Roberts; Senator Grassley; Senator Harkin; Senator Baucus; Senator Daschle; Senator Conrad, and Senator Collins, to craft this bill. It is always a pleasure to work with people who have similar issues, and certainly we do in rural areas. This bill provides some incentives, regulatory relief and Medicare payment equity, needed to ensure rural families have access to quality health care, the kind of health care that they deserve. Those of us who come from low-population areas have unique problems. We talk about education, we talk about schools, and we talk about the delivery of health care. Quite frankly, it is different in Greybull, WY, than it is in Philadelphia. So when we have national programs such as Medicare, it is important that we recognize some of the problems that exist in rural areas are unique and, indeed, need to be dealt with differently-- problems such as the lack of physicians and health care providers in rural areas, and the idea that Medicare reimbursement has actually been unfair and unequal and not uniform throughout the country. I recall last year when we were talking about Medicare payments to HMOs, the payments that were available in some places in the east were $700 a month. In the Midwest, it was $250 a month under the same kind of program. So there is some unfairness there. Certainly, we have experienced limited access to mental health. I think this is particularly true for young people. In rural areas, you simply don't have the kinds of rural health care access that is necessary and should be provided. One of the techniques that will be used increasingly, I am sure, in rural health care is telemedicine, where you can go from a family practitioner to a specialty on telemedicine and get at least many of the same quality kinds of health care advantages. Many of these problems were explored last summer when we held a forum in Casper, WY. We brought in people interested in health care, not only providers and patients but others. Many ideas were talked about there, such as how we can strengthen health care in Wyoming. We came up with a consensus in a number of these areas, and this bill contains many of those recommendations. I am pleased about that. Here are some of the solutions. One of the things we discovered in our health care seminar is that in big cities you have all the different kinds of specialists and different techniques for health care, but you don't have them in small towns. So it is necessary, then, to have a network so you can tie it in. Small towns aren't often able to have a fully qualified hospital that will receive payments for Medicare from HCFA. So we had to arrange to have what we call ``acute care hospitals'' that can provide a lesser but equally important service, so that people could have emergency care, for example, and then be transported to another place, or the full service hospital. So you need a network there. We need assistance in recruiting physicians, as you can imagine. It is difficult sometimes to bring in doctors--particularly specialists-- to low-population areas. So these are some of the problems that we talked about. This bill ensures rural health care representation on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. There is an advisory commission that has oversight responsibilities, and there is no assurance that there would be anyone there with a background and experience in a rural area. These are the things we have done. Specifically, it increases the reimbursement rates for hospitals and clinics. Medicare reimbursement rates have been unfair and inadequate. Health care costs have been undervalued. You should receive the same kind of value care there as somewhere else. The cost of living is somewhat less, perhaps, but not to the extent that the payments have been made different. We think one of the results of that, of course, is the difficulty to get providers to come there. Their reimbursement is less than it is in Florida or other places for doing the same thing. So we revised the rates. The bill increases payments to sole community hospitals and, of course, that is what we have. My first recollection in talking about this is when the Presiding Officer was in the House and we talked in Kansas about having a special program for small town hospitals, and that happened and has worked well. Recruiting and maintaining providers, of course, is a problem. In Wyoming, we have 22 underserved areas. That means there is less than one primary care physician for every 3,500 people living in those areas. It is also appropriate, of course, to advocate for other professionals, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants. In many areas, those are the types of professionals that will be in small towns. Telemedicine, of course, can be the salvation of rural America, and it is moving quickly. This bill expands the number of telemedicine services reimbursed by Medicare, which will be very useful in establishing a well-coordinated network of physicians, midlevel practitioners, hospitals and clinics. This is especially important if you have a nurse practitioner or physician assistant, for instance, in a small town and they need advice from a specialist. They can do that using telemedicine. Mental health. As you can imagine, access to mental health care is quite limited in rural areas. So this bill expands and ensures coverage by Medicare for mental health types of things. I mentioned the MEDPAC. Two years ago, Congress established the Medical Payment Advisory Commission, designed to make policy recommendations in part A and part B of Medicare. Unfortunately, on the current 15-member board, only one member is from a rural area. This bill requires that at least two be on the board to give adequate input. In conclusion, I am very pleased with this bill to promote better health care in rural areas. It provides assistance to many rural communities that have trouble getting the quality health care that people receive in bigger cities. This is designed to do that. It is possible that we can debate it this year. The Rural Health Care Caucus will be working, and perhaps it will be part of a broader health care effort. This is a good start, and I am pleased to be a part of it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join several of my colleagues in introducing the ``Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act,'' a bill designed to increase access to quality health care services in rural areas. I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues--Senators Baucus, Roberts, Grassley, Harkin, Daschle, Conrad and Collins--in crafting this bill for rural America. Rural health care has been a top priority for me throughout my service in the House and Senate. As co-chairman of the Senate Rural Health Care Caucus, I am pleased that rural health care is an issue that we have always addressed in a bipartisan way in the Senate. Rural health care is at a crossroads. Many communities are left short-handed through no fault of their own. The lack of physicians, nurses and other health professionals make it difficult for rural individuals to receive the most basic primary care. Further, inadequate and, more importantly, unequal reimbursement by federal agencies multiplies these unique challenges and leaves rural individuals and families without access to vital medical care. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999 offers clear and sensible solutions to these problems. It increases reimbursement rates for rural hospitals and clinics, it offers communities additional assistance in recruiting physicians, it promotes the use of telemedicine services, it expands coverage of mental health services in rural areas and it ensures adequate representation of rural health care on a national Medicare advisory board. It is a long-term solution tailored to the needs of rural areas. The bill incorporates many of the best ideas and recommendations that emerged from the Wyoming Health Care Policy Forum I hosted in Casper on August 26-27, 1998. Wyoming's health care providers, health care recipients, elected representatives and concerned citizens assembled to evaluate and assess the direction of Wyoming's health care delivery system and to chart a blueprint for its future. This bill increases payments to Sole Community Hospitals, Rural Health Clinics and private health plans contracting with Medicare by exempting them from a proposed prospective payment system for outpatient hospital services. Facilities would be reimbursed on actual costs, providing a higher reimbursement rate. It would also update the cost reporting year, or ``rebase,'' the data Medicare uses to calculate costs and reimbursements. Most hospitals in Wyoming are designated as Sole Community Hospitals because of isolation, weather, travel conditions and the absence of other health care facilities. They are crucial for health care delivery in Wyoming. Further, the bill would expand the eligibility for hospitals to become Critical Access Hospitals. Critical Access Hospitals are a newly designated class of hospitals in rural areas that have been given greater flexibility and relief from federal regulations so they can organize their staff and facilities to meet the immediate emergency care needs of their small communities. They can tailor or reconfigure their services without losing their Medicare certification. Rural communities through the United States are federally designated health professional shortage areas (HPSA). Wyoming has 22 of them. This means there is less than one primary care physician for every 3500 persons living in those areas. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act helps solve this dilemma by offering effective solutions to recruit and retain health care providers. It revises Medicare's Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs by raising the cap on the number of residents that will be allowed to participate in family practice residency programs. In addition, it provides added recruiting assistance to communities in HPSAs. Current law places rural communities at risk because it requires that a community first lose a physician before it qualifies for recruitment assistance. This bill recognizes pending physician resignations and retirements so communities have access to assistance before they lose their provider. Further, it enhances the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) by giving tax relief to those receiving scholarships and loans under the program. The NHSC is an important component in the rural health care delivery system and additional tax relief would encourage recipients to remain in rural areas. Telehealth technologies play a key role in bridging the barriers of time and distance that prevent access to medical care. We must ensure that the technology is practical, affordable, accessible and maintains privacy. The bill expands the types of telemedicine services that will be reimbursed under Medicare, which will be very useful in establishing a well-coordinated network of physicians, mid-level practitioners, hospitals and clinics. It also encourages solutions to telemedicine questions that have been raised about practicing interstate medicine by authorizing a Joint Working Group on Telehealth that would identify, monitor and coordinate federal telehealth projects and issue an annual report to Congress. Mental health care is a priority in this bill. Individuals in rural areas often have limited access to mental health services. As a result, rural states license additional categories of mental health professionals than are recognized by Medicare. This bill ensures more of the services will be covered by Medicare. Two years ago, Congress established the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to make important policy recommendations on Part A and Part B of the Medicare program. Unfortunately, of the current 15-member board, only one health care professional is from a rural area. Our bill requires that the Commission include at least two representatives from Rural Areas. This will help ensure that the board members fully understand the implications of their policy decisions. In conclusion, the Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act provides the answers many rural communities are looking for to ensure quality health care for their residents. I look forward to discussing and actively debating rural health this Congress. It is possible that Medicare reform legislation will be debated this year and the Senate Rural Health Care Caucus will work to attach many of these provisions to such legislation. We understand the impact recent Medicare changes are having on our nation's fragile rural health system. We need to act now. This bill is a great start.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join several of my colleagues in introducing the ``Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act,'' a bill designed to increase access to quality health care services in rural areas. I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues--Senators Baucus, Roberts, Grassley, Harkin, Daschle, Conrad and Collins--in crafting this bill for rural America. Rural health care has been a top priority for me throughout my service in the House and Senate. As co-chairman of the Senate Rural Health Care Caucus, I am pleased that rural health care is an issue that we have always addressed in a bipartisan way in the Senate. Rural health care is at a crossroads. Many communities are left short-handed through no fault of their own. The lack of physicians, nurses and other health professionals make it difficult for rural individuals to receive the most basic primary care. Further, inadequate and, more importantly, unequal reimbursement by federal agencies multiplies these unique challenges and leaves rural individuals and families without access to vital medical care. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act of 1999 offers clear and sensible solutions to these problems. It increases reimbursement rates for rural hospitals and clinics, it offers communities additional assistance in recruiting physicians, it promotes the use of telemedicine services, it expands coverage of mental health services in rural areas and it ensures adequate representation of rural health care on a national Medicare advisory board. It is a long-term solution tailored to the needs of rural areas. The bill incorporates many of the best ideas and recommendations that emerged from the Wyoming Health Care Policy Forum I hosted in Casper on August 26-27, 1998. Wyoming's health care providers, health care recipients, elected representatives and concerned citizens assembled to evaluate and assess the direction of Wyoming's health care delivery system and to chart a blueprint for its future. This bill increases payments to Sole Community Hospitals, Rural Health Clinics and private health plans contracting with Medicare by exempting them from a proposed prospective payment system for outpatient hospital services. Facilities would be reimbursed on actual costs, providing a higher reimbursement rate. It would also update the cost reporting year, or ``rebase,'' the data Medicare uses to calculate costs and reimbursements. Most hospitals in Wyoming are designated as Sole Community Hospitals because of isolation, weather, travel conditions and the absence of other health care facilities. They are crucial for health care delivery in Wyoming. Further, the bill would expand the eligibility for hospitals to become Critical Access Hospitals. Critical Access Hospitals are a newly designated class of hospitals in rural areas that have been given greater flexibility and relief from federal regulations so they can organize their staff and facilities to meet the immediate emergency care needs of their small communities. They can tailor or reconfigure their services without losing their Medicare certification. Rural communities through the United States are federally designated health professional shortage areas (HPSA). Wyoming has 22 of them. This means there is less than one primary care physician for every 3500 persons living in those areas. The Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act helps solve this dilemma by offering effective solutions to recruit and retain health care providers. It revises Medicare's Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs by raising the cap on the number of residents that will be allowed to participate in family practice residency programs. In addition, it provides added recruiting assistance to communities in HPSAs. Current law places rural communities at risk because it requires that a community first lose a physician before it qualifies for recruitment assistance. This bill recognizes pending physician resignations and retirements so communities have access to assistance before they lose their provider. Further, it enhances the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) by giving tax relief to those receiving scholarships and loans under the program. The NHSC is an important component in the rural health care delivery system and additional tax relief would encourage recipients to remain in rural areas. Telehealth technologies play a key role in bridging the barriers of time and distance that prevent access to medical care. We must ensure that the technology is practical, affordable, accessible and maintains privacy. The bill expands the types of telemedicine services that will be reimbursed under Medicare, which will be very useful in establishing a well-coordinated network of physicians, mid-level practitioners, hospitals and clinics. It also encourages solutions to telemedicine questions that have been raised about practicing interstate medicine by authorizing a Joint Working Group on Telehealth that would identify, monitor and coordinate federal telehealth projects and issue an annual report to Congress. Mental health care is a priority in this bill. Individuals in rural areas often have limited access to mental health services. As a result, rural states license additional categories of mental health professionals than are recognized by Medicare. This bill ensures more of the services will be covered by Medicare. Two years ago, Congress established the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to make important policy recommendations on Part A and Part B of the Medicare program. Unfortunately, of the current 15-member board, only one health care professional is from a rural area. Our bill requires that the Commission include at least two representatives from Rural Areas. This will help ensure that the board members fully understand the implications of their policy decisions. In conclusion, the Promoting Health in Rural Areas Act provides the answers many rural communities are looking for to ensure quality health care for their residents. I look forward to discussing and actively debating rural health this Congress. It is possible that Medicare reform legislation will be debated this year and the Senate Rural Health Care Caucus will work to attach many of these provisions to such legislation. We understand the impact recent Medicare changes are having on our nation's fragile rural health system. We need to act now. This bill is a great start.

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. 140, a bill to establish the Thomas Cole National Historic Site in the State of New York as an affiliated area of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 734, the National Discovery Trails Act of 1999; S. 762, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study on the inclusion of the Miami Circle in Biscayne National Park; S. 938, a bill to eliminate restrictions on the acquisition of certain land contiguous to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and for other purposes; S. 939, a bill to correct spelling errors in the statutory designations of Hawaiian National Parks; S. 946, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer administrative jurisdiction over land within the boundaries of the Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site to the Archivist of the United States for the construction of a visitor center; and S. 955, a bill to allow the National Park Service to acquire certain land for addition to the Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia, as previously authorized by law, by purchase. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 25, 1999 at 2:15 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 Shawn Taylor of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss this important issue. First, let me, too, say that I appreciate the work that is being done on this whole financial modernization bill. I think it is something that certainly needs to be done and that I support. I also believe very strongly in what the Senator from Nebraska has just said with regard to takings--that the idea that we cannot change the rules in the Congress without it being exposed to takings is one that is very threatening. I think that is the case. So I am very pleased to be a sponsor of this thrift charter amendment with my colleagues, Senator Johnson and Senator Kerrey. I think the amendment will improve the underlying legislation by stopping a mixture of banking and commerce through the unitary thrift charter arrangement. This amendment freezes the number of commercially owned thrifts and bans the future number of sales of unitary thrift charters to commercial entities. Commercial firms that already own thrifts would be able to continue the endeavor, and they are grandfathered. The integration of banking and commerce raises significant questions about the concentration of economic resources. I happen to be chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Rim and have had some opportunities recently to be in South Korea and Japan. I have to tell you that I am impressed with the problems they have had with that kind of integration, and I do not want us to get into that. I have already mentioned that I do not believe this is a taking. I believe this is actually a change in direction, one that very much needs to be made, and I think it will help us in terms of this mixing of banking and commerce. It is a significant cause for the Asian economic crisis. I believe we should learn from the lessons of the Asia financial crisis and be very careful about this integration. I think this will help do that. In testimony before the Banking Committee last year, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan spoke to the risks that can arise if the relationships continue between banking and commercial firms. Both he and Secretary Rubin have testified to the need for closing the loophole. This amendment secures the safety and soundness of our financial system, and I urge that it be supported. Let me just comment on some things that very knowledgeable people have said. Secretary Rubin has said: [W]e support the prohibition against forming additional unitary holding companies, and [we] would further support an amendment terminating the grandfather rights. . . . Former Federal Reserve Board Governor Paul Volcker said: Recent experience with the banking crises in countries as different in their stages of development as Japan, Indonesia, and Russia demonstrates the folly of permitting industrial- financial conglomerates to dominate financial markets and potentially larger areas of the economy. The American Bankers Association, which has studied this very carefully, said: [C]ommercial and banking should not be allowed to mix in the wholesale fashion permitted under the unitary thrift concept. . . . The Independent Bankers Association of America said: IBAA cannot support, and will oppose, any legislation that does not narrow the unitary thrift holding company loophole. The Consumers Union said: We oppose permitting federally-insured institutions to combine with commercial interests because of the potential to skew the availability of credit. . . . I close by saying that a mixture of banking and commerce is widely considered to be a significant cause of the recent Asian economic crisis. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan testified last year before the Senate Banking Committee: The Asia crisis has highlighted some of the risks that can arise if relationships between banks and commercial firms are too close. Mr. President, I hope we will adopt this amendment. I think it strengthens the overall bill. I certainly intend to support the bill and intend to support this amendment. I urge support of it. 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 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 Youth Conservation Corps and other job programs conducted by the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, May 19, 1999 at 2:00 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 Shawn Taylor of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, clearly the discussions on Kosovo are dominating the day and should. But I hope that we don't forget that we do have an agenda that we need to go forward with as well. So I want to talk a few minutes today about Social Security. Specifically, I would like to talk a little bit about our efforts to protect and strengthen the Social Security system. We have talked about it for a very long time. It is not a surprise that without some changes, the Social Security program will not be able to accomplish what it is designed to accomplish. Nearly everyone recognizes that we have to do something different than we have been doing. I will, in fact, say that there is not a consensus as to what that ``something different'' ought to be. But the goal surely can be shared by most everyone. The goal is to be able to know that we can continue to provide benefits for the beneficiaries and those that are close to being beneficiaries, and at the same time be able to provide benefits in the long run for young people who are now just beginning to have deducted from their salary Social Security payments. I suspect all of us want to do that. I have a mother who I am concerned about who has Social Security. I have 5-year-old twin grandchildren and I am anxious about their security. That is the kind of issue we have. I notice today's newspaper expresses relief that we will go forward with Social Security. There was some discussion last week that it would not move. I will talk a little bit about the lockbox legislation. We are seeking to push through a Social Security lockbox. What does that mean? It means we take that amount of money which comes in as Social Security now and set it aside so that it will be used for Social Security. Over the years, we have had what is called a unified budget, and all the money that comes in--whether from Social Security, income tax, highway funds, or whatever--goes into the unified budget. This year, for the first time in 25 years, we have had a balanced budget, but it is a unified budget. If you took Social Security out of that balanced budget, it would not be balanced. Indeed, it would be somewhat in deficit. We need to understand what that is. Now that we are close to having a unified budget in balance and close to having it without Social Security, now we have an opportunity to do the things with Social Security dollars that I believe we need to do. The lockbox is designed to guarantee that all Social Security surplus funds will be reserved for Social Security alone. This, of course, has not been the case. It is difficult to do, frankly. We have never had a place to put it. When we have a life insurance program or an annuity program, there has to be somewhere to put those funds so they draw interest. Of course, under the law, the only place they can be invested is in government securities. They are set aside here, but they are spent. Of course the President is suggesting he would raid the Social Security to the tune of about $158 billion, after having talked for 2 years about saving Social Security. I am concerned that the current debate is going to become very difficult: How do we pay for Kosovo? How do we pay for increasing the support of the military? How do we pay for the emergency funds that are in the process of being provided for Central America? We have budget spending limits which I think are key to keeping a smaller Government, to keeping a responsible Government. When we go outside of those spending limits with emergency spending, it goes from Social Security. Last year, for example, the President insisted, with the threat of closing down Government, that we had to spend $20 billion in emergency funding. I suppose no one would argue if emergency funds are a genuine emergency, such as weather disasters or taking care of our troops in Kosovo, we are going to do that, by all means. When we start talking about how we build up the Armed Forces, I think we ought to take a look at whether that comes as an emergency or, in fact, comes out of our budget. We are trying to move to some kind of financially sound lockbox. In 2014, Social Security begins to run in a deficit. Social Security started about 60 years ago, I think--in the 1930s. People paid 1 percent of $3,000--$30--into Social Security. There were 31 people working for every beneficiary. Of course, now that has changed. Now we all pay 12.5 percent of our earnings up to $70,000 or more, moving up. There are, I think, fewer than three people working for each one drawing benefits. In the near future, it will be fewer than two. That is the sort of dilemma with which we are faced. I suppose there are many considerations to look at, but there are three that are obvious. One, you could reduce benefits. Not many are prepared to do that; even though Social Security, of course, is not a retirement program, it is a supplementary program. For a high percentage of people, that is, indeed, their largest income requirement. Two, you could increase taxes. I don't think there is a great deal of excitement about that. I do not think it is a great idea. Social Security taxes are the largest tax that most Americans pay. Three, increase the rate of return on the money that is in the trust fund. That is one of the things we are talking about doing, trying to put together a personal account--not to take all of the 12 percent but to take, say, 3 or 4 percent out of the 12, about a third of the money. Let it be your account, your personal account. If, unfortunately, you were not able to live long enough to get all of your money out of it, it would go to your estate. How is it invested? By private investors, similar to the Federal savings program. Once a year, members get a sheet of paper asking how they would like this invested. The choice would be in equities, bonds, or in a combination of the two. So members would choose one of those options. It is invested for you--not invested, as the President has suggested, where he takes trillions of dollars and has the Government invest it. Then the Government would basically control the marketplace. None of us want that. Personal ownership, it seems to me, ensures that the Federal Government can't come back later and reduce your benefits. That is a way to secure those dollars. They are not then in the Government ready to be spent for some other reason. Depending on your view about the size of government--and there is a legitimate difference between those who are more conservative and those who are more liberal. There are always ways to spend more money. To control the size of government, as has been our goal over the last number of years, you can't have a lot of surplus money lying around or else it is simply spent and government grows. We have to do something to secure Social Security. Then, hopefully, when there is excess money, we can look for some kind of tax relief. It has been a long time since we started on this. Quite frankly, I think the sooner we make a change, the less abrupt that change will have to be. I am hopeful we do get back. We started out this year wanting to do this. Now the President is reluctant to take any leadership. Some of the leaders in the Congress were saying we ought to set it aside. I don't agree. Certainly, we need to focus on Kosovo, but it doesn't mean we don't do the other things that are before the Senate. It is time to design a first-class system that fulfills the needs of everyone--our older citizens, our younger citizens. We need a permanent fix, not just tinkering around the edges. People have thought for years that Social Security was the holy grail of politics--touch it and you are dead. I think it has changed, because people understand if it is not changed, Social Security will be dead. I hope we move forward.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I would like to talk for about 10 minutes as if in morning business, if I may.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. First of all, I have a couple of unanimous consent proposals.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to and statements relating to the resolution appear in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill called the No- Net-Loss of Private Lands Act. If I may have 10 minutes to do that, please. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 826 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 81.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 52, which is at the desk.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the resolution appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is really the ``No-Net-Gain'' bill that we have talked about before. The regulation is a commonsense proposal that will limit additional Federal land acquisition in public land States. The Federal Government continues to acquire more land throughout the Nation in every State of the Union, and folks are saying we have to take a new look at the growth of the Federal Government and begin to protect private property rights. This, however, only applies to States in which 25 percent or more of the State now belongs to the Federal Government. So, as you can imagine, the acquisition of additional lands is especially a problem for those of us living in the West. Roughly 50 percent of the land in my home State of Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government. In some States it is as high as 87 percent-- in Nevada. In Colorado, the home State of the Presiding Officer, it is higher than 50 percent. This bill deals with that sort of phenomenon. As you probably know, in the past, of course, much land was set aside in parks and forests. They were reserve lands. And I support that. I am glad they are set aside. These are national treasures and we want to keep them. Much of the land, of course, was then put into private ownership through the Homestead Act. When that was concluded, there were still lands there that were left afterwards, and they were taken and are now managed by the Bureau of Land Management. These were not lands that were ever reserved; these were lands that were simply left over when the Homestead Act was completed. So they, too, are managed for many uses and are important. This bill in no way asks these total lands be reduced. We are simply saying whenever there is an acquisition made for something that is useful--and it does allow the Federal Government to do that, of course--that an equal value of land, Federal land, be sent back into private ownership. The Federal Government, of course, makes it a little more difficult sometimes in the States to have multiple use, to use them, to set them aside, to manage the environment, but at the same time have economic activities, to have mining, to have oil, to have timber, to have grazing. These are the things, of course, that are the lifeblood to the Western States. This creates often a hardship for the local economies; and it depresses the economy. The Clinton administration, I think, has been particularly difficult in the way it has handled some of the public lands. The latest proposal, the Lands Legacy Initiative, is an example of a rather expansive acquisition of Federal lands. Again I say I have no objection to the maintaining of lands that have a special character, that have a special need, to be reserved into public ownership. All we say is, if you are going to do that, then release an equal value amount of lands back into private ownership. Many of us are very concerned about the Lands Legacy Initiative, that it will again impede the private ownership, which, of course, is a very basic thing to this whole country. I think the time has come to put some kind of a bridle on the insatiable appetite for additional land in the western part of the United States. The No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act is, I think, a reasonable approach to an ever-increasing growth of Federal land ownership. This measure requires the Federal Government to release an equal value of land when it acquires property in the States that are at least 25 percent federally owned. The property would be released at the same time of the new acquisition and could be any type of Federal lands. In addition, the legislation would provide a provision waiving the disposal requirement in time of national emergency or war. While in the Congress, both in the House and the Senate, I have worked extensively to protect unique public lands, such as national parks. I served as chairman of the National Parks Committee. I think there is nothing more important to us, in terms of preserving natural resources and cultural resources. In fact, we passed a rather extensive bill called Vision 20/20 last year that does this. It helps to strengthen national parks. When I grew up, my parents' ranch bordered the Shoshone National Forest, so I feel very strongly about forests and that they should be there, but I do believe there needs to be some equality between the private ownership and Federal ownership. So it is time for the Congress to protect the rights of private owners and to instill some common sense and restraint in the further acquisition and growth of Federal lands. That is what this bill is designed to do. And I indicate the cosponsorship of Senator Kyl and Senator Helms.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is really the ``No-Net-Gain'' bill that we have talked about before. The regulation is a commonsense proposal that will limit additional Federal land acquisition in public land States. The Federal Government continues to acquire more land throughout the Nation in every State of the Union, and folks are saying we have to take a new look at the growth of the Federal Government and begin to protect private property rights. This, however, only applies to States in which 25 percent or more of the State now belongs to the Federal Government. So, as you can imagine, the acquisition of additional lands is especially a problem for those of us living in the West. Roughly 50 percent of the land in my home State of Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government. In some States it is as high as 87 percent-- in Nevada. In Colorado, the home State of the Presiding Officer, it is higher than 50 percent. This bill deals with that sort of phenomenon. As you probably know, in the past, of course, much land was set aside in parks and forests. They were reserve lands. And I support that. I am glad they are set aside. These are national treasures and we want to keep them. Much of the land, of course, was then put into private ownership through the Homestead Act. When that was concluded, there were still lands there that were left afterwards, and they were taken and are now managed by the Bureau of Land Management. These were not lands that were ever reserved; these were lands that were simply left over when the Homestead Act was completed. So they, too, are managed for many uses and are important. This bill in no way asks these total lands be reduced. We are simply saying whenever there is an acquisition made for something that is useful--and it does allow the Federal Government to do that, of course--that an equal value of land, Federal land, be sent back into private ownership. The Federal Government, of course, makes it a little more difficult sometimes in the States to have multiple use, to use them, to set them aside, to manage the environment, but at the same time have economic activities, to have mining, to have oil, to have timber, to have grazing. These are the things, of course, that are the lifeblood to the Western States. This creates often a hardship for the local economies; and it depresses the economy. The Clinton administration, I think, has been particularly difficult in the way it has handled some of the public lands. The latest proposal, the Lands Legacy Initiative, is an example of a rather expansive acquisition of Federal lands. Again I say I have no objection to the maintaining of lands that have a special character, that have a special need, to be reserved into public ownership. All we say is, if you are going to do that, then release an equal value amount of lands back into private ownership. Many of us are very concerned about the Lands Legacy Initiative, that it will again impede the private ownership, which, of course, is a very basic thing to this whole country. I think the time has come to put some kind of a bridle on the insatiable appetite for additional land in the western part of the United States. The No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act is, I think, a reasonable approach to an ever-increasing growth of Federal land ownership. This measure requires the Federal Government to release an equal value of land when it acquires property in the States that are at least 25 percent federally owned. The property would be released at the same time of the new acquisition and could be any type of Federal lands. In addition, the legislation would provide a provision waiving the disposal requirement in time of national emergency or war. While in the Congress, both in the House and the Senate, I have worked extensively to protect unique public lands, such as national parks. I served as chairman of the National Parks Committee. I think there is nothing more important to us, in terms of preserving natural resources and cultural resources. In fact, we passed a rather extensive bill called Vision 20/20 last year that does this. It helps to strengthen national parks. When I grew up, my parents' ranch bordered the Shoshone National Forest, so I feel very strongly about forests and that they should be there, but I do believe there needs to be some equality between the private ownership and Federal ownership. So it is time for the Congress to protect the rights of private owners and to instill some common sense and restraint in the further acquisition and growth of Federal lands. That is what this bill is designed to do. And I indicate the cosponsorship of Senator Kyl and Senator Helms.