Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for as much time as I may need.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are not moving along too quickly this morning, so I thought I would take an opportunity to visit about an observation that I have made. We had a few moments ago the remarks by the good Senator from West Virginia about the passing of a former Senator from his State. He talked a bit about the past, a bit about the history of the Senate, and it was extremely interesting. This place, of course, is filled with history, it is filled with tradition, and that is good. On the other hand, there are changes that have taken place, and one of them is a little troubling to me. It does seem as if we are increasingly moving governance into more of show business and into more of political spin, more of promotion, more of advertising than really dealing with issues based on the facts and how they impact us. The basic principle, of course, of our historic democracy, thankfully, continues to exist, and we must insist that it does continue to exist--the idea of a government by Constitution and adhering to the basic tenets of the Constitution, the separation of institutions that provide some semblance of power division among the executive and the legislative and judicial branches; the idea of public access, that people have an opportunity to participate fully in government, that people have an opportunity to have the background and the facts that are necessary to participate; the idea of disclosure--we talk about that a lot--majorities deciding the direction that we take in this country based on facts, rule of law. In short, a government of the people, by the people and for the people, of course, and these are basic elements of democracy. An informed public is essential to that government of the people. Ironically, technology, which has provided us with the greatest opportunity to know more about what is happening more quickly than ever--can you imagine what it must have been like 100 years ago to be home in Wyoming and wonder what is going on in Washington? I suppose there was some comfort in that, as a matter of fact, but, nevertheless, it is quite different than what we have now. We have now the greatest opportunity in history for people to know what is happening and to know instantly what is happening. If a decision is made in Israel this morning, minutes later, the whole world, of course, is familiar with it. Unfortunately, the same technology that has provided us the opportunity to know so much more has accommodated and, in fact, I suppose, engendered some of the changes that are taking place in terms of the promotion of ideas and our method of governance. Unfortunately, spinning, promotion, and media hype have replaced real debate based on the issues, and that is too bad. It seems to me that this administration and, I must say, my friends in the minority, have perfected the idea that success is not policy or success is not finishing the job; success is having an opportunity to spin an issue on the evening news; success is getting coverage on the 5 o'clock national report. If polls indicate there is an issue out there in which people are interested and it is currently being discussed, this administration is quick to describe the problem and promise a Federal solution with lots of Federal money--``We'll fix it for you.'' Often there is no plan presented to deal with the problem. There is generally no real proposal to implement, nothing is laid before the Congress. Frankly, there is really no expectation that anything is going to happen; that the idea is, ``Here's the problem, here's what the polls have said; we'll fix it.'' And if you don't agree with that, suddenly you are out of step with the world. So success is measured in media rather than solutions. Unfortunately, I think we see more and more of that. It is interesting to me, because, depending upon your point of view about government, there are problems and there are appropriate ways to fix them and appropriate ways to deal with them. Of course, it is true that people have different views about that. There are those who believe the Federal Government ought to be the primary fixer of whatever the problem. That is a legitimate liberal view. There are those who believe that it is more likely to find satisfactory solutions if you go to the State, the local government, or the private sector. That, I guess, is a more conservative view. But more important than the philosophy, I think it is appropriate that when you have something you want to deal with, we ought to talk a little bit about where it can most appropriately be fixed. Should it be done at the Federal Government level? Should it be the kind of program that is one size fits all? I am very sensitive about that, I suppose, being from Wyoming. We are the smallest, population- wise, State in this country. So things that work in Pennsylvania, things that work in New York, do not necessarily work in Wyoming or Nevada or Kansas. So we are better off, in many instances, to say, ``Wait a minute. This service can better be delivered on the basis of a State solution, although the politics of it is, `Let's get on TV and say we'll fix it for you,' '' even with no expectation of having it happen. So I think we are finding more and more of that. And it just seems to me that it is something we ought to really evaluate, this idea that we watch the polls, find an issue, go to the TV, say we will fix it, and then beat up on everybody who really does not agree with that, without having any genuine--genuine--debate or discussion or analysis of how we best deal with the problem and where it works. Generally, these are things that are done certainly in a broad context. Everyone cares about children, so if you have a proposal on children--and to suggest that we do not is offensive to me. Everybody cares about child care, but where is it best dealt with? Everybody cares about health care. Where is it best provided? Everybody cares about secondary and elementary education. Where do we best deal with it? It is not enough just to say, ``We've got a problem. I want 100,000 teachers; I want the Federal Government to pay for it. It will become a mandatory program, and we have more and more Federal control.'' Those are the debates. Those are the debates. I guess it troubles me because we sort of trivialize governance with this business of applying the media technique. I understand that the minority--and Republicans have been in the minority, of course. For the minority it is easier to make proposals. It is easier to throw stones and things because you do not have the responsibility to finish it up. So it is, I think, an interesting kind of thing and one that I believe has some bearing on us really solving problems here. I think it is something we all ought to give some consideration to so that we begin to say to ourselves, ``Here's the problem. How do we best resolve it?'' not just ``How do we get the best 5 o'clock news out of it?'' Success should not be how much media coverage; success ought to be dealing with the problem, trying to resolve it with real debate, real desire to put it where it belongs. Many problems are best solved in the private sector, best solved in State and local government, best solved--some--by the Federal Government. And those are the decisions that we should make. So, Mr. President, as we move forward I hope that we do maintain the elements of democracy. I have had the occasion, being chairman of a subcommittee on Foreign Relations, to go some places where they do not have democracy. And obviously the things that keep them from that is not having a constitutional government to which people can adhere and a rule of law which enforces it, an opportunity for people to voice their opinions and an opportunity for people to be informed as they form these opinions. These are the things that I think are important to our democracy and I am very interested in maintaining. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this morning the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 2:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will attempt to enter into several time agreements with respect to the high-tech legislation. At approximately 3 p.m., the Senate will consider the agricultural research conference report, and later this afternoon begin consideration of the missile defense bill. As a reminder, no votes will occur during today's session, and any votes ordered today will be postponed to occur on Tuesday, at approximately 12 noon. Also, on Tuesday the Senate will attempt to reach a time agreement on the D'Amato breast cancer bill and may also consider the charitable contributions bill. During the latter part of the week, the Senate may also consider DOD authorization. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take some time while we are in a pause here to talk about something that all of us are aware of, and that is Mother's Day, which is on Sunday, but I also want to talk a little bit about a special mother, a lady from Sheridan, WY. This lady was selected to be Mother of the Year in Wyoming a short time ago. Just last week, she participated in the National Mother of the Year event, American mothers event. She is a lady who has done all of the things that people want to do. She had a long and happy marriage, a career with her husband in a small business, a leader in her church. She continues to be an elder of the Sunday school, superintendent of a Presbyterian Church, first woman president of the Sheridan County Chamber of Commerce, a scout leader, director of the National Miss Indian Pageant for 12 years, twice Worthy Matron of Eastern Star. Currently, she is serving on the boards of the Sheridan County Senior Center, Salvation Army, Lifelink and Camp Story. She is a busy, busy lady. She also has two children. Her name is Dorothy Enzi, and one of her children is Senator Mike Enzi from Wyoming, my associate, who went, by the way, last weekend to this national event. I want to take a moment to recognize this lady for all that she does, not only because she is my friend's mother and my friend as well, but because this is the time to celebrate motherhood, a time to celebrate families, a time to celebrate things that we think are so important. I was struck by the homey sort of poem that was written by her daughter, the other child of Dorothy Enzi. I am going to share it with you. A Woman Ahead of Her Time (By Marilyn Koester) Dorothy Enzi has always worked hard all her life With a wholesome work ethic, whatever the strife. A woman who was always ahead of her time A 90's woman of each era--a role model of mine. In the 40's a grocery store she did run With her husband, yet still had time for her son. Then I came along and she handled that too This 90's woman of the 40's knew just what to do. In the 50's she ran the Thermop Trailer Court While Dad sold shoes on the road for his family's support. Then to Sheridan they moved and worked side by side At their very first shoe store--a real source of pride. Mom always made time for Mike's and my needs As Den Mother, Scout Leader, she did many deeds. She always worked hard--often into the night A 90's woman of the 50's she knew what was right. In the 60's more shoe stores were opened elsewhere And Mom worked just as hard as anyone there. She was active in clubs and the Chamber as well As their first woman President she served them quite swell. Whatever the challenge, she took it in stride But her family remained a great source of pride. As we both entered college we knew what it took The 90's woman of the 60's had written the book. In the 70's Mom was still going strong She and Dad worked hard and the hours were long. But they took time to golf and oft headed south When the winters up north got them down in the mouth. Her kids were now grown and both married as well Grandchildren now made her feel pretty swell. She cuddled and coddled and to them she did tend This 90's woman of the 70's came full circle again. In the 80's the shoe stores were now changing hands And Mom still was strong when alone she did stand. Dad passed on to a place where Mom could not go But she cherished the memories whene're she felt low. She kept loving life and worked hard at all tasks And volunteered time to all groups that did ask. Still active and busy, not once standing still This 90's woman of the 80's thought life was a thrill. Now the 90's have come, and Mom still shows us how You can work hard, enjoy life and do it all now. Life's never dull if you give it your best And God's blessed us with a Mother above all the rest. On this great occasion Mike and I say Congrats Mom, we love you, let's make this your day. Mother of the Year we salute you and say You're a woman ahead of your time to this day. So I rise to salute Dorothy Enzi, and all the mothers in this country, and particularly the good bringing up that our good Senator from Wyoming has had from his mother. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for arranging for time to talk about something that, of course, is probably as important to Americans as any issue, and it is probably good to talk about it shortly after the 15th of April. It is on our minds, and should be. So I am delighted that we are aimed towards doing something next week, doing something that almost everyone agrees needs to be done; that is, to make some adjustment in the system of collection of taxes; some adjustments with the IRS. Everyone knows that it is needed. But it has been needed for a good long time, yet we have not done anything. We have not done anything about it. We now have had, of course, hearings that have gone on for some time both in the House and in the Senate, which have brought to the attention of every one of the American people and to Members of Congress the need to make change. And, hopefully, that will happen. Up until now it seems to me, this agency, as is the case with many agencies, has sort of insulated themselves from public opinion and has sort of set themselves aside from the mainstream of America. Frankly, that is relatively easy to do in a bureaucracy. It seems to me that is one of the reasons that we need somehow to get more nonbureaucratic input into this system. Do we need to collect taxes? Of course, we do. Are our tax collectors ever popular? Of course not. But nevertheless there is a way to do this job that is more accountable to taxpayers. That is what we seek. I have been working very hard at a number of agencies. One of the things that strikes me in terms of what goes on in government as opposed to the private sector is there is really no built-in discipline. In the private sector you are competing with somebody. If you do not do the job, somebody else does it. So you are required to be relatively efficient, or else someone takes the work. You are required to please the people you serve, or they go somewhere else. Of course, that is not the case in government, and particularly in the case of the IRS. I think it is important that we do this. I have been involved in trying to take activities that could better be done by contract and by individuals in the private sector in all parts of government. But I have to tell you that this is one that has insulated itself a great deal. We need to do something about it. We find the same kind of threatening, the same kind of criminal intimidation going on in HCFA, in health care at the moment; trying to do something about fraud and abuse, which everyone supports. But the idea of challenging people, to threaten people, to intimidate people into doing it is not the best resolution. But that is not the best answer. So we need to find a way to do that. In my opinion, the underlying issue, of course, is the Tax Code. One of the problems that IRS has is to enforce a very complicated, convoluted, excessively voluminous and detailed Tax Code, and we need to change that. I think almost everyone, again, is for that change, but interestingly enough, as you talk about how specifically do you change it, then you find less unanimity. But changing the Tax Code is one thing that we must do which will help in the tax collection but it isn't the only thing. We also need to make changes in IRS, and that is what this is about. So there will be lots of ideas. The committee has a bill ready to go. The House has passed a bill. I think we will find there will be different views as to how best to do it. But I hope that we are driven, and I think we will be, by a vision of what we want the results to be, and then implement what it takes to cause those results to be different. Again, in the case of government, as opposed to often in the private sector, we are not result driven. We do not measure it by what it is we want to accomplish. We simply measure the process. And that ends up not doing what we would like to do. I think it is fair to say the IRS is out of control. The hearings we have had certainly would substantiate that. I do not think many people would argue with it. We have to do something that will cause the IRS to be more accountable to taxpayers. And this goal is too important to be partisan. Hopefully, it will not be. I hope we do not find ourselves smothered with extraneous amendments with other kinds of ideas. I think we ought to focus on how we make this IRS collection business work better and not be diverted by using this bill for lots of other things. I think we also need to recognize that IRS reform is a part of a changing tax culture that is maturing, I believe, in this country, certainly is maturing here. And this is one of the components of changing this whole tax scene in which we live, making it simpler, frankly, reducing taxes and making the collection a system that is consumer friendly and at the same time enforces the law. I think we have to recognize that that is what is done. So our agenda is simple and should, indeed, be simple. We have to ensure that the IRS serves the American people and not the other way around. That is our task. We need to consider this legislation of restructuring. Again, it is sort of interesting that as you seek to make some changes to produce different results in government, it is very difficult; the reaction you get almost generally is: Oh, things are OK. We don't need to change anything. There is no incentive to change in the bureaucracy. And that is what makes it difficult. I am hopeful that we can move to do some of these things. We need to give people outside the bureaucracy some oversight of the enforcement so that when you bring in the view of citizens, you bring in the view of people with expertise, so that, in fact, it can be made a part of the bureaucracy which doesn't automatically exist. We need to require the termination of employees who have been involved in offenses, just like you do in every other business, like you do in every other activity. We need to hold managers responsible and accountable. We should do that. It doesn't seem like a strange thing, but it is difficult. The people who are supervisors, who are in fact responsible to see that the job is done and done in the proper fashion, need to be held accountable to do that and, of course, have the authority to do it as well. We need to change the burden of proof in Tax Courts, putting it on the IRS, not on the taxpayer. We need to protect innocent spouses who are caught up in some kind of marital dilemma in which the spouse is entirely outside of that income but becomes involved. We need to extend, I suspect, the executive privilege beyond the same type that applies to lawyers to accountants and to other tax practitioners so that we have a way for people to be able to communicate among those who are helping them without causing that to be part of the problem. I hope this next week is productive, as we think it will be; that we can come up with some real management principles that will convert this task, this necessary task of tax collection into one that is more customer friendly, that is more accountable, indeed, is more effective and has the impact of getting this job done without the kind of offensive activities we have seen happen. I appreciate the time. I appreciate Senator Coverdell setting it up, and I would like to yield to my good friend and associate from Wyoming, Senator Enzi.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is a morning with a little bit of break between issues. It is an opportunity, it seems to me, to share some of the thoughts some of us have as priorities. Obviously, when we get involved in a particular bill, as we did last week, it took the whole week. Some of the things we care a lot about we tend to sort of set aside. I speak this morning briefly on a couple of issues that I think are very important, and are particularly important to me. One is the bill called Vision 20-20. It is the product of a great deal of effort that we put in in the Parks Subcommittee with respect to revitalizing our national parks. We have had one hearing in the subcommittee. We have another planned for this week. Finally, we will have four hearings and then, hopefully, bring it to the floor sometime in May or early June. National parks, of course, are increasingly well thought of in this country. They are increasingly popular. Visitations go up. We have more and more people taking advantage of the parks, parks that preserve either natural resources or cultural resources that have been a tradition. We celebrated last year the 125th anniversary of the first park, Yellowstone Park in Wyoming, as a matter of fact. Unfortunately, at the same time that we have increased our caring about parks, we find ourselves, according to the park agency, in addition to being $5 billion behind in the infrastructure, taking care of those parks and preserving those parks. The purpose, of course, of a park is to preserve those resources, whether they be natural or cultural. But equally as important, and the second issue, certainly is to provide a pleasant visit to the owners of the park who are the people of the United States. That, of course, becomes more difficult as this infrastructure needs repair. We are seeking to do a number of things. We are seeking to increase the resources that are available that will be supplemental to the budget money, to the tax money that all taxpayers pay, by doing things like extending the fee period where additional trial fees have been added to the parks, and to extend that for some time to see that people who enter the park can actually share more of the responsibility of paying for it. We are also talking about a stamp, collectible stamps, such as a duck stamp, in which the resources would go to the park. We are talking about those people who come on international tours to be able as part of their tour to buy a 30-day entry to parks with some of those funds going to national parks. We are talking about bonding many of the larger parks. Have things like streets and sewers, and it is very difficult to keep those up on annual budgets. So we are seeking to do that which is difficult since there is no real capital budget in the Federal establishment at work in doing that. In addition, we hope to give an opportunity for taxpayers to deduct a portion of their return--the money that comes back to them--and dedicate it to the parks, if they choose to. We think that is an opportunity to support the parks and those people who care a great deal about it. In addition, we are talking about the management. I think that is fair because they have more resources. There is evidence, of course, that management is not always what it might be. The most recent one, of course, is the cost of some of the construction there that has been extremely, unusually, inappropriately high. We are asking that there be a strategic plan, that is a national strategic plan also revisited on down to each unit, and that each unit have a strategic plan that complies with the flat plan. That has a measurable goal in it. This is a large business; there needs to be planning for it. We are talking about the concessions--the way that the concessions can contribute more financially to the parks. They are a commercial function within the park. We would like to see more private expertise in the management of these kinds of commercial activities within the Park Service. We also would like to have it more competitive so that people who want to get into the business can do that. We deal with the preferential right. In addition to that, of course, in order to invest millions of dollars, there needs to be some proprietary interest protecting that as well. These are some of the things we are doing. We are talking about education of the park employees, which I think is an advantage for them. Park employees are some of the most committed people I know of in the Federal Government to their role in the parks. We are excited about that, and hope that can be one of the things that this Congress accomplishes as they strengthen in making sure that the parks are going to be there for us in the next century and, therefore, our kids and our grandkids. The Budget Process Mr. President, we are also working, I think, as we move on into the allocation of funds through the budget and through the appropriations. I think we ought to take another look at a 2-year budget. We are going to find ourselves spending at least half of this year talking about budgeting and appropriations. Many State legislatures have shown that it is successful to do it on a biannual basis. What we ought to do, in my opinion--and we are also joined by the chairman of the Budget Committee, as well as the majority and minority whip--is that we ought to do this on a 2-year basis so that we can do it 1 year, set up the budgets the next year, and have oversight, which is something we need to do more of in Congress. I think it is good for agencies. They would have a longer period of time to know what resources are available to them. Somehow we don't seem to be able to get to it. It is a reasonable procedural thing that we ought to do. But, as is often the case and too often the case in Government and in this Congress, we have always done it that way. That is not a good enough reason. That is not a good enough reason. If there are ways we can do things more efficiently, if there are ways we can do things that will produce better results, that is what we ought to be doing. I am persuaded that is one of them. We are also in the process of trying to set up a system that provides for more entrepreneurial private involvement in some of the things that Government does. Basically, we have a bill that will probably be heard in the House this week that simply says to OMB to define those things that are basically commercial in nature, that are done by the Federal Government, and then require under the so-called 876 process that each of those kinds of things be made available for private contracting if you can show that it can be done more efficiently that way. The private contractor should get to bid on those things that are basically commercial in nature and be more efficient. We reduce the size of Government, and I think it makes a lot of sense. Of course, some of the labor unions in the Government agencies are not excited about that. The fact is that many of those people would be also doing the same thing in the private sector, and probably would be at least as well off. These are some of the things that we are doing. Elementary and Secondary Education Mr. President, I guess as an expression of some frustration, I have been hearing reports of last week's talk about education. I am surprised, frankly, that the national media has promoted some of the kinds of things that simply, it seems to me, are not the basis of the discussion. Yesterday, on TV, I heard them sitting around for 20 minutes talking about the idea that this bill was simply to define private school funding. It is not what it is about at all. It provides an opportunity for people to have a savings to use for their own children during kindergarten through college, an expansion of the $500 credit that is now $2,000 set aside. It is your money. It is not tax money. It is money that you are allowed to set aside after taxes but the income has not been taxed. But the real issue, and what seems to be missed by most people, is what should the involvement of the Federal Government be in elementary and secondary education. What we are really debating is whether or not there ought to be a set of Federal entitlements set up that would go on forever by the Federal Government and would eventually, of course, impede or infringe upon local control of elementary and secondary schools. That is what the debate was about. I am surprised sometimes that does not seem to permeate through the national media. Part of that is, of course, because the administration and our friends on the other side of the aisle tried to make that point. I guess when we govern and people are involved in self- government, as we all should be doing, that there has to be some semblance of factual information going out to people so that they can be involved. I spoke this morning with a group of kids. There is one from each State here to talk about Government. The point that I try to make and that all of us try to make is that this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that all of us should try to make that democracy work, to make the Constitution work, to make the system work, and that we have to participate. To participate, you have to have some facts, not media hype, and not show business, but facts. It seems to me, increasingly prompted some by politicians, to be sure, that we find ourselves more and more being faced with the political process becoming something of show business. That is not what it is. It is government deciding based on facts what is best for freedom, freedom for democracy, and for the American people. It is frustrating from time to time that those issues that are really basic to the decisions get lost somewhere. They get lost somewhere. I find them frustrating. It is interesting, Mr. President, that in your home State,--as it is in Wyoming, where yesterday I had conversations--you hear things that are totally different than with some you talk with here. It is really interesting that folks at home are thinking about those things that are really important to them, and here we are talking about the gossip. But that is the way it works. So we all will continue to make it work that way. Mr. President, as you can tell, I have used this opportunity to share some of the concerns and interests that I have having to do with national parks, having to do with allowing the private sector to participate in many of the things that are commercial in nature in the Government; talking about what I think is a more efficient manner of handling our budget on a 2-year budget cycle, and using the other year to have oversight to ensure those dollars are being spent in the best way they can. They complain a little bit, I guess, which is OK, all of us do it, about the lack of ability to really portray and get out into the public the real issues and the real controversies. That is what we are really about here--is talking about different views and different directions. And to the extent that all of us can participate in making those decisions through the political process, which is how we govern ourselves, then it's important, I think--vital--to have that information available.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes. I thank the Senator very much. I simply want to join my friends in opposition to this amendment, for two reasons. One is that the basic facts that we set out here are not valid. More importantly, this is not the place to do that. We have been dealing with things like mining reform, and we ought to do that and we can do that. Unfortunately, to some here it is either their way or the highway, so it never happens. But this is not the place. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I thank the Senator.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce S. 1903, a bill to prohibit the return to a foreign country of any portion of a memorial to American veterans without the express authorization of Congress. I would not have thought that a bill like this was necessary, Mr. President. It would never have occurred to me that an American President would even briefly consider dismantling part of a memorial to American soldiers who died in the line of duty in order to send a piece of that memorial to a foreign country. But a real possibility of just that happening exists in my state of Wyoming involving what are known as the ``Bells of Balangiga.'' In 1898, the Treaty of Paris brought to a close the Spanish-American War. As part of the treaty, Spain ceded possession of the Philippines to the United States. At about the same time, the Filipino people began an insurrection in their country. In August 1901, as part of the American effort to stem the insurrection, a company of 74 officers and men from the 9th Infantry, Company G, occupied the town of Balangiga on the island of Samar. These men came from Ft. Russell in Cheyenne, Wyoming--today's F.E. Warren Air Force Base. On September 28 of that year, taking advantage of the preoccupation of the American troops with a church service for the just-assassinated President McKinley, a group of Filipino insurgents infiltrated the town. Only three American sentries were on duty that day. As described in an article in the November 19, 1997 edition of the Wall Street Journal: Officers slept in, and enlisted men didn't bother to carry their riffles as they ambled out of their quarters for breakfast. Balangiga had been a boringly peaceful site since the infantry company arrived a month earlier, according to military accounts and soldiers' statements. The quiet ended abruptly when a 23 year old U.S. sentry named Adolph Gamlin walked past the local police chief. In one swift move, the Filipino grabbed the slightly built Iowan's rifle and smashed the butt across [Gamlin's] head. As PFC Gamlin crumpled, the bells of Balangiga began to peal. With the signal, hundreds of Filipino fighters swarmed out of the surrounding forest, armed with clubs, picks and machete-like bolo knives. Others poured out of the church; they had arrived the night before, disguised as women mourners and carrying coffins filled with bolos. A sergeant was beheaded in the mess tent and dumped into a vat of steaming wash water. A young bugler was cut down in a nearby stream. The company commander was hacked to death after jumping out a window. Besieged infantrymen defended themselves with kitchen forks, mess kits and baseball bats. Others threw rocks and cans of beans. Though he was also slashed across the back, PFC. . . Gamlin came to and found a rifle. By the time he and the other survivors fought their way to the beach, 38 US soldiers were dead and all but six of the remaining men had been wounded. The remaining soldiers escaped in five dug-out canoes. Only three boats made it to safety on Leyte. Seven men died of exposure at sea, and another eight died of their wounds; only twenty of the company's seventy-four members survived. A detachment of fifty-four volunteers from 9th Infantry units stationed at Leyte returned to Balangiga and recaptured the village. They were reinforced a few days later from Companies K and L of the 11th Infantry Regiment. When the 11th Infantry was relieved on October 18 by Marines, the 9th Infantry took two of the church bells used to signal the attack with them back to Wyoming as a memorial to the fallen soldiers. The bells have been displayed in front of the base flagpole on the central parade grounds since that time. The bells were placed in two openings in a large, specially-constructed masonry wall with a bronze plaque dedicating the memorial to the memory of the fallen soldiers. Since at least 1981, there have been on-and-off discussions in various circles in Cheyenne, Washington, and Manila about the future of the bells, including the possibility of returning them to the Philippines. Most recently, the Philippine government--having run into broad opposition to their request to have both bells returned to them-- has proposed making a copy of both bells, and having both sides keep one copy and one original. Opposition to this proposal from local and national civic and veterans groups has been very strong. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter from the national office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars dated January 6, 1998; from the VFW's Department of Wyoming dated December 5, 1997; and from the United Veterans Council of Wyoming dated March 27, 1998; be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, in response to that letter, on March 26 I received a letter from Sandy Berger of the National Security Council which I think is perhaps the best indicator of the direction the White House is headed on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter be inserted in the Record. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. MR. THOMAS. Mr. President, I cannot fathom that this issue has gotten to this point. First, it is very evident to me that the Constitution precludes the President from returning the bells without Congressional assent. Article IV, section 3, clause 2 provides: ``The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting . . . Property belonging to the United States.'' The bells are certainly property of the United States as contemplated by this clause, and thus clearly can only constitutionally be disposed of by Congress--not by the President. Second, I was amazed to find, even in these days of political correctness and revisionist history, that a U.S. President--our Commander-in-Chief--would appear to be ready to ignore the wishes of our veterans and tear down a memorial to U.S. soldiers who died in the line of duty in order to send part of it back to the country in which they were killed. Amazed, that is, until I recalled this President's fondness for sweeping apologies and what some might view as flashy P.R. gestures, as most recently evidenced by his Africa trip. Third, I was amazed to learn that during a state visit when our two countries should be discussing the on-going Asian financial crisis and its ramifications, East Asian security issues, and other issues of long-range significance, President Ramos has proposed discussing only three topics, all parochial: the bells, pension payments to Filipino veterans, and a Subic Bay-related waste issue. Amazed, that is Mr. President, until I was reminded that the candidate President Ramos is supporting in the upcoming presidential elections is running in third place in the polls and might just get a much-needed boost if his mentor could return from Washington with a bell or a check from the U.S. Treasury in hand. Mr. President, to the veterans of Wyoming, and the United States as a whole, the bells represent a lasting memorial to those fifty-four American soldiers killed as a result of an unprovoked insurgent attack in Balangiga on September 28, 1901. In their view, which I share, any attempt to remove either or both of the bells--and in doing so actually physically dismantling a war memorial--is a desecration of that memory. History brought the bells to Wyoming, and it is there they should remain. Consequently, I am introducing S. 1903 today to protect the bells and similar veterans memorials from such an ignoble fate. The bill is not complicated, and in my view simply restates what already appears in black and white in the Constitution; it prohibits the transfer of a veterans memorial, or any portion thereof, to a foreign country or government unless specifically authorized by law. The bill is supported by all of Wyoming's veterans groups, and I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague from Wyoming Senator Enzi, as well as by the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond; the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms; and my fellow subcommittee Chairmen on the Foreign Relations Committee Senator Hagel and Senator Smith of Oregon, as original cosponsors. Representative Barbara Cubin is introducing similar legislation today in the House. I trust that my colleagues will support its swift passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, in the last few months, developments have indicated to me that the White House is seriously contemplating returning one or both of the bells to the Philippines. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Paris, and a state visit by President Fidel Valdes Ramos--his last as President--to the United States has been planned for this month. The disposition of the bells has been high on President Ramos' agenda; he has spoken personally to President Clinton and several members of Congress about it over the last three years, and has indicated he will do so on this visit. Since January, the Filipino press has included almost weekly articles on the bells' supposed return, including one in the Manila Times last week which reported that a new tower to house the bells is being constructed in Borongon, Samar, to receive them in May. In addition, inquiries to me from various agencies of the Administration soliciting the opinion of the Wyoming congressional delegation on the issue have increased in frequency. I have also learned that the Defense Department, perhaps in conjunction with the Justice Department, has recently prepared a legal memorandum outlining its opinion of who actually controls the disposition of the bells. In response to this apparent groundswell, the Wyoming congressional delegation wrote a letter to President Clinton on January 9 of this year to make clear our opposition to removing the bells. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter be inserted in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, in response to that letter, on March 26 I received a letter from Sandy Berger of the National Security Council which I think is perhaps the best indicator of the direction the White House is headed on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter be inserted in the Record. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. MR. THOMAS. Mr. President, I cannot fathom that this issue has gotten to this point. First, it is very evident to me that the Constitution precludes the President from returning the bells without Congressional assent. Article IV, section 3, clause 2 provides: ``The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting . . . Property belonging to the United States.'' The bells are certainly property of the United States as contemplated by this clause, and thus clearly can only constitutionally be disposed of by Congress--not by the President. Second, I was amazed to find, even in these days of political correctness and revisionist history, that a U.S. President--our Commander-in-Chief--would appear to be ready to ignore the wishes of our veterans and tear down a memorial to U.S. soldiers who died in the line of duty in order to send part of it back to the country in which they were killed. Amazed, that is, until I recalled this President's fondness for sweeping apologies and what some might view as flashy P.R. gestures, as most recently evidenced by his Africa trip. Third, I was amazed to learn that during a state visit when our two countries should be discussing the on-going Asian financial crisis and its ramifications, East Asian security issues, and other issues of long-range significance, President Ramos has proposed discussing only three topics, all parochial: the bells, pension payments to Filipino veterans, and a Subic Bay-related waste issue. Amazed, that is Mr. President, until I was reminded that the candidate President Ramos is supporting in the upcoming presidential elections is running in third place in the polls and might just get a much-needed boost if his mentor could return from Washington with a bell or a check from the U.S. Treasury in hand. Mr. President, to the veterans of Wyoming, and the United States as a whole, the bells represent a lasting memorial to those fifty-four American soldiers killed as a result of an unprovoked insurgent attack in Balangiga on September 28, 1901. In their view, which I share, any attempt to remove either or both of the bells--and in doing so actually physically dismantling a war memorial--is a desecration of that memory. History brought the bells to Wyoming, and it is there they should remain. Consequently, I am introducing S. 1903 today to protect the bells and similar veterans memorials from such an ignoble fate. The bill is not complicated, and in my view simply restates what already appears in black and white in the Constitution; it prohibits the transfer of a veterans memorial, or any portion thereof, to a foreign country or government unless specifically authorized by law. The bill is supported by all of Wyoming's veterans groups, and I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my good friend and colleague from Wyoming Senator Enzi, as well as by the distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond; the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms; and my fellow subcommittee Chairmen on the Foreign Relations Committee Senator Hagel and Senator Smith of Oregon, as original cosponsors. Representative Barbara Cubin is introducing similar legislation today in the House. I trust that my colleagues will support its swift passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, in the last few months, developments have indicated to me that the White House is seriously contemplating returning one or both of the bells to the Philippines. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Paris, and a state visit by President Fidel Valdes Ramos--his last as President--to the United States has been planned for this month. The disposition of the bells has been high on President Ramos' agenda; he has spoken personally to President Clinton and several members of Congress about it over the last three years, and has indicated he will do so on this visit. Since January, the Filipino press has included almost weekly articles on the bells' supposed return, including one in the Manila Times last week which reported that a new tower to house the bells is being constructed in Borongon, Samar, to receive them in May. In addition, inquiries to me from various agencies of the Administration soliciting the opinion of the Wyoming congressional delegation on the issue have increased in frequency. I have also learned that the Defense Department, perhaps in conjunction with the Justice Department, has recently prepared a legal memorandum outlining its opinion of who actually controls the disposition of the bells. In response to this apparent groundswell, the Wyoming congressional delegation wrote a letter to President Clinton on January 9 of this year to make clear our opposition to removing the bells. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of that letter be inserted in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce S. 1903, a bill to prohibit the return to a foreign country of any portion of a memorial to American veterans without the express authorization of Congress. I would not have thought that a bill like this was necessary, Mr. President. It would never have occurred to me that an American President would even briefly consider dismantling part of a memorial to American soldiers who died in the line of duty in order to send a piece of that memorial to a foreign country. But a real possibility of just that happening exists in my state of Wyoming involving what are known as the ``Bells of Balangiga.'' In 1898, the Treaty of Paris brought to a close the Spanish-American War. As part of the treaty, Spain ceded possession of the Philippines to the United States. At about the same time, the Filipino people began an insurrection in their country. In August 1901, as part of the American effort to stem the insurrection, a company of 74 officers and men from the 9th Infantry, Company G, occupied the town of Balangiga on the island of Samar. These men came from Ft. Russell in Cheyenne, Wyoming--today's F.E. Warren Air Force Base. On September 28 of that year, taking advantage of the preoccupation of the American troops with a church service for the just-assassinated President McKinley, a group of Filipino insurgents infiltrated the town. Only three American sentries were on duty that day. As described in an article in the November 19, 1997 edition of the Wall Street Journal: Officers slept in, and enlisted men didn't bother to carry their riffles as they ambled out of their quarters for breakfast. Balangiga had been a boringly peaceful site since the infantry company arrived a month earlier, according to military accounts and soldiers' statements. The quiet ended abruptly when a 23 year old U.S. sentry named Adolph Gamlin walked past the local police chief. In one swift move, the Filipino grabbed the slightly built Iowan's rifle and smashed the butt across [Gamlin's] head. As PFC Gamlin crumpled, the bells of Balangiga began to peal. With the signal, hundreds of Filipino fighters swarmed out of the surrounding forest, armed with clubs, picks and machete-like bolo knives. Others poured out of the church; they had arrived the night before, disguised as women mourners and carrying coffins filled with bolos. A sergeant was beheaded in the mess tent and dumped into a vat of steaming wash water. A young bugler was cut down in a nearby stream. The company commander was hacked to death after jumping out a window. Besieged infantrymen defended themselves with kitchen forks, mess kits and baseball bats. Others threw rocks and cans of beans. Though he was also slashed across the back, PFC. . . Gamlin came to and found a rifle. By the time he and the other survivors fought their way to the beach, 38 US soldiers were dead and all but six of the remaining men had been wounded. The remaining soldiers escaped in five dug-out canoes. Only three boats made it to safety on Leyte. Seven men died of exposure at sea, and another eight died of their wounds; only twenty of the company's seventy-four members survived. A detachment of fifty-four volunteers from 9th Infantry units stationed at Leyte returned to Balangiga and recaptured the village. They were reinforced a few days later from Companies K and L of the 11th Infantry Regiment. When the 11th Infantry was relieved on October 18 by Marines, the 9th Infantry took two of the church bells used to signal the attack with them back to Wyoming as a memorial to the fallen soldiers. The bells have been displayed in front of the base flagpole on the central parade grounds since that time. The bells were placed in two openings in a large, specially-constructed masonry wall with a bronze plaque dedicating the memorial to the memory of the fallen soldiers. Since at least 1981, there have been on-and-off discussions in various circles in Cheyenne, Washington, and Manila about the future of the bells, including the possibility of returning them to the Philippines. Most recently, the Philippine government--having run into broad opposition to their request to have both bells returned to them-- has proposed making a copy of both bells, and having both sides keep one copy and one original. Opposition to this proposal from local and national civic and veterans groups has been very strong. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of a letter from the national office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars dated January 6, 1998; from the VFW's Department of Wyoming dated December 5, 1997; and from the United Veterans Council of Wyoming dated March 27, 1998; be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I will take some time, and I think I will be joined by at least one Member, to talk just a little bit about spending and taxes in general. We are coming into a time, of course, this week, and I suspect now for a number of weeks, when the focus of this Congress will be budgets, on appropriations, on spending, as it should be. I want to talk a little bit about at least my perception of some of the broader objectives that go into debate that extends beyond mathematics, that extends beyond the dollars--actually measures these dollars, about how spending really impacts on the philosophy of government, how spending impacts upon the priorities that we have here in the Congress, how spending impacts upon our whole philosophy of whether or not we want to increasingly have a larger Federal Government delving into all activities of our lives, or whether, in fact, there is a limited role for the Federal Government as opposed to State and local governments, and if so, then what does our decision reflecting spending have to do with that. It does seem to me that one of the real issues that we have is the extent and the role of the Federal Government's involvement in all the activities in our country. Many would argue, and I argue, that the Constitution clearly defines that there is a limited role for the Federal Government. As a matter of fact, I think it says in the 10th amendment that those things not precisely and clearly described in the Constitution are left to the States and to the people. I take that part of the Constitution very seriously. As we talk about problems that arise throughout the country, some of them are appropriate to take care of in the Federal Government, some are not. We find on almost everything we talk about, not always recognized, not always defined, but I think if you look through the things we talk about, it is the basic first decision that probably should be talked about. We talk a lot about balancing the budget. We balanced the budget last year for the first time in, what, 25 years. That was when income reached expenditures for the first time in 25 years. That is an excellent start. I think it is something this Congress ought to be particularly proud of. It is an excellent start. But you can balance the budget at almost any level if you continue to increase revenues, increase taxes, increase the burden of taxes on the American people. You can increase revenues and spending can go on and still be balanced, and it gets away from the philosophy of having a smaller Federal Government. So the choices that we make and the choices that we take are very often directed by spending. I think we find ourselves in an interesting situation, talking about surpluses. First of all, there is no surplus at this point even though there is an expectation of one. So we find ourselves in great debates over spending a surplus that has not yet appeared. Further, almost an indication that if there is a surplus, by gosh, we have to find some way to spend it. Now, that really doesn't necessarily need to be the case. We could apply it to the debt. We have a little debt, remember-- $5.7 trillion I believe it is--a debt that we could be paying. When we don't, pages like those sitting here before the Senate will be paying for it. We put it on the credit card and the credit card is maxed out. There are places to do something with surpluses besides spending them. The Senator from Massachusetts last Friday arose with four or five problems he talked about: We need school repair. Of course we need school repair. We need more teachers. I suspect we need more teachers. Nobody would argue with the idea there ought to be improvements in education. There ought to be more money spent in education, but there is a philosophy and there is a question as to where that money should come from. Schools have basically been under the control of the States and local school districts and local governments. As a matter of fact, out of all the billions of dollars we spend in education, only about 7 percent is contributed by the Federal Government. That is almost all in special education. Each time there is a problem defined, it doesn't automatically mean that the best solution is to take Federal money and spend it, and spend it along with the Federal regulations that inevitably go with it. Mr. President, I think as we go through this next several weeks of debates and discussions about budgets and about appropriations some of the first decisions we make ought to be philosophical decisions as to what is the role of the Federal Government, what is the role of the Federal Government with regard to the taxes? I don't know about the rest of you, but I spent at least part of this lovely weekend doing some things that weren't that much fun, and that was doing my income taxes. I didn't complete it, by the way. I got to that page with 59 questions on capital gains, and I gave up for the weekend. There is some philosophy as to what we do about that, what the level of taxation ought to be, and we ought to be dealing with that. There are lots of things that we are talking about. We are talking about highway funding. A great debate is going on in the House. We have generally completed our debate here. We intend to spend more money on highways. Why? Because there is a need, but because there are the Federal taxes where we raise the money for highways. There was quite a large TV story the other night--on ABC, I think--about pork-barrel highway spending. They failed to mention during the whole 10 minutes that the dollars that came from there all came from the taxes you and I pay on a gallon of gas--the Federal tax that is raised for highways. There was no mention of that. I was a little distressed. So I would like to think, Mr. President, that as we go forward here, we give some thought to the appropriateness of programs, whether they should be at the Federal level, whether they should be at the State level, and how much government we want at the Federal level and centralized government and the things that ought to be there that are more properly done at the local level, more properly done at the State level. I have a bill that I think is very important which carries out the idea of contracting in the private sector. We have had, almost for 50 years, a policy of taking those activities within Government that are commercial in nature and giving the private sector an opportunity to bid and to contract those. We have not done it. There has been a policy, but it has not been implemented. In doing that, we would keep more activities in the private sector, we would have a smaller centralized Government, and, indeed, save money. These are the kinds of philosophical issues that seem to me to be important as we move forward to try to determine what size of Government we think we ought to have and is necessary at the central level--to talk about the level of taxation and the variants of taxation among the American people. These are very important issues. Also, we talk about being responsible, in terms of the $5 trillion debt, and being responsible in terms of balancing the budget, being responsible in terms of having Medicare and Social Security that will continue, which is essentially and fundamentally based on sound economics. These are the things we talk about. I know the politics of it is different. Increasingly, our politics and our governance are driven by the media, by polling. It has almost become a sideshow of political activities rather than really talking about governance, which is what politics is all about. Mr. President, I have been joined on the floor by my friend, the Senator from Montana, and I would like to yield to him as much time as he might use to talk some about taxation and some of the areas of taxation that are of concern to him.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me close by saying I hope that, as we go into this all-important time of budgets and spending, we really take a long look at how it impacts where we are going in the future and how it impacts the size and composition of Government. I hope it is not just driven by polls. I hope we don't find ourselves trying to get some political advantage by standing up when there is a problem somewhere and declaring that it is the Federal Government's obligation to fix everything by spending Federal money. I hope we don't live by sound bites indicating that these are the political things that people want, but, rather, talk really about how it impacts our future and our kids' future and our debt. I hope we don't contribute to the cynicism of Government by making it show business and sales promotion. Politics is the way we govern ourselves. Politics is how we take to our precincts the decisions of what kind of government we are going to have, what our spending matters will be, what our taxes will be, and what our debts will be. I think this administration has perfected the idea of using sales promotion and sound bites. I think polling has become sort of the direction for the White House and for this administration. Taking all the issues that people care about--of course they care. Who doesn't care about child care? Who doesn't care about education? Who doesn't care about school buildings? Who doesn't care about insurance for everyone? Social Security? Those are issues that everyone embraces. The question is how do you best deal with it? The White House tends to talk about the issue and declare their interest in the issue with no plans to resolve it. It is sort of triangulation. If somebody in the Congress finds some sort of a resolution to it, then the White House claims success. If it fails to happen, then the White House criticizes Congress but never has a plan of its own. I hope we move away from that. I hope we really address the legitimate question. There are those who support more government, more Federal Government, a larger Government, and more taxes. It is a belief--and an honest belief, I think sometimes--that that is the best way to govern, that the best way is to take the money from people, bring it here, and then spread it out as they see fit. They believe that. I happen not to share that notion. I happen to share the notion that the better government and the stronger government is closer to the people who are governed; that in fact a smaller central government and a more efficient central government is better and leaves the ability to govern closer to the people. Mr. President, I hope those are some of the issues and some of the really basic fundamental things that we include as we talk about budgets and as we talk about spending. I thank you for the time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank the Senator from Montana for his comments with respect to income averaging and agricultural activity. I certainly support that. I think, as evidenced by its passage last year, it is generally supported.

Mr. THOMAS

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