Craig Thomas

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. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 7, 1998, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on titles VI, VII, VIII, and XI of S. 1693, a bill to renew, reform, reinvigorate, and protect the National Park System. 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 Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161 or Shawn Taylor at (202) 224-6969. subcommittee on water and power

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. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 30, 1998 at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on title IV of S. 1693, a bill to renew, reform, reinvigorate, and protect the National Park System, and S. 624, a bill to establish a competitive process for the awarding of concession contracts in units of the National Park System, and for other purposes. 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 Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161 or Shawn Taylor at (202) 224-6969.

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. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 14, 1998 at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on titles IX and X of S. 1693, a bill to renew, reform, reinvigorate, and protect the National Park System, and S. 1614, a bill to require a permit for the making of motion picture, television program, or other forms of commercial visual depiction in a unit of the National Park System or National Wildlife Refuge System. 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 Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161 or Shawn Taylor at (202) 224-6969.

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. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 30, 1998 at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on titles VI, VII, VIII, and XI of S. 1693, a bill to renew, reform, reinvigorate, and protect the National Park System. 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 Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161 or Shawn Taylor at (202) 224-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota, who has worked very hard in the area of deficit reduction and strengthening Social Security. And I know he continues to feel strongly about it. One of the interesting things--and I suppose it is true of any institution, and it seems more particularly true of government--is the difficulty in making changes. I doubt that there is anyone who is knowledgeable at all about Social Security who wouldn't agree that there needs to be some changes made; who wouldn't agree that if we do not make changes, the results will not be what we want, and, conversely, if we expect some different results, we have to do some things differently. But it is very difficult to do. So I think it is important for us to continue to talk about it, continue to stress it, and continue to point it out. Social Security is a major component of senior citizens' income. Thirty-seven and one-half million senior citizens depend at least partially--and many times totally--on Social Security payments. In many cases, it is the only source of retirement income. That is unfortunate, of course, because it isn't designed to be a retirement program, it is designed to be a supplemental program. So there is something to the idea that we need to deal with taxes and Social Security simultaneously so that we encourage people to save on their own and have opportunities to do that through IRAs, or whatever technique, and at the same time strengthen Social Security, because they do, in fact, go together. All of us, I think, on the other hand, recognize that the system as it is now set up is not simultaneous. In 8 years, the system will begin to feel the pinch of retirement and the baby boomers, and this idea of having a surplus will begin to go away, and by the year 2012 it is expected that we will be running a deficit in terms of revenues. What does this mean? It means, of course, that the Government will not be able to pay the benefits that are due without making some other kinds of changes. There is some talk about taking the money and spending it for something else, which, of course, is true. But the fact is that under this system, the surpluses can only be invested in Government securities. And, therefore, when the Government needs to borrow money, for whatever the reason, it borrows from somewhere, and if it didn't borrow from Social Security, it would borrow from us as individuals. But the problem is, when we take $100 billion a year out of Social Security and put it into debt, then, of course, when the time comes for that debt to have to be repaid, we have to do something quite different than what we have been doing in the past. It seems to me that the real clincher is, it is pretty clear that the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be and the more severe the changes will have to be. If we can make those changes as soon as possible, they can be more incremental and, hopefully, less painful. And change always has a certain amount of pain. During the State of the Union message, of course, the President brought up this notion of Social Security, and, of course, he said, ``Social Security first,'' which is good. And I think it is fine that this thing was brought up there. I think it is fine that the White House has committed itself to this being the issue. The unfortunate part of it is, I think, that primarily a political statement is one that people like to hear --``Social Security first.'' But, unfortunately, the President does not have a plan to do anything about it. Someone--I think Kevin Kearns from the Council of Government Reform-- indicated that it is a little like the captain of the Titanic who saw the distress signals from the Titanic but didn't do anything about it. That is kind of where we are. So it is a responsibility and an opportunity for the Congress, I think, to step up to the plate and to do something about changing the way that we fund this program. There are some very hard questions to be answered. Let me just share a couple of the things that are talked about--certainly the surpluses, as I mentioned; and Social Security will be about $105 billion in 1999. So the $10 billion surplus that is applied there is a relatively ineffective remedy in that it doesn't really amount to very much compared to the kind of lending that is taken. First, there are several ways to make changes. The idea of putting some of these funds into an investment that grows and compounds has a number of advantages. One is, we would remove the excess payroll taxes from the unified budget. In other words, if we sent 2 percent over into this investment program, those would not be available as trust funds to be loaned to the Government as expenditures. That would be a plus. The second is, the amount that was invested would almost surely return a higher return than maybe Government securities. Whether the market goes up or down, it also moves that way, and the private sector also, at least from the point of view of some. If we set aside a portion of this to be dedicated to our retirement funds, it would be a fund that would become an asset and, if not exhausted by the user, would be a part of transfer to heirs. That again may or may not be the case, but that is one of the arguments that we hear. The Washington Post, on the other hand, interestingly enough, some time ago said there are only three possible answers: Tax increases, spending cuts, or borrowing from the public. I don't believe the analyses of the answers are complete. Some of the answers are different kinds of investments, different kinds of returns, and perhaps something about age. So the idea of simply more taxes, I think, is not the answer. The fact is that taxes, as my friend from Minnesota indicated, have been raised, I think, some 63 times over the course of Social Security. The 15.3-percent tax rate we now have is the most burdensome tax, after all, to most taxpayers. Seventy-two percent of all Americans pay no more than 15 percent in income tax. This means that this payroll tax is the largest tax, as a percentage to Americans, that Americans pay. If, in fact, we don't do something, the National Center for Policy Analysis says the rising cost of Social Security and Medicare will raise the payroll taxes 53 percent by the time today's college students are ready to retire. Obviously, that is an unacceptable alternative. Some talk about age differentials. In 1940, the labor force participation rate for men 65 years of age was 70 percent. Seventy percent of men 65 years of age were in the work force. Today, 33 percent are in the work force. So, obviously, we have less input and more outgo in this program. So there are a number of things, all of which will be kind of new, all of which, I suppose, will be difficult. But, unfortunately, it is difficult to make change. The Social Security Program is not treated like a pension. Our contributions don't go into assets like stocks and bonds or mutual funds that increase in value over time, as we know. In the 1950s, there were 16 workers for every retiree, and Social Security taxes could be low and the benefits relatively high. Because of the number now, there are approximately three workers per retiree. This decline, as I mentioned, has resulted in 63 tax increases over this period of time. So I think the evidence that we have a problem is clearly there. Now the question is, What are we willing to do about it? One of the suggestions, of course--and I think is a good one--is to put you and me as workers in charge of some of our own funds, not simply to raise taxes but rather to make Social Security financially sound. The program was originally financed on the 6-percent payroll tax. Today, of course, the tax rate is 12.4, plus Medicare, which makes it 15 percent. In order to keep this, as I mentioned, solvent, payroll taxes will need to be 18 percent by 2020 and 50 percent by 2075. What are some of the ideas? Of course, to allow workers to divert a portion of their current payroll taxes to personal investment accounts; investing these funds into private securities; providing some ownership for this portion of that fee that goes there; and investing, of course, in private securities. I think it is important, on the other hand, that we continue to ensure that everyone is involved, that everyone makes some effort to prepare for their own retirement. And Social Security needs to be a concept that we continue to have. So both of these options--of diverting it into a personal account, investing the budget surplus funds that we might have now into private securities, as opposed to the way we do it in Government securities-- are an alternative, and both of these can go hand in hand. I think it is fair to say that the investment of the current surplus into private securities will not, in fact, solve the problem but will move us forward. But can you imagine young people, such as the young people who are here today as pages and as interns, when they come into the work force and are able to invest immediately 2 percent of that fund? Over a period of time, it will amount to a great deal of money. So that is kind of where we are, Mr. President. We have a problem. We have some difficulties, of course. One of them that we are talking about this morning in another context is the unified budget. There is a great debate over the unified budget. As you know, all of the money that comes to the Federal Government goes into the unified budget, even though it may be in a trust fund, such as Social Security, such as a highway fund. Some say we ought to take those out of the unified budget and let the Social Security be off budget and let the highway fund be off budget. I suppose you have to say let the airport fund be off budget, and about 50 others be off budget. We would end up a bit like my State legislature, which I think has control of about 30 percent of the funds that come to the State, and all of it is earmarked for certain things. I understand there is merit in that. I don't favor that, however. But that is one of the debates that goes on. The other one, of course, is as we spend more than we take in, we borrow from someone. And obviously, since the law requires that Social Security has to be invested in Government securities, you borrow there. You borrow there first, which makes a pretty good deal for the rest of the programs, if you are going to spend more than you take in. But it is not a good deal for those people who have their money set aside in the trust fund such as Social Security. So we have, I think, a great deal to do. We have some hard topics to undertake. One of them is age. Obviously, we live longer than we did before. I already mentioned the work force at 65. We are moving towards the 67 age limit rather than 65. But I believe it is 2020 before we reach that level of gradually moving up 1 month a year. So that needs to be reviewed. It is very difficult. It is true that things need to be done prospectively so that people who have paid in based on one set of circumstances are not affected, particularly during their time of benefits, but that those who come into the program more recently may come in under a different set of circumstances. So if ever there was a program, it seems to me, where you really have to decide, is this something we want to go on in the future, is this something you begin at age 22 to pay into to expect to enjoy the benefits, it is Social Security. Polls have indicated that people in the 20 to 30 age bracket do not expect to have any benefits come to them. I think that is unfortunate. I think we have a responsibility to see that they do, so that it is not strictly a pay-go, that they are paying in for someone else with no hope of benefits. I think it can be done. I really think it can be done, and I think it can be done with relatively modest changes if we will move quickly to make those changes. The longer we wait, the more severe those changes will have to be and the more difficult they will be to obtain. Mr. President, I think we are going to be joined in a moment by another one of our colleagues. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. For some time now, we have had what we call a freshman/sophomore focus in which those of us who have come here in the last 2 to 4 years come to the floor to talk about some of the issues that we believe are the pivotal issues before this Congress and the American people, the ones that have the highest priority and are most difficult. We come again this morning to talk largely about the questions and problems associated with Social Security. All of us, of course, are dedicated to continuing to have a strong Social Security program. So that is the focus of our freshman focus this morning. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Grams, for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been joined now by our other associate, the Senator from Colorado, to conclude our comments this morning with respect to our focus on Social Security. So I yield to the Senator from Colorado 10 minutes.

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. I thank the Senator from Georgia for the opportunity to make a few comments, but more particularly for the efforts that he has put forth and the leadership that he has given in producing this bill to strengthen American education. I say again, as has been said before, that we must remember what the purpose of this vote is, what the purpose of this effort is, and that is to get it on the floor. This, of course, will never be resolved until we come to some agreement as to how to get it on the floor and to in fact consider it along with other kinds of issues. Everyone is for strengthening education. I don't know of anyone who would get up and say, ``No, I certainly don't want to do that.'' Of course not. All of us want to do it. The question then is, How do we best do it? How do we really approach the idea of strengthening education and preserving those things that we think are fundamental to education in this country? One of the real questions, of course, is the degree and the extent of direct Federal involvement. I was interested in the charts of the Senator from Tennessee this morning that showed all of the different kinds of approaches that have been taken at the Federal level--literally hundreds of programs that we have now, which still only represent less than 7 percent of the total expenditures in elementary and secondary education. Can you imagine the amount of bureaucracy? Can you imagine the amount of expense prior to that money getting to the ground? So what we are really talking about here is a system to provide the opportunity for families to be able to put together some money to use as they choose and strengthen the local government. The President, of course, has outlined the education issue largely because it is an issue that everyone cares about--I have to say largely because it is such a high winner in the polls. So the President, along with the environment and other things, continues to mention education but really doesn't have a plan for it. I guess that is part of the system: You talk about education, sit back, and somebody else puts it together. And then, of course, you claim victory because you have done something for education. That is OK. We have seen that before. The point is, How do we best strengthen education for all Americans? How do we get better results? That is really what the bottom line is about here. How do we maintain local control? Those are the issues. How do we get more results for the expenditures that we put out? I am persuaded that the approach taken by the Senator from Georgia--the idea of keeping it at the local level, the idea of letting people be responsible for saving and investing as they choose--is the real way to do it. The Senator from Massachusetts, of course, represents the legitimate point of view that bigger government ought to have enormous direct expenditures and, therefore, the controls that go with it in education. I think that is not the case. Basic changes: I get a lot of input into elementary education, and secondary. My wife happens to be a high school teacher. One of the things that is troublesome is the amount of time she spends on paperwork. She is a special education teacher, and she spends half the time on paperwork. We need to try to eliminate some of that. We need to offer discipline; we need to raise expectations so that children are really expected to do more; we need to have more accountability in terms of production--much of this through management. Of course, we need to provide more resources. So, let me say to the Senator that I appreciate very much and admire what he is doing and certainly hope we can get this bill on the floor. And we should immediately. I thank the Senator. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

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. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 1, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on titles I, II, III, and V of S. 1693, a bill to renew, reform, reinvigorate, and protect the National Park System. 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 Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161 or Shawn Taylor at (202) 224-6969. committee on energy and natural resources committee

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 hearing will take place on Tuesday, March 24, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 887, a bill to establish in the National Park Service the National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom program, and for other purposes; S. 991, a bill to make technical corrections to the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, and for other purposes; S. 1695, a bill to establish the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site in the State of Colorado; and, Senate Joint Resolution 41, Approving the location of a Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial in the Nation's Capital. 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 Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess for 5 minutes for the purpose of receiving the Prime Minister of Thailand.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I simply want to rise to join in the congratulation of the leadership of this bill. It has been a pleasure for me to serve on this committee and on this subcommittee, and to see us coming finally to closure on a bill that I suspect is one of the most important that we will deal with in the next several years. It is certainly one of the most contentious, because it is one in which each of us seeks to satisfy our own needs, one in which we finally have to come to some accommodation for the different kinds of needs we have, and certainly no one is ever going to be perfectly satisfied. But I think we have come to a very successful conclusion in this bill. I hope that we can maintain basically the formulas that we struck. Obviously, the total spending is one of the issues. Obviously, the formula for distribution is one of the issues. Each of us have differences. Some of us have lots of miles and not many people; some of us have lots of public lands, and so on. So it is most difficult. I simply want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the committee, and urge that we get on with it. Our States are waiting to be assured of the funds they will have, particularly in our northern States where the contracting season and the construction season is relatively short. All of us have properly given some credit to our staff. Each of us had a staff person. I had a young man named Chris Jahn, who did an excellent job not only working with the committee but with our State transportation department, and I am proud of what he did. So, Mr. President, I certainly add my congratulations and urge that we get this bill out of the Congress to the President as soon as we possibly can. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I urge adopting the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to thank the chairman for his cooperation in moving towards a solution to a problem that I think has real meaning. I have been involved in this highway transportation bill for some time, being a member of the subcommittee. So we are down now, I think, to coming to closure. I am so pleased with that. So I thank the chairman for his cooperation and his willingness to work on it. Certainly, I thank my friend from South Dakota for working on this as well. I think it points out the diversity of this country. We do have different needs in different places, and it is very difficult sometimes to find the formula, the Federal formula, that treats fairly all of the States that are involved. Amendment No. 1942 to Amendment No. 1931

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will share some of the time with my friend from South Dakota, Senator Johnson. I will try and be more positive, now that I am organized, Mr. President. Thank you very much.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor, along with the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, to talk about something that we think is very important--transportation, which, of course, is what we are into now. We are talking about ISTEA. As you know, much of the Federal tax that goes into the transportation arrangement goes for highways, but a good deal also goes for mass transit transportation. That is what we will be entering into soon. Historically, the distribution of funds under the Federal transit program has been focused on just a few States. As a matter of fact, eight States receive about 60 percent of the program funds. At the same time, of course, there is an emerging growth and need in rural areas for services to the poor, services to the elderly, and services to the disabled. So we have prepared and have introduced and will talk about, as we go forward, the Transit Modernization Act, which will tend to make some modifications in the distribution of these transit funds which, by the way, have not been significantly modified since 1982. It will make a relatively small change, but you will see as we talk about our States that a relatively small change will make a terrific impact on those States that have not, basically, been the ones receiving the money. At the same time, those that have the greatest needs in transit will still be substantial recipients of these funds. We have agreed, I think, to an additional $5 billion that will go into these areas of mass transit over the next 5 years. The good news, of course, is to ensure that all of the country benefits, not just a few in favored States, and that all will receive some kind of a meaningful share of increases to respond to what, as in almost all instances, has been a long, unmet need of public transportation. Even in my State with relatively small towns, we still have the elderly who need transportation, and we have the disabled who need transportation. So we have needs as well. Wyoming receives about $1 million to $2 million annually out of the transit funding. Out of the total funding, frankly, that rounds out to zero; $1 million out of $5 billion does not even show up on the board. We get back about 11 or 12 cents for every dollar that is contributed to this fund from Wyoming people who buy and pay the Federal gas tax; 11 to 12 cents is returned to Wyoming. Unfortunately, that, as you might imagine, falls substantially below our needs and does not fill our needs. Wyoming transit offers more than 1.2 million rides per year, and it costs them from $1 million to $2 million annually to provide services. Our needs for the elderly and the disabled, the buses, the van pools, and replacements total over $12 million annually. Further, we have had in Wyoming--and we are proud of it--one of the most successful activities of moving people off welfare into jobs. So our demands for public transit are growing. The problem with the current transit program is not limited to the rural West. It also includes States like Michigan, North Carolina, Indiana, Mississippi and Kentucky. All have transit needs that are not being met. Currently, eight States receive 60 percent of the total funding, despite the growth of needs in rural areas. The transit program has not been updated since 1982. The program has not changed much, but the country and the needs of the country have. Growth areas, rural areas, and small communities are beginning to more and more have a need for public transit. Under the supposedly need-based system, these needs have not been met. As I said earlier, an agreement has been reached to increase transit funding by $5 billion over the next 5 years. That is good. These funds are paid in for that purpose. We will offset this, and this offset will be there for our amendment. Therefore, each State will benefit meaningfully from this. Instead of receiving 11 percent of what we pay in, hopefully we will receive some more. We want to do this as a result of the opportunity created by the hard work of Senators D'Amato and Sarbanes, the chairman and ranking member of the Banking Committee. In this system, it is my belief that everybody wins. There are several amendments that have been filed, of course, that would change it. Some affect new starts; some would provide 80 or 90 percent allocation. Another way to achieve it is what we think is a modest amendment that Senator Johnson and I have drafted. It will help States meet their transit challenges, but it will be a fair distribution. It will create a minimum guarantee that will increase each State's share of the transit program up to 70 percent of the State's contribution or a maximum of $12 million a year. Under this amendment, the vast majority of America's cities and small communities will receive more transit funds, and they will go on, of course, for years as they seek to reach that 70 percent level. It is important to note that this equitable distribution will be accomplished without substantially harming those systems currently receiving the bulk of the money. All States which are currently substantial donees under the program will remain substantial donees. And 93 percent of the funding will continue to be distributed under the current formula. So we are talking about a redistribution of less than 7 percent of the additional funds that come there. I hope we are able to take advantage of the growth in transit funding to allow all States to share in the Transit Modernization Act, as it is a protransit amendment, by allowing all States to benefit, creating stronger support for the program, and will benefit 30 to 35 States annually, including all the cities and small communities in those States. It will establish equity in the transit system by utilizing the growth of the transit funding. However, all States that are currently substantial donees will remain substantial donees. And that is not the case under any of the other amendments. So we believe this is a fair distribution. We believe it is one that recognizes needs. It is one that continues to support the needs of the donee States. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from South Dakota for his comments with respect to this joint amendment. Mr. JOHNSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

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. I thank the chairman for the time. Mr. President, we are here again talking about an issue that seems to come up every time there are highway bills and highway funds to be distributed. We always come up with this question of process, of who has the responsibility to make the kinds of laws that would be there. I am disappointed that some of the speakers just previous have indicated they don't think the States have the ability to make the decisions, that they don't think the State legislatures feel as passionately about drunken driving as we do. I think they do. I have been there. To say, ``Well, this is something the States simply can't do, or aren't capable of doing, or don't care about,'' it seems to me is not fair or balanced. I think we ought to talk about the process here. And the process is, how do we best deal with States as a Federal entity, in this case, with highway funding? This isn't the first kind of mandate that has been applied. Every time this comes up we have mandates, whether it be highways, helmets, whether it be speed limits--which, by the way, were put on in a similar kind of process and were changed later because it didn't work very well. There is no one in this place or no one that I know of in the whole country who doesn't want to do more about preserving safety in driving. There is no one here who cares more about the losses that we have. That is not the issue here. The issue is process, procedure, and what is the proper role in doing it. I think we ought to consider incentives, and we have done that; $25 million of incentives here for the States to do this. But instead we move towards penalties. We have been through this a number of times, and we are back at it again. I think we ought to give the leadership. And the President wants to give leadership on this issue. Why doesn't he do that as President? We can do that. If this is the proper level, and I do not disagree with it, I would support it in my State, my State legislature. But the process is what we are talking about. Should this body say to the States, ``Look, if you want the money that your people pay into the fund, if you want it back, then you have to do what the Congress prescribes"? It is not as if the money came from somewhere else. This money came from the States. So it is a difficult one and I, frankly, have misgivings about even rising to talk about it, but I do think the system is important. The process is important here, and we ought to really consider it over a period of time, as to how much of this sort of thing we do. We do it each time this arises. So I think we ought to put on all the pressure that we can. I think we ought to have all the incentives that are possible to move towards safer driving, to move toward doing something about drunk driving losses. But I think we also ought to ask ourselves about where do we stop in this idea of penalizing the States if they do not properly adhere to what this body proclaims they ought to do. So I appreciate very much the opportunity for us to debate this. I am, of course, a great supporter of this bill, and hope we can move forward with it. I, frankly, hope we can do it without encumbering it with mandates of any kind. I thought we were going to be able to do that this year. The fact is the committee, I think it is fair to say, probably wasn't in support of doing it and therefore it did not come out of the committee that way. But now, of course, we are continuing to work on it. So I hope we can find additional ways, other ways, incentives to move towards .08. I have no objection to that. On the contrary, I support it. On the other hand, I do think it is necessary for us, over time, to take a strong look at the kinds of processes and procedures that we impose on the States. I am sorry I cannot make as light of States rights as has been made on the floor this morning, as if it does not pertain. It does, in fact, pertain. And we have different kinds of conditions. Mr. President, I appreciate the time, I thank the chairman for his time, and I look forward to the debate.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, are we on ISTEA?

Mr. THOMAS. I would like to speak for 10 minutes on that.