Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. First, let me say how much I have appreciated the efforts of the Senator from Georgia in promoting this legislation, this Volunteer Protection Act of 1997. I think probably most everything about the bill has been said. I am delighted to hear that there has been an agreement. I can hardly imagine that anybody does not agree with the concept of making it easier for people to volunteer, of taking away some of the kinds of threats that have inevitably been there when someone does volunteer to serve. So I am very pleased about that. I think it is true--and I guess I will probably be saying some of the same things again--it is true that the nature of this society, this democracy, requires that people care. It is a Government of the people and by the people, and designed to be a relatively minimal Government in that it sets a framework for us to do the things that we think should be done, for us to take the leadership to cause our communities to be strong. The Federal Government clearly has a role. But, you know, the more I am here, Mr. President, and the more I see what I think is the role of the Federal Government, the more I am impressed with the fact that you and I make our communities strong there. And much of that is because we are willing to volunteer. I think it was the Frenchman de Tocqueville who came to examine and to explore and to look into this new idea of democracy. One of the things that he observed and found to be most important was this was a country, this was a society that was doing things together for each other voluntarily. And that still is--that still is--the root, it seems to me, of our society. The role of the Federal Government is minimal in that. I was pleased with the President and the several Presidents last week who raised the image and raised the visibility of voluntarism. But the fact is, national voluntarism is not really the key. It is in Casper, WY, or Gillette, WY, or Louisville, KY. That is where voluntarism works and that is where it will continue to work. So I think this bill is something we all should support. I am so delighted that the sponsors have done this, worked on it. I am delighted that we will be able to vote and vote positively on it in a few minutes. I see some others wishing to speak, Mr. President, so I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I would like to return to our conversations about Medicare, and I am very pleased to have my fellow Senator from Texas here. Senator Gramm has been chairman and continues to be chairman of the task force on health care, and I am particularly pleased he has joined us this morning to talk about Medicare and Medicare reform. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we want to take some time this morning to talk a little bit about an issue that is very current, is always current, but particularly current because the trustees of Medicare have given their annual report. So we want to take some time and talk a little bit about an issue that all of us are very much interested in. I think, universally, we want to keep health care for the elderly. But the difficulty has been in facing up to some of the realistic changes that have to be made if, indeed, we are going to continue to have Medicare. The conflict has always been a political one, frankly, between those who say Medicare is the third rail of politics--touch it and you are dead. So nobody wants to talk about it. At the same time, there is a growing recognition, a growing certainty, that unless you make some changes, this program will not be available for the elderly in years to come. So there will be several of us talking about that. First, I would like to yield to my friend, a very strong spokesman on this and other issues, the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for coming this morning to talk about Medicare. I want to take a couple of minutes to sum up and make some comments with respect to my views on Medicare. First of all, I cannot think of a more important issue to deal with, one that is more difficult to deal with, one that has been put off politically because of the difficulty of dealing with it. But certainly the time has come to which we have to face up to doing it. I think it is likely that we will. Over the last several years, particularly in the last election, it was used as an election issue. The President and the administration generally said those Republicans simply want to do away with Medicare, want to cut it. That is not the point at all. I think most everyone knew at the time that was not the point at all. Some very unfactual things were said. Now most anyone who has paid any attention at all to the system, to the status, has to say, ``Look, we have to make some changes. If we do not make changes we will not have the results we need.'' And the results we have seen are an increasing challenge to the validity of the program, and the fact that the program will not last over another 4 years. So the report of the trustees is there--trustees appointed, most of them, by the President--who have laid out the facts, who have said the good news is that it still will expire in 2001, the same year it was said to expire last year. The bad news is that it is no better than it was and we are 1 year closer to it. That report is there. It is projected that the program will go broke in 4 years. This confirms what we have known over a period of time. Now the time has come to do something. We ought to take advantage of this opportunity. We can make some changes. I think both the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas indicated we have a difficult issue, but we can make some changes. The longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to rectify the problem. We have already begun to move into the area of giving some choice to seniors. I think that is a great idea. If we are going to have choice of managed care, for example, which has brought down the costs in many cases, we have to do something about the payments that are made currently. The payments for Medicare, HMO's in some counties in New York are $750 a month. Those same payments in Wyoming, and in North and South Dakota are $220. We do not have the opportunity in our States to use managed care. Furthermore, those high payments have allowed the benefits in this New York county to be greater than the benefits in Wyoming for a program that has all been financed by the same payments from everyone--2.9 percent. That is unfair. We need to change it. There are aging and disabled persons who depend on it. We need to do something. We need to give some flexibility. We need to be able to use some managed care plans. We also need to take a long look at fraud and abuse. We had some hearings a couple of years ago, and I am sure things have not changed, where nearly 10 percent of this enormous fund was lost in fraud and abuse. We can do something about that. Mr. President, I simply again want to thank my friends for coming here. I think we have to focus on this program. The sooner we find some solutions, the less severe any changes will have to be. We can, indeed, do that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the time has been changed for the May 1, 1997, hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to receive testimony on S. 357, a bill to authorize the Bureau of Land Management to manage the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The hearing will now take place at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, instead of 9:30 a.m. as previously scheduled. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk about a subject that is very important and close to my heart, and that is national parks, for at least two reasons. One is I grew up right outside of Yellowstone Park in Wyoming. We have Teton Park in Wyoming as well. I am also chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks. We have had a series of two hearings on the future of the National Park System, and, as chairman, I am committed to the formulation of a proparks agenda which will allow us to enrich parks well into the next century. Before speaking on the issue of the future, however, let me briefly discuss the current status of the system and some of the real problems that do confront us. Today's National Park System is comprised of 375 park units and is visited each year by millions of visitors. The parks are immensely popular destinations, of course, intended to protect and commemorate this country's most significant natural, historical, and culture resources. According to recent testimony from our hearings, this diverse collection of units stimulates over $10 billion annually in revenue to local economies and supports 230,000 tourism-related jobs. Each year, 12 million foreign visitors are drawn to our parks, contributing significantly to a $22 billion international travel trade surplus. So, in addition to protecting our most precious resources, they are also an economic stimulus, of course. The Park Service is currently authorized to employ 20,342 full-time workers. This system includes approximately 80.2 million acres. The 1997 budget is authorized at roughly $1.4 billion. This relatively small agency, managing a large land base enjoying unparalleled popularity and generating significant tax and business revenues, faces a pressing dilemma. At a time when the American taxpayers are serious about smaller Government and lower taxes, Americans have also demonstrated an equally serious interest in their parks. Unfortunately, their interest has not, as yet, been translated into a serious and long-range plan nor commitment for the care of parks. The result is a legacy of critical problems plaguing the National Park Service. Today, we face an overwhelming inventory of unfunded National Park Service programs. Over the years, the National Park Service has been pulled in a wide variety of directions. Each change, each new direction, each new responsibility has caused an adverse effect in the system. The Park Service has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you can do more with less. But, in adding new areas and new responsibilities, the agency is forced into a scenario of doing less with less in terms of service and protection. As a result of decisions made by the Congress and the administration, we face an unbelievable backlog of unfunded Park Service programs. The budget shortfall is staggering. Let me touch briefly on some of the problems. Within the 375 units of the Park Service we have approximately $1.4 billion of authorized land acquisitions. These are private lands that are authorized within authorized park boundaries, but these lands have never been acquired. There are 823 billion dollars worth of national resource management projects which have gone unfunded. It is almost impossible to make a sound management decision based on scientific evidence if we are lacking the basic information on the extent and the condition and the inventory of these valuable natural resources. It is more than difficult to protect something if you do not have a clue as to what you are protecting. In the area of cultural resource management projects, the unfunded backlog is $331 million. Again, these valuable cultural resources are not protected or stabilized. There are 1.5 billion dollars worth of building-related projects for which there is no budget provision. For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to point out that if Congress decided to fully fund this item, we would only provide needed repairs to existing deteriorating facilities. No new facilities would be constructed under this scenario. There are $304 million of utility systems that are in advance states of disrepair throughout the system. Potable water and sewage systems that meet specifications are an absolute necessity if we want visitors to continue to come to our parks. In the identified resource protection work that needs to be accomplished, $1.8 billion would begin to arrest the digression of natural resources of our parks before we lose those resources that we are committed to protect. Mr. President, $2.2 billion is required for road and bridge repair and transportation systems. In my own State of Wyoming, the cost of road repair in Yellowstone Park exceeds $300 million. This cost will automatically increase if the road repairs are ignored. I might add, in the last few years, something like $8 million has been committed to this $300 million deficit. In many cases, employee housing is substandard. There are parks where the occupants of the National Park Service need not look outside to see if it is snowing. They only have to check the snow level in their living room. The pricetag to get employee housing to an acceptable standard is $442 million. If we cannot afford to take care of the caretakers, then there is something radically wrong. The total unfunded backlog in maintenance, resource stabilization, infrastructure repair and employee housing is $8.7 billion. This price tag does not include the concessions which also need, of course, to keep pace. Mr. President, $8.7 billion is a major problem. We need to take positive steps to correct this deficiency. Forward-thinking, new, innovative approaches will be required. It is a problem that cannot be resolved in the short term. I am happy to report, however, that there is, I think, reason for optimism and a favorable prognosis. It is going to be difficult, but I think we can do it. As a result of our hearings on the future of the parks, there are many ideas to be discussed and evaluated, but now is the time to address the long-term solutions and to reinvigorate the National Park Service so that our park system will stand as an example to the world well into the next century. Most importantly, we need to ensure that we are conserving and protecting the resources, protecting the natural and historic objects and the wildlife, while at the same time ensuring that the parks will be visited and will be an enjoyable experience. Within the next few weeks, we plan to circulate a strategic plan to our colleagues and to the administration which will chart a course to deal with this serious dilemma, a plan to serve as a foundation for a program to reinvigorate the parks by the year 2010. The Thomas plan--we have not thought of a better name--will contain some proposals for legislative initiatives, as well as some concepts that the administration can implement. As a result of our hearings on the future, it became very apparent that we need to incorporate some of the best ideas. Several financial concepts will, out of necessity, be discussed. As a start, the plan will include a bonding initiative. Many of our parks are essentially small villages or towns. In essence, they are towns that are required to have roads and utility systems and infrastructure. It seems to me we cannot expect to bring those up to operating condition out of annual operating funds. So the municipalities can show us the way. They have over the years bonded to do that. We do not have the money. The process is relatively simple. We can establish a Federal corporate entity within the Department to administer the bonds. We need to establish a dependable system to pay off the bonds, and we can do that. There are additional options that ought to be considered. I anticipate our plan would be built on the fine work of Senator Gorton in the last session making the fee demonstration permit and extending it to all units of the national parks, a proposal where the revenues collected in those parks stay where they are collected. A number of our witnesses spoke about establishing a strict criteria for the establishment of new additions. When we are $8.7 billion behind, we need to be careful about the additional authorizations we make. This is not suggesting we should delete any of the units, but we ought to be careful about the new ones and, frankly, not make a political decision that a State park or local park be converted to a Federal park so the Feds will take over. The Park Service was never intended to be a redevelopment agency. There are other programs, of course, that need help. Our plan will include a concession reform which turns away from the failed practice of trying to repair and refurbish the existing and inadequate law. We will take an innovative approach and, hopefully, there will be some higher fees paid to maintain the parks. We should turn to the private sector for expertise in the management and operations of concessions. These are multimillion-dollar programs. As a result, we ought to have an asset manager in the Park Service-- it is a huge financial operation--someone who is experienced and who has a background and training in assets. We can do that. On a different issue, our hearings revealed the need for better employee training. We can do that, largely with the use of universities and schools that are there. We need to continue progress made in more cost-effective management, insisting on efficiency-oriented management goals, linked with the reduction of the size of the Washington office and put the folks in the parks where they really need to be. I am not suggesting a personnel reduction, but I am suggesting a reallocation. Many of our parks are funding maintenance departments that would be the envy of small towns. There are ways to streamline this. There is no reason why the private sector cannot be contracted to do many of these things and do them more efficiently and save money. Mr. President, the Park Service identifies backlogs and other problems. It is fine to do park planning, but the process and the content needs to be timely and realistic. Park general management plans have been sitting on the shelves for years. It is time to update, implement and really go forward. This is an ambitious agenda, but, in my opinion, there are concepts that can be enacted. We can collectively achieve a great victory in the preservation of something that we all support. My home State of Wyoming is now famous for its parks--Yellowstone, Tetons, Devils Tower. Like most Americans, I take great pride in those. So we want to set a standard for national parks for the 21st century. We have invited, of course, the administration to join with us. Among other things, I have sent a letter to the President asking that he appoint a park director. There is not one now. In order to have some plans and work together, we do need some leadership there. I am suggesting and want my colleagues to know I am prepared to undertake this issue, and together we can cause something constructive to happen. We have a great opportunity. The time is now, the time is right, and I am willing to work any time with anyone to bring the National Park Service into the 21st century alive, vibrant, efficient, effective, and lasting, more importantly, an agency that would provide excellent service to visitors and provide excellent service to the resource. We can do that. Mr. President, I thank you, and I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. I would also like to ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak in morning business for 15 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for 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 Thursday, May 1, 1997, at 9:30 a.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. 457, a bill to authorize the Bureau of Land Management to manage the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. 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, 304 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a difficulty that we have had this winter in Wyoming and Montana in the Yellowstone Park area with respect to buffalo. Many of you, of course, have read about the problem as a result of an extremely difficult winter, freezing rain and snow, lack of feed, and I think also an excessive number of buffalo. As chairman of the Senate Energy Committee Subcommittee on National Parks, I come to the floor today to announce that we plan to hold hearings on the prospective plan for bison in Yellowstone Park next year. It is not our purpose to particularly pick apart what happened last year, but what we want to do is avoid the same thing happening in the year that is to come. Many of you have probably read in this weekend's New York Times some details about the conflicting and contentious perspectives regarding bison and the issue of brucellosis. The hearing I plan to have will be to spur the Interior Department to set a plan for the upcoming year. If we do not, then we might very well end up with another year of the same kinds of difficulties. Many buffalo in Yellowstone Park are afflicted with brucellosis, which is a major threat to the surrounding livestock States that border on Yellowstone Park, particularly, in this case, Montana. Unfortunately, the only solution that has been developed so far for the Park Service in the State of Montana is to shoot the buffalo as they come out of Yellowstone. Clearly, that solution is not acceptable. We have to find one that is a long-term solution to the problem. Management of the bison herd in Yellowstone is not a brand new idea. Clearly, there has to be some kind of management to a herd of this kind. There has been a great deal of interest in having a natural, free-roaming herd, which would be a nice thing. Up until about 1967, however, it was managed very closely. Then the decision was made to let the herd simply act as it would in a natural situation and be controlled by the lack of feed and predators and all those kinds of things. Unfortunately, that is not very workable in a park that is visited by 3 million people a year, in a park where other kinds of controls are not in place. So the result is the herd had grown from somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 bison to nearly 4,000. There are over 3,500. As long as the weather circumstances and the grazing circumstances were excellent, they were able to get by, even though most observers did note that the grazing there was damaged considerably by that number of bison. So the Park Service has made some efforts to address the matter. But the fact is that there has not been any real leadership for doing something over a period of time. Instead of facing the problem, the Park Service focused on the theory of natural regulation. As you can see by the events of last year, that natural regulation did not resolve the matter. Natural regulation does not work well when one Federal agency holds the threat over ranchers in the State that they will be stripped of their brucellosis-free status if bison cross into their State. At the same time, another Federal agency encourages wildlife to migrate from the park by not developing a proper management plan. This is precisely, of course, what happened. It is more a problem in Montana than it is in Wyoming. You at least have a buffer in Wyoming, on both the south and east sides of the park, of a forest wilderness area; whereas, in fact, private property grazing takes place immediately outside of the park on the Montana side. So, in order to avoid repeating that unfortunate situation, where a good number of bison starved to death in the park and another number was shot as they went out of the park to avoid the problem of brucellosis, we think we need to find a more innovative solution. The time for finger pointing is over. It has been sort of a tough deal out there, with everybody being involved. What we need is some strong leadership to face the issue. Unfortunately, the President has still not appointed a new Director of the Park Service. It is a little difficult to deal with the Park Service and Interior Department in terms of policy, in terms of the future, when there really is not a permanent Director there. So we clearly need, and it is very vital that we have, focused and solid leadership in the National Park Service. In fact, I have sent a letter today to the President urging he do that. Along with Chairman Murkowski, I and others on the Senate Energy Committee are willing to work with the administration to develop positive and constructive solutions. As a matter of fact, we have held a couple of general hearings on the park. Our purpose in the next several months will be to take a look at the park to find a way, a very positive way, to strengthen the National Park System. We have about 375 parks. I think they are among the most important elements of our culture and our history, and our effort ought to be increased to maintain those natural resources as well as providing an opportunity for visitors to enjoy them. So, we are ready to address the tough issues and launch a proparks agenda for this next year to try to make some moves to ensure that this buffalo incident does not occur next year and that we find a solution that protects not only the buffalo, protects not only the resource, but also protects the surrounding States and their very important livestock industries and allows them to remain in a brucellosis-free certification area. So we will be moving forward on that, Mr. President. I appreciate the opportunity, and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I rise to speak about taxes and will be handling the time that has been set aside for Senator Coverdell, if that is acceptable.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, tomorrow is tax day. I guess every one of us knows that. Certainly some of us are a little sleepless from having dealt with it. So it is an appropriate time to talk, I think, about taxes. There are lots of things to talk about in the area of taxes, of course. One of them is the tax system. Obviously, most people believe the tax system needs to be changed, needs to be made simpler, needs to be made more fair. We could talk about the IRS. A lot of people talk about that, particularly in April. There need to be changes there, clearly. On the other hand, most believe, and I do as well, that if we really expect something different from the enforcement and collection agency for taxes, then we have to change the tax system which they enforce. But, today I wanted to take this time, along with a number of my colleagues--and I appreciate very much Senator Coverdell setting aside this time; I expect there will be six of us here over the next number of minutes--to talk about taxes, what taxes mean to us and what they mean to our constituents. It is an appropriate time, also, not only to talk about taxes, but to talk about the agenda that we have in the Senate, particularly the Republican agenda with respect to taxes: What our plans are, what we have on our menu with regard to taxes, to provide some tax relief for American families, provide an opportunity for American families and American businesses to spend the money that they earn themselves; to talk a little bit about the fact that, on the average, American families spend almost 40 percent of their total income on taxes, all kinds of taxes--Federal, State, local--40 percent. That is an awful lot of our labor that is paid to the government. So, let me make it clear that Republicans want tax relief, we want tax relief soon, we want tax relief this year, and I am hopeful--we want tax relief as part of this budget that is now being prepared. We hear a lot--I hear it from my constituents and I am sure my associate from Wyoming hears the same thing--that families are having difficulties getting ahead, families are having difficulties in savings, families are having difficulties paying their bills. Part of the reason is the level of taxes. So, it seems to me that it is necessary for us to respond. People in my State remind me that nearly 40 percent of their income is paid in State and local taxes, as well as Federal taxes. That is an awful lot of our money. Surveys have indicated that Americans are willing to pay taxes, but they perceive that like 25 percent would be a more acceptable and reasonable figure. My constituents want to know what we are doing about taxes in this Congress. Frankly, there is a great deal of opposition to doing very much of anything. I think, really, if you want to be serious about tax relief, you have to go back to the basic issue, the really basic issue. The talk about taxes and balanced budgets is more than talking about arithmetic, more than talking about balancing numbers. It represents a philosophy. It represents the point of view that people have with respect to Government. There are those in this body who believe--certainly in this country there are those who believe--the Government spends money better than individuals, that more and more money ought to be brought into the central Government so it can be disbursed for all kinds of ideas. There is a legitimate point of view that the Federal Government should be involved in almost everything that is troublesome to people in this country. As a matter of fact, I think one could say that has been the President's political philosophy, to get involved in all kinds of things, some say the kinds of things that ought to be done by the city council, that ought to be done by the school board. But the President has found those to be politically viable. So it is a philosophy. Those who want more and more Government, of course need to have more and more taxes. I do not agree with that point of view. I think our efforts ought to be designed toward reducing the role of the central Government in our lives. Those things that are inherently governmental, and there are some, ought to be done by government at the level closest to people. There is a role for the Federal Government. There are things the Federal Government ought to be doing. But, conversely, there are things that the Federal Government should not be doing. So my point is that when you talk about budgets, when you talk about tax relief, the response is always, we--you--cannot balance the budget; we cannot cut spending enough to have tax relief for American families. I suggest that we can. We have a $1.7 trillion budget, and in that budget there are many things that could be reduced. There are many things that could be combined. There are many things that could be, in fact, eliminated. It is possible to balance the budget and have tax relief. The other alternative, of course, which again is the one the administration has taken over the last several years, is let us balance the budget but let us do it by continuing to increase spending and raise taxes. The President's budget that is out before us now raises taxes by $23 billion. It has some tax relief in it but that is offset by more tax increases. So that is really the issue. We will talk about all kinds of details on the floor. Details are fine. We ought to talk about them. When you really peel it all away, you are talking about a philosophical difference of more Government versus less Government. Frankly, I think it would be sort of interesting and honest if those who want more Government would simply get up and say, ``Yes, I want more Government. I think we ought to have more spending.'' Seldom do you hear that. There are a million other reasons for it, but that is really the bottom line. So, that is what we talk about, I think, when we talk about the budget. That is what we talk about when we talk about tax relief. It is possible to balance the budget, reduce taxes and get tax relief at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive in a $1.7 trillion budget. Can you imagine what $1.7 trillion is? There are plenty of examples of waste and abuse. There are plenty of examples and opportunities to create a smaller, more efficient Government. For a few examples, the State Department has $500 million in unneeded real estate. How to dispose of that? Repeal of Davis-Bacon would save $2.5 billion, so contracts in the Government sector are the same as they are in the private sector. There are 160 employment and job training programs in 15 different agencies--160. I cannot imagine that we could not be more efficient than to have 160 programs aimed at the same thing. In fact, we could get more money to the people who need the money if we would consolidate those, in addition to spending reductions. There are 73 Federal programs aimed at gathering statistics. I have introduced, along with a number of my associates, what we call the Freedom From Government Competition Act. It is a simple idea, an idea that has been policy for a very long time. It has not been implemented. That is, to identify those activities within the Federal Government that are commercial in nature and also those that are inherently Government; and those that are commercial, put them out for a bid in the private sector so they could be accomplished in the private sector, substantially saving dollars, some say as much as $30 billion, in the private sector. That is really what we all say we want to do, is to strengthen the private sector and limit the size of Government. Here is an opportunity to do that. Yet the administration drags its feet and says, ``Oh, we are doing all this.'' The fact is, they are not. The fact is, there are lots of things that can be contracted out that are commercial in nature. I happen to be chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. We are entering into a long-term study of strengthening the parks and seeing how we can provide more resources to protect the resources there, more dollar resources to protect the natural resources. One of the ways is to take some of those functions and put them into the private sector. So, we have introduced a bill to do that. There are all kinds of ways in which efficiencies can be found, in which Government can be smaller. The result of that can be a balanced budget and a reduced tax burden on American families. There are two that particularly come from my constituents when I am in Wyoming. One of them has to do with the estate tax. As you might imagine, a lot of our folks are ranchers and farmers and small business people, families who have worked all their lives, perhaps several generations, to put together a farm or a ranch which has asset value and, frankly, has relatively little cash flow. Yet, quite often under our current estate taxes, that family has to dispose of their assets, dispose of their ranch, on the death of the senior person in order to pay the taxes. So he or she cannot pass it on, that lifetime of work, to their family. The fact is, we spend more money in this country avoiding estate taxes than we do paying them--it is relatively minor. Capital gains? We would like to have a good healthy economy, of course, and it seems to me there is nothing that would provide more strength to the economy than to provide an opportunity for people to invest in businesses without having all their growth taken in capital gains taxes. This is a direct result of reducing taxes, to have investments, and, indeed, for the first several years it increases revenue. So that is what we are talking about here. Again, let me say I get concerned sometimes, when we seem to kind of trivialize the debate, whether this is going to produce that. We get very involved in the numbers game when beyond that, in a much broader sense, is a philosophical direction. Where are we going with the Federal Government? Do we want more? Do we want less? Do we want people to have more money to invest for themselves? Do we want to invest in the private sector to create jobs and therefore increase revenues? We always hear about the 1980's in which the deficit grew, and, indeed, the deficit did grow. But if you take a look at it, revenue grew exceedingly fast. It was the longest growth of revenue in history. The problem was Congress continued to spend more. It was not a matter of not having enough revenues; it was a spending issue, and that is what we ought to face up to, it seems to me. So we are talking here a great deal about the philosophy--philosophy. Do you want more Government? Do you want less? Do you want it more efficient? Do you want to continue as it is? It makes some sense to reduce the size of the budget and cause some of the agencies to have to find some better ways to do things, and they can. Specific tax cuts, it seems to me, that are most important have to do with capital gains, which helps to increase jobs, helps to allow people to have a living wage and to take care of their own families; and estate tax, which allows people to work their lives to create an asset and to be able to keep it; to provide $500 per youngster under 18 for families, so they can take care of their own health insurance for young people. It seems to me that is the direction we ought to go and this is the time to make those kinds of decisions. I am joined by my friend and associate, the Senator from Nebraska. I would like now to yield to the Senator.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Kempthorne pertaining to the introduction of S. 532 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, a little housekeeping. First, I understand that there is a bill due for its second reading.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the reauthorization of the Federal highway bill. I am very pleased to join with Senators Baucus and Kempthorne in the introduction of the Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act for the Next Century, STARS 2000. I am also pleased that there will be 14 original cosponsors in support of this important legislation. This is the time for the reauthorization of the Federal highway bill, called ISTEA, that has been in place for the past 6 years and has made a very important contribution to this country and its transportation. It has made some important changes in our surface transportation policies, but as we move into the 21st century, we need to update the law and make it more flexible and more efficient in order to meet the transportation challenges of the new century. I believe STARS 2000, achieves this goal. It will create new rules of the road to help us to build the highways and bridges to the 21st century. With respect to the gas tax, it is a user fee, of course, that each of us pay as we buy gas wherever we are in this country. American taxpayers have been shortchanged with regard to the benefits they are getting from the gas tax. Not all of the gas taxes have been used for surface transportation. We need to get back to a user-fee system where the taxes paid, in this case by the users of highways, are used then for surface transportation. STARS 2000 addresses this problem by restoring the integrity of the fee system by spending as much out of the highway fee system as it can sustain. We have been spending less than $20 billion annually. STARS 2000 raises the authorization to $27 billion. We believe those dollars ought to go into the highway system. In addition, it provides a framework for any additional revenues such as the 4.3 cents that currently goes to deficit reduction. Should these user fees be transferred to the highway trust fund, they would be distributed according to the bill's formula. STARS 2000 will help my State and many States maintain a national system. If you are going to go from Washington to California, you obviously have to go throughout the whole country and therefore it is key to have a Federal system. In my State, a small State in terms of population but large in terms of space, we pay more per capita than any other State, nearly $200 for every person in our State for highway gas taxes, and yet we have deteriorating bridges and roads, as do many States. In addition, the Federal Government owns 50 percent of Wyoming. One of the principle authors of this bill and my friend, Senator Kempthorne, his State of Idaho has even larger holdings. In Nevada, it is 86 percent federally owned so we have to take Federal lands into account as we talk about a Federal system. In fact, Yellowstone Park, located in Wyoming, has a backlog of nearly $250 million in road repairs and maintenance that needs to be considered. Unfortunately, we are not meeting these needs. For example, the Clinton administration admits that this country only invests 70 percent of what needs to be invested just to maintain our transportation infrastructure. These shortfalls hurt all taxpayers, of course. The STARS 2000 coalition States are bridge States--people and goods cross these States to other destinations. A set of efficient and well maintained roads are as important to the cities that export goods across the country and around the world as they are to people in our States. These transactions contribute to the Nation's economy and its job creation. STARS 2000 will make a smooth flow of people and goods across the country a reality. One of the keys to the highway program is that each State knows best what it should be doing with the resources it has, and its priorities are. Clearly, the highways and roads in New York City are quite different than those in Wyoming or Nevada, so we need to have the flexibility for State and local officials to make the decisions there. STARS 2000 does that by significantly increasing the surface transportation program, the STP portion, and puts the decisionmaking authority for how this money is allocated into the hands of state and local people. Unfortunately, the administration bill, NEXTEA, is advertised as building a bridge to the 21st century. Unfortunately, it is my belief that in its present form that bridge will collapse. NEXTEA does not restore the integrity of the trust fund, so for the American taxpayer, there is no trust in the trust fund. It does not streamline the program. It does not make the kinds of changes that are needed. It hangs on to what we have done in the past. It also handcuffs local authorities in terms of making decisions. NEXTEA adds regulations. God knows, we need to move away from regulations and allow the highway program to be more efficient. STARS 2000 emphasizes the Federal component of our program and achieves a fair and equitable method of distribution. Based on a percentage share of the Federal highway program, 37 States do better and 1 tied compared to NEXTEA; 33 States do better than under the current law; 25 States higher, 6 the same compared to STEP 21. In addition, STARS 2000 addresses the donor/donee issue by creating a 95 percent minimum allocation to all States. That means all States will get at least 95 percent of what they put into the highway trust fund. The STARS 2000 coalition will be a significant factor in the ISTEA reauthorization debate. Without our coalition, without our States, you cannot get there from here--physically or politically. STARS 2000 is more than a marker. It is a coalition of States that are needed to make an interstate map to the 21st century. Quite often, in my experience in the House, the highway money flows where the votes are. But that really does not work in a transportation program. You have to have one that covers the country and is, indeed, a Federal program. The funding formulas under STARS 2000 are based on the transportation needs of the country. STARS 2000 maintains the integrity of the original ISTEA. It improves it by a smarter investment of taxpayers' money. It meets our growing infrastructure needs. It increases job and economic growth and increases flexibility and efficiency. We get more bang for the buck. So we are emphasizing the National Highway System, allowing more decisions to be made closer to home, and I certainly would submit to my fellow Members of the Senate this is a bill that we can all support and will provide a better infrastructure for highway surface transportation. Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I thank Senators Kempthorne and Baucus for their hard work on this legislation and look forward to working with them in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the reauthorization of the Federal highway bill. I am very pleased to join with Senators Baucus and Kempthorne in the introduction of the Surface Transportation Authorization and Regulatory Streamlining Act for the Next Century, STARS 2000. I am also pleased that there will be 14 original cosponsors in support of this important legislation. This is the time for the reauthorization of the Federal highway bill, called ISTEA, that has been in place for the past 6 years and has made a very important contribution to this country and its transportation. It has made some important changes in our surface transportation policies, but as we move into the 21st century, we need to update the law and make it more flexible and more efficient in order to meet the transportation challenges of the new century. I believe STARS 2000, achieves this goal. It will create new rules of the road to help us to build the highways and bridges to the 21st century. With respect to the gas tax, it is a user fee, of course, that each of us pay as we buy gas wherever we are in this country. American taxpayers have been shortchanged with regard to the benefits they are getting from the gas tax. Not all of the gas taxes have been used for surface transportation. We need to get back to a user-fee system where the taxes paid, in this case by the users of highways, are used then for surface transportation. STARS 2000 addresses this problem by restoring the integrity of the fee system by spending as much out of the highway fee system as it can sustain. We have been spending less than $20 billion annually. STARS 2000 raises the authorization to $27 billion. We believe those dollars ought to go into the highway system. In addition, it provides a framework for any additional revenues such as the 4.3 cents that currently goes to deficit reduction. Should these user fees be transferred to the highway trust fund, they would be distributed according to the bill's formula. STARS 2000 will help my State and many States maintain a national system. If you are going to go from Washington to California, you obviously have to go throughout the whole country and therefore it is key to have a Federal system. In my State, a small State in terms of population but large in terms of space, we pay more per capita than any other State, nearly $200 for every person in our State for highway gas taxes, and yet we have deteriorating bridges and roads, as do many States. In addition, the Federal Government owns 50 percent of Wyoming. One of the principle authors of this bill and my friend, Senator Kempthorne, his State of Idaho has even larger holdings. In Nevada, it is 86 percent federally owned so we have to take Federal lands into account as we talk about a Federal system. In fact, Yellowstone Park, located in Wyoming, has a backlog of nearly $250 million in road repairs and maintenance that needs to be considered. Unfortunately, we are not meeting these needs. For example, the Clinton administration admits that this country only invests 70 percent of what needs to be invested just to maintain our transportation infrastructure. These shortfalls hurt all taxpayers, of course. The STARS 2000 coalition States are bridge States--people and goods cross these States to other destinations. A set of efficient and well maintained roads are as important to the cities that export goods across the country and around the world as they are to people in our States. These transactions contribute to the Nation's economy and its job creation. STARS 2000 will make a smooth flow of people and goods across the country a reality. One of the keys to the highway program is that each State knows best what it should be doing with the resources it has, and its priorities are. Clearly, the highways and roads in New York City are quite different than those in Wyoming or Nevada, so we need to have the flexibility for State and local officials to make the decisions there. STARS 2000 does that by significantly increasing the surface transportation program, the STP portion, and puts the decisionmaking authority for how this money is allocated into the hands of state and local people. Unfortunately, the administration bill, NEXTEA, is advertised as building a bridge to the 21st century. Unfortunately, it is my belief that in its present form that bridge will collapse. NEXTEA does not restore the integrity of the trust fund, so for the American taxpayer, there is no trust in the trust fund. It does not streamline the program. It does not make the kinds of changes that are needed. It hangs on to what we have done in the past. It also handcuffs local authorities in terms of making decisions. NEXTEA adds regulations. God knows, we need to move away from regulations and allow the highway program to be more efficient. STARS 2000 emphasizes the Federal component of our program and achieves a fair and equitable method of distribution. Based on a percentage share of the Federal highway program, 37 States do better and 1 tied compared to NEXTEA; 33 States do better than under the current law; 25 States higher, 6 the same compared to STEP 21. In addition, STARS 2000 addresses the donor/donee issue by creating a 95 percent minimum allocation to all States. That means all States will get at least 95 percent of what they put into the highway trust fund. The STARS 2000 coalition will be a significant factor in the ISTEA reauthorization debate. Without our coalition, without our States, you cannot get there from here--physically or politically. STARS 2000 is more than a marker. It is a coalition of States that are needed to make an interstate map to the 21st century. Quite often, in my experience in the House, the highway money flows where the votes are. But that really does not work in a transportation program. You have to have one that covers the country and is, indeed, a Federal program. The funding formulas under STARS 2000 are based on the transportation needs of the country. STARS 2000 maintains the integrity of the original ISTEA. It improves it by a smarter investment of taxpayers' money. It meets our growing infrastructure needs. It increases job and economic growth and increases flexibility and efficiency. We get more bang for the buck. So we are emphasizing the National Highway System, allowing more decisions to be made closer to home, and I certainly would submit to my fellow Members of the Senate this is a bill that we can all support and will provide a better infrastructure for highway surface transportation. Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I thank Senators Kempthorne and Baucus for their hard work on this legislation and look forward to working with them in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce today's schedule on behalf of the majority leader. Today there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 12:30 this afternoon. At 12:30, the Senate will recess until the hour of 2:15 to allow for the weekly policy conferences to be held. When the Senate reconvenes at 2:15, we will resume debate on the motion to proceed on S. 104, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act legislation. Under the order, the time between 2:15 and 5:15 will be equally divided, with a vote occurring at 5:15 on invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 104. If cloture is invoked, the majority leader hopes that the Senate will be allowed to proceed to the consideration of the bill in a reasonable time period. If cloture is not invoked, I remind all Senators that a second cloture motion was filed last night and therefore a second cloture vote would occur tomorrow. If that vote becomes necessary, all Members will be notified later today as to when they can expect that vote on Wednesday.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, first, on behalf of the Senate, I say welcome to Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, to the Senate. Thank you so much for your prayer this morning. Rabbi Eckstein is an outstanding spiritual leader, author, lecturer, and radio and television communicator. Chaplain Ogilvie has invited Rabbi Eckstein to lead a seder dinner for Senators and their spouses this next Tuesday evening, April 15, 1997, which should be a great opportunity. My wife and I attended last year and, as Methodists, we enjoyed it a great deal. We intend to be there again this year. Rabbi, we thank you for your message and sharing with us some of the feelings of the heritage we share as Jews and Christians.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased now to yield to my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, who has actually been chairman of our 1994 group. The Senator from Oklahoma.