Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me just sort of wind up on our tax thing and say that if you are like me--a weekend from now it will be April 15 and all of us I hope are beginning to think about preparing our tax returns. It is a headache, of course, and so we tend to procrastinate. We are taxed too high, I am sure. And I am sure also that people out there look at Washington and wonder if all that talk about tax relief is just talk. We are here to say that it is not. Tax relief for families in America, for small business, is alive and well and one of the good ideas that is coming out of Washington, I hope soon. By next year, it is our hope that as we begin to think about compiling tax returns we will have accomplished what Americans deserve and expect from Washington as a matter of fact--reforms that let families keep more of their money. Republicans want to lower the tax burden and provide some common sense to the tax system. Currently, according to the Census Bureau, a typical family of four spends more than 3 hours of every 8-hour day working for dollars that are dedicated to Federal, State and local taxes. That is an average of almost 40 percent of income--40 percent of our income to continue to grow a central government. You get big government and you get a bloated bureaucracy. Instead, we ought to be able to use those dollars to increase our businesses, to feed our kids, to send them to school. So we need reform, smart reform, smart tax reform. That has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? I hear also in town meetings more and more about the IRS. Let me tell you that at least to some extent you cannot do much about the IRS until you change the system and make it simpler. Which taxes to reform? Where should we start? The inheritance tax for one. We have already talked about that. Here is one that makes no sense at all. We spend more time avoiding inheritance taxes than we do paying them. People who have spent time in business and farms cannot pass it on to their own families. The current tax penalizes the development of wealth and business. That is wrong. It is really a matter of freedom. Citizens own their property and families should not be compelled to sell it if the head of the household passes away. In the West it is an environmental problem. The view of the West, the mountains will be subdivided unless we act. How about capital gains reduction? Entrepreneurs and small business investors take substantial risks when they open or invest in businesses. Cutting capital gains will increase economic growth. Add to that tax credits for our families with children. Grant a $500-per-child tax credit and give families the opportunity to do some things. When it is all wrapped up, tax reform should have to pass a simple commonsense test. Does it impose the lowest possible compliance and enforcement? Does it encourage growth? Does it work to help strengthen families? By anyone's measure, our current system does not pass this test. So we deserve a Saturday in April with our family instead of sitting with a stack of receipts and the Tax Code. We want tax simplicity. We want tax relief. The President's proposed budget, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the President's fiscal year 1998 budget contains a net tax increase of $23 billion over 10 years. That is not tax relief. That is more burden. That is not what we need in the future. The President needs to come to the snubbing post and join with us on taxes and reform in balancing the budget. We can do that, and our opportunity is now. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, several of us have asked this morning for a half hour to talk about an item that is of particular interest now, and that is taxes. It is of particular interest because we are now close to April 15, when taxes are more real to us all than they are at some other times. We want to talk about taxes because they are part of the Republican agenda. We have talked, over the years, about the idea of allowing families to spend more of their own money, allowing businesses to be able to invest and create jobs in the private sector. I think it is appropriate to talk about taxes because it has been an area of controversy--the idea of whether or not we ought to have an effort at tax relief at the same time we seek to balance the budget. Mr. President, I am here to tell you that having been in my home district in Wyoming over the past week, as most of us have, and having a series of town meetings, the issue that came up most often is: What are you going to do about taxes? What are you going to do about the capital gains tax? What are you going to do about estate taxes or some tax relief for families to be able to help take care of their own children? So I feel very strongly about it. Let me just say that too often when we talk about taxes and the budget, I think it seems that we are talking about arithmetic and bookkeeping when we talk about budgets. It just seems to me that when we talk about budgets, we are really talking about something quite broader than that, and that is the direction of this Government and whether or not we want to have more central Government, or whether we want to have less, whether we want to move more of our activities back closer to people at the State and local governments, or whether we want to continue to build up more and more at the central Federal Government level. With that concept, the philosophical direction that is inherent in those decisions is also a decision about taxes and, I suspect, if possible, although we haven't done it for 30 years, to balance the budget and to continue to spend at the same time. You do that by raising taxes. That is the way you do that. That is what the President did several years ago, to move toward a balanced budget by continuing to spend but to raise taxes. There is a philosophical difference of view. There are those who believe that we ought to have more Government, who believe that the Government actually spends money to a better advantage than people themselves do, who believe that we ought to have more and more functions carried on at the Federal level in the central Government. That is a legitimate point of view. I don't happen to share it. I think, Mr. President, that quite often when we talk about the details of issues, really at the center of it is that issue of whether you want more Government or whether you want less. It is a pretty basic philosophical issue. That is what we are talking about here. It does seem to me that--No. 1, when you have a tax burden on the American citizens that averages between 38 and 40 percent in taxes for families, that is a heavy burden. That is a very heavy burden. It seems to me, of course, that there are lots of ways in which we can reduce the size of the Federal Government. We can contract, we can have more things done in the private sector, and we can move more of it to the State government. There are a lot of the things out of the $1.7 trillion budget we don't have to do. Many of those things have been there forever and they just go on because they go on. I guess I am suggesting that we ought to take a long look at that budget. In my view, one of the priorities for this Congress and for this Senate ought to be to balance the budget and provide tax relief for American citizens. That is what it is all about, I believe, so we want to talk about that. There is a different view. There are those who, I think legitimately from a strategic point of view, say, ``Let us balance the budget first.'' That is OK, I guess, if you are committed then to doing the tax relief. However, I believe we ought to deal with them at the same time. I am one who signed a letter--there were 16 of us, I believe--to the leader saying that we ought to deal with the whole concept of the size of the budget, how we balance the budget and how we give tax relief to American families and to business. That seems to be what we ought to do. What did I hear about at home? I heard about capital gains taxes. I heard an awful lot about the idea that people would like to be able to invest in businesses if they could make some profit over time, even if it is nothing more than inflation over time, and about paying taxes on the investments for the inflation they have made. That discourages them. We have a lot of small businesses in my State, as is true everywhere. Small business is the backbone of this economy. We have a lot of farmers and ranchers and families who have spent their whole lives putting together an estate in their ranch or farm. Now we find, quite often, because those are not really cash-flow cows--there is a great deal of asset value there, but not much cash--you have to dispose of that property in order to pay the taxes. You can't pass it on to your family. There is a lot of concern about that. Well, Mr. President, I have been joined by several of my associates to talk for a little bit about taxes this morning. So I yield to my friend, the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. THOMAS. I want to ask the Senator if there is a Fifty-Six, AR.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the college football Bowl Alliance. I am concerned that under the Bowl Alliance structure, athletic excellence is not being recognized in postseason I- A college football play. Fresh in the minds of Wyoming football fans is the last game of regular season play when the nationally ranked Cowboys played against No. 5-ranked Brigham Young University for the Western Athletic Conference [WAC] championship title. Both teams went into the game believing the winner would be selected for major postseason bowl action. UW and BYU delivered a terrific conference championship game. BYU won 28-25 over Wyoming in overtime play. It was the first WAC title game won in overtime. Unfortunately, neither WAC team was invited to a major New Year's bowl. The 1996 selections to the New Year's bowl games shed revealing light on the college football Bowl Alliance. Invitations to the most lucrative major bowls games--the Orange Bowl, the Sugar Bowl, and the Fiesta Bowl--were largely sent to high-profile, highly marketable teams instead of worthy teams. Many sports fans were disappointed at the postseason New Year's bowl matchups. I am concerned about the closed selection process that has developed and the impact the Bowl Alliance structure will have on I-A collegiate football. The Bowl Alliance operates outside the purview of the National Collegiate Athletics Association [NCAA]. The Bowl Alliance was created in 1993 when the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Big East Conference, the Big 12 Conference, the Southeastern Conference and Notre Dame came together and took it upon themselves to provide and acquire teams to participate in the major bowl games. These Bowl Alliance conferences have contracts with the television networks and large corporate sponsors--Federal Express, Tostitos, and Noika. Champions from each alliance conference are automatically guaranteed a berth in one of the major bowl games. The nonalliance conferences remaining out in the cold are the Western Athletic Conference [WAC], the Big West Conference, Conference USA, the Mid American Conference and the 11 Independent teams. The Bowl Alliance claims its purpose is to create optimal matchups and identify and national champion. Considering the 1996 selections for the bowl games, I question if quality matchups is the true goal. Last season, TV viewers saw No. 20 Texas lose to No. 7 Penn State 38-15 in the Fiesta Bowl. Texas' record was 8-4. The Orange Bowl showcased No. 9 Virginia Tech losing to No. 6 Nebraska 41-21. Appearance in a Bowl Alliance game pays well. Each participating team takes approximately $8,000,000 back to its school. In addition, the teams get the national visibility and prestige that leads to strong athletic recruitment. Conferences outside the alliance have a remote chance of participating in one of the Alliance Bowls. Over time it will hurt the quality of the nonalliance teams who will have difficulty in recruitment. The Alliance Bowl structure will make the alliance teams stronger and relegate the nonalliance teams to a second-tier status. The alliance ensures its monopoly through the use of the at-large rule. Although the champions of the self-selected Alliance Bowl conferences automatically appear in one of the major bowl games there are two remaining at-large spots. It is questionable as to whether those two spots are truly at-large and open to any high-quality team that can play their way into one of the spots. A team from the WAC was deserving of one of those at-large spots last year, but the invitation never came. I am concerned for the future of the athletes and schools in the nonalliance conferences. That is why I joined with Senators Mitch McConnell, Robert Bennett, and Mike Enzi in writing to the Department of Justice [DOJ] and the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] to request an investigation of the Bowl Alliance. We suspect possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In 1996, the eight Alliance Bowl participants, including the Rose Bowl participants, went home with a total of $68 million. The 28 teams that played in the minor bowl games shared a pot of $31 million. We requested a formal investigation of the matter. If there is wrong-doing we want to see the DOJ and the FTC use their statutory enforcement powers to break this lock on college football. We are not asking for special consideration for any one team. We would like to see genuinely open competition restored to college football postseason bowls. Postseason play should be about recognizing achievement. Letting the best teams play is in the best interest of our student athletes and our schools. I wish to associate myself with the efforts of the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Utah, and my friend from Wyoming in doing some things that we think have impact in football. The Bowl Alliance has a great effect on small schools, particularly the University of Wyoming, BYU, Louisville, and others, and so we think this is an issue which needs to be discussed. I am very proud to be associated with the comments my friends will make. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have a couple of things I wanted to visit about this morning. The first one of the priorities that I and a number of people have for the 105th Congress is S. 314, the Freedom From Government Competition Act. This is an effort, along with many other things, to seek to reduce the size of the central Government, which most people agree we should do. It is one of the reasons we try to have a balanced budget amendment, so that we can control the size of the growth of the Federal Government by our willingness to pay for it. One of the other areas, of course, that we have been very interested in, and continue to be, is the idea of ``devolution''--kind of a new word. It means move some of the functions down to State and local governments so that we do, in keeping with the Founding Fathers, keep the size of central Government relatively limited and do those things that are essential to be done on the national level, and there are many, and yet not do the things that could better be done either at the local level in government or, indeed, in the private sector. The private sector is what I want to talk about a little today. In general, from the title, we are simply saying that we want to remove the competition of the Federal Government in those things that could as well or, indeed, better be done in the private sector. So S. 314 is called the Freedom From Government Competition Act. This bill is supported by a broad cross-section of business groups, and I have a list of those. I ask unanimous consent to have the list printed in the Record, along with several letters of endorsement.

Mr. THOMAS. Let me just go over some of these folks who do support it: National Federation of Independent Businesses, U.S. Chamber, Associated General Contractors of America, National Association of Women Business Owners, Consulting Engineers Council, Business Coalition for Fair Competition, Design Professionals Coalition, and many others. So it is designed to say basically that in those areas of Government activities and Government operations, for those things that are done that are basically commercial, there ought to at least be an opportunity for the private sector to compete. It is designed to open the potential market of $30 billion nationally for businesses, for the private sector, both large and small. And as a matter of fact, most of the contracts would go to small business. It is designed to level the playing field--those are words we use a lot, but they have meaning--for thousands of businesses in the whole economy of this country from the very ordinary kinds of things to high- technology things--janitorial services, hospitality and recreation service businesses, engineering services, laboratory and testing services. As a matter of fact, I really became involved in this in the legislature in the State of Wyoming where we had government competing for laboratory services, where the private sector was available there to do that with the same kind of quality or even better and at less cost. So that is what we decided to do. It will provide for better value to taxpayers because it capitalizes on talent and expertise available in the competitive private sector. It has been Federal policy for a very long time--as a matter of fact, some 40 years--that contracting out to the private sector would be, indeed, a function of the Federal Government, but the fact is that it has not really worked out that way. So we need a legislative solution. We say we are going to do it, but we do not do it. And I understand that. Part of the reason, of course, is that in an agency you have your own operation and your own staff and would prefer to do it. The other is often when there has been some effort to try to determine the efficiency of it, we find that testing is really not very fair and so you end up saying, well, Government can do it cheaper, but you have not really analyzed it in a very fair way. We have a lot of things that the Federal Government should be doing, and they take too much time and money on goods and services, in my view, that could better be delivered by the private sector. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated in the past that 1.4 million Federal employees do work that is basically commercial in nature. This competition, of course, is tougher on the private sector. It kills small business, stifles economic growth, and lowers the tax base, particularly in States such as mine where 50 percent of the State belongs to the Federal Government, and it is difficult to keep the private sector and the tax base going. It hurts small business. So it has been a concern of small business. We have had White House small business conferences in 1980, 1986, and 1994, and in all three of these conferences this has been the major concern. Let me just briefly explain the bill. I indicated that for some time--like 40 years--we have had a policy to do contracting, to bring the private sector in to do things, but they really have not done that. So we are now saying statutorily there is a system for giving small business that opportunity. It does not say that it has to do that. It says that when there is a commercial activity, the private sector should be given an even chance to see if they can do it more efficiently than the Government. And there are exceptions to that, of course. There are legitimate, inherent activities of Government, and those will be the exceptions--national security, where the Federal Government can provide a better value, and we recognize that that can be. We are not asking that it be given to the private sector if, indeed, the Federal Government agency can do it more efficiently, or in the case, of course, where the private sector cannot provide the goods and services. So this bill establishes a system and a process where the Office of Management and Budget in the executive branch will identify those Government functions that are ``inherently and basically commercial in nature.'' It also establishes an Office of Commercial Activities within OMB to implement the bill. So now you do not have the agency that is going to do the contracting making the decision as to whether they do it or not. There will be an outside effort made to identify the functions that could best be done that way and to establish provisions for the transition of Federal employees if there should be some reduction there. The climate, I think, is right for action of this kind. Almost everybody agrees we ought to direct the money, if we can save money by better Government--there are lots of underlying issues, whether it be defense, whether it be health care, whether it be Medicare--to where we can better use those dollars rather than doing the things that someone else could do more efficiently. The Senate was in support of the concept of this bill; last year, the Senate voted 59 to 39 in favor of a Treasury-Postal appropriations amendment that would have prevented unfair Government competition. It was dropped, unfortunately, from the omnibus appropriations bill. If we are going to balance the budget, we are going to have to make some fundamental changes. The Federal Government operating commercial needs is one that we can change and eliminate and reduce. Various studies indicate that we could save up to $30 billion by utilizing private sector resources. The Heritage Foundation estimates we could save $9 billion annually. The Defense Science Board concluded the Defense Department alone could save $30 billion annually. So, the Freedom From Government Competition Act will help to create jobs in the private sector, help open up markets to private business, save billions of dollars and make Government more efficient. I certainly commend this bill to my associates here in the Senate, to see if we could not make a way to increase and strengthen the private sector as well as save money to be used on these things that are fundamentally Governmental in nature.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is with great honor that I join Wyoming's Gov. Jim Geringer, and the people of the State of Wyoming, in paying tribute to Finis Mitchell, a man whose legacy commemorates the very pioneer spirit on which our great country was founded. In remembrance of Mr. Mitchell's innumerable contributions to our State, Governor Geringer has issued a proclamation to designate February 15, 1997, as ``Finis Mitchell Day.'' I ask unanimous consent that the State of Wyoming's proclamation be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. THOMAS. Finis Mitchell was in the vanguard of mountain climbing at the beginning of this century, and continued his exploration of the Wind River Mountain Range until 1985 when, at the age of 84, he suffered a debilitating knee injury. He documented his climbing experiences through extensive mapping and photography, and eventually amassed a collection of slides numbering in excess of 126,000. This intimate knowledge of the area served as a reference for the U.S. Geological Survey in drawing official maps of the Wind Rivers, and inspired Mr. Mitchell to share his love of the mountains by penning a guidebook and giving educational lectures nationwide. After marrying Emma Nelson in 1923, together they stocked over 300 of the region's lakes with fish and started the Wind Rivers' first recreational fishing camp. To this day, those lakes are being fished by the public. In recognition of his life-long dedication to environmental conservation, Finis Mitchell received an honorary doctorate from the University of Wyoming, in addition to other State and National awards. He also found the time to serve as a State legislator. Throughout his life, Mr. Mitchell demonstrated strength in his rugged individualism. Starting from a humble beginning with his wife at their post-Depression fishing camp, this spirit of determination provided Mr. Mitchell with the foundation for a lifetime of success. Finis Mitchell rose to the challenges of exploring social, educational, and political frontiers just as he made his innumerable treks into the untamed wilderness, one step at a time. It can be said that Mr. Mitchell's achievements were a byproduct of respect he had for the lands he called his own backyard, and those which he helped transform into a sportsman's paradise. The following passage in Finis Mitchell's own words surely echoes the sentiment of all who have had the privilege of knowing his Winds: Evening alone in the mountains. No one to talk to. No one speaking out . . . Only the comfort of a murmuring breeze, the goodnight chirp of the snowbird . . . the glistening of the moon on a distant glacier, the faint music of waterfalls scurrying down. Where else can a man be so close to heaven and still have his feet on the ground? Mr. Mitchell's extensive mapping of the Wind River region and his nationally recognized wildlife conservation efforts will be appreciated by folks from Wyoming, and others drawn to the area from all over the globe, for generations to come. We will continue to share his love of nature through the beauty of the majestic vistas and abundant wildlife that make our State like no place on Earth. Mr. President, I would like to close with a quote from ``The Pioneer'' by James Fenimore Cooper, which seems to epitomize the life of Finis Mitchell: None know how often the hand of God is seen in the wilderness but them that rove it for a man's life . . . Such a man was Finis Mitchell. Exhibit 1 Governor's Proclamation Finis Mitchell was born on November 14, 1901 in Ethel, Missouri, the son of the late Henry Reece and Faye Troutman Mitchell. He traveled with his parents from Missouri to Wyoming's Wind River Range, arriving on April 26, 1906. Finis Mitchell started mountain climbing back in October, 1909. He continued solo climbing until 1975 when at the age of 73, he suffered a debilitating fall that left him with a bad knee. Finis Mitchell began taking pictures as a hobby with his climbing, so that he could show people where he had been and what was in our national forests. By the time he stopped climbing he had accumulated a collection of 35mm slides in excess of 126,000. Finis spent most of his free time exploring the Wind Rivers, capturing their beauty on film, naming lakes, and mapping the terrain. Finis Mitchell and Emma Nelson were married in Rock Springs at the Congregational Church on June 4, 1925. The two pioneers, in 1930, started Mitchell's Fishing Camp at the Big Sandy Openings, which was to become the first recreation area on the Pacific side of the Wind River Range. Due to the lack of fish, Finis and Emma transported fish in five gallon milk cans, twelve at a time using six pack horses. In the seven years that they operated their fishing camp, they stocked over 300 lakes with over 2.5 million little trout, all free for the public to enjoy. Finis Mitchell had been the recipient of many awards and honors for his conservation efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Forest Service and several presidents. He served in the Wyoming House of Representatives from 1955-1958. In 1975 Finis published a guidebook to the Wind Rivers, Wind River Trails. In 1977 he received an honorary doctorate from the University of Wyoming. The Congress of the United States named Finis' favorite mountain after him. Mitchell Peak at 12,482 feet, is one of a very few land forms in the country that was named after a living American. Finis Mitchell passed away November 13, 1995, the day before his 94th birthday. Now Therefore, I Jim Geringer, Governor of the State of Wyoming, do hereby proclaim February 15, 1997, to be ``Finis Mitchell Day'' in Wyoming. Known by many as ``Lord of the Wind Rivers,'' Finis Mitchell hiked or backpacked over 15,000 miles and climbed 220 peaks since 1909. He shared his knowledge and experiences with anyone and everyone. He spent a lifetime exploring and learning about the Wind River Range and passing the information on to others. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of Wyoming to be affixed this 12th day of February, 1997.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague Senator Shelby, that exempts expenses incurred to address legislation at the State level from the current law provision that denies this deduction. This change would give lobbying at the State level the same tax deductible treatment currently given to expenses incurred to lobby at the local level. The provisions of this bill will allow businesses to once again deduct legitimate expenses they incur at the State level to respond to legislative proposals that can affect their livelihood and even their very existence. I ask my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation. As part of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Congress approved a proposal recommended by President Clinton to deny the deductibility of expenses incurred to influence legislation. As passed, the bill creates a ``lobbying tax'' by denying a business tax deduction for legitimate expenses incurred to influence legislation at both the State and Federal level. In addition, expenses incurred to influence the official actions of certain Executive branch officials are not deductible. Expenses incurred to influence the legislative actions of local governments, however, are exempt from the lobbying tax. When the deductibility for lobbying expenses was partially repealed in 1993, the debate centered on lobbying at the Federal level. The fact that lobbying to influence legislative actions at the local level is exempt indicates that the 1993 change did not intend to cover all lobbying activities. Lobbying at the State level was not part of the debate, even though it was included in the final legislation that was approved by Congress. At the State level, there is more active business participation at all levels of the legislative process. This is partly because State legislatures have smaller staffs and meet less frequently than Congress. In most States, the job of State legislator is part time. Additionally, many Governors appoint ``blue ribbon commissions'' and other advisory groups to recommend legislative solutions to problems peculiar to a specific State. These advisory groups depend on input from members of the business, professional, and agricultural community knowledgeable about particular issues. The recordkeeping requirements and tax penalties associated with the lobbying tax discourages and penalizes this participation. The denial of a deduction for legitimate business expense incurred to lobby at the State level is an unwarranted intrusion of the Federal government on the activity of State governments. While many of the reasons to restore this deduction at the State level can also apply to lobbying at the Federal level, this additional intergovernmental argument emphasizes the need to extend the current exemption from the lobbying tax at the local level to lobbying at the State level. Perhaps one of the best reasons for restoring the deductibility of State lobbying expenses is the paperwork burden that this law has placed on many businesses and organizations. This is especially true for the many State trade associations, most of whom are small operations and not equipped to comply with the pages and pages of confusing Federal regulations implementing this law. Compliance is both time consuming and complicated, and detracts from the legitimate and necessary work and services they perform for their members, who are primarily small businesses and who depend on these associations to look after their interests. This bill is very simple. It restores the deductibility of business expenses incurred for activities to influence legislation at the State level, and gives them the same treatment that exists under current law for similar activities at the local level. It is good legislation, it deserves your support, and it should be enacted into law.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with my colleague Senator Shelby, that exempts expenses incurred to address legislation at the State level from the current law provision that denies this deduction. This change would give lobbying at the State level the same tax deductible treatment currently given to expenses incurred to lobby at the local level. The provisions of this bill will allow businesses to once again deduct legitimate expenses they incur at the State level to respond to legislative proposals that can affect their livelihood and even their very existence. I ask my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation. As part of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Congress approved a proposal recommended by President Clinton to deny the deductibility of expenses incurred to influence legislation. As passed, the bill creates a ``lobbying tax'' by denying a business tax deduction for legitimate expenses incurred to influence legislation at both the State and Federal level. In addition, expenses incurred to influence the official actions of certain Executive branch officials are not deductible. Expenses incurred to influence the legislative actions of local governments, however, are exempt from the lobbying tax. When the deductibility for lobbying expenses was partially repealed in 1993, the debate centered on lobbying at the Federal level. The fact that lobbying to influence legislative actions at the local level is exempt indicates that the 1993 change did not intend to cover all lobbying activities. Lobbying at the State level was not part of the debate, even though it was included in the final legislation that was approved by Congress. At the State level, there is more active business participation at all levels of the legislative process. This is partly because State legislatures have smaller staffs and meet less frequently than Congress. In most States, the job of State legislator is part time. Additionally, many Governors appoint ``blue ribbon commissions'' and other advisory groups to recommend legislative solutions to problems peculiar to a specific State. These advisory groups depend on input from members of the business, professional, and agricultural community knowledgeable about particular issues. The recordkeeping requirements and tax penalties associated with the lobbying tax discourages and penalizes this participation. The denial of a deduction for legitimate business expense incurred to lobby at the State level is an unwarranted intrusion of the Federal government on the activity of State governments. While many of the reasons to restore this deduction at the State level can also apply to lobbying at the Federal level, this additional intergovernmental argument emphasizes the need to extend the current exemption from the lobbying tax at the local level to lobbying at the State level. Perhaps one of the best reasons for restoring the deductibility of State lobbying expenses is the paperwork burden that this law has placed on many businesses and organizations. This is especially true for the many State trade associations, most of whom are small operations and not equipped to comply with the pages and pages of confusing Federal regulations implementing this law. Compliance is both time consuming and complicated, and detracts from the legitimate and necessary work and services they perform for their members, who are primarily small businesses and who depend on these associations to look after their interests. This bill is very simple. It restores the deductibility of business expenses incurred for activities to influence legislation at the State level, and gives them the same treatment that exists under current law for similar activities at the local level. It is good legislation, it deserves your support, and it should be enacted into law.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity and make a few comments about a bill that my colleague, Senator Max Baucus introduced yesterday. The bill, known as the Rural Health Improvement Act, is designed to help struggling, small, rural hospitals across America. I am pleased to join Senator Baucus as an original cosponsor of this important bill. It will go a long way in helping people served by rural facilities. As cochairman of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, I have worked long and hard to ensure rural families have access to quality care. This is an issue that concerns not just a select few, but all Senators because every State has at lease some low-population areas. Unfortunately, too many of our small hospitals are confronted with the decision of having to close because they can no longer contend with declining inpatient stays, costly regulations, and low Medicare reimbursement rates. However, closing hospitals is not an acceptable option in Wyoming. In my State, if a town loses its most important point of service--the emergency reoom--it is typical for patients to drive 100 miles or more to the closest tertiary care center. With the Medicare trust fund going broke, it also is understood that underutilized facilities cannot continue to be subsidized. However, an alternative must still be available. That is why it is necessary to give small rural hospitals the ability to downsize without having to maintain a full-service operation. Mr. President, the Rural Health Improvement Act allows facilities to reconfigure their service and reduce excess bed capacity while retaining access to emergency care. In short, the bill presents communities with a viable option. It accommodates different levels of medical care throughout a State while providing stabilization services needed in remote areas. The bill is one in a series of measures the Rural Health Caucus is working on designed to improve quality medical care in rural America. It is similar to legislation I introduced as a Member of the House of Representatives, and I look forward to working with Senator Baucus to pass this important, bipartisan piece of legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Let me, too, thank the leaders who have been in the Chamber for some time. Again we are asked to vote on a balanced budget amendment. This is the most important and vital action that any of us will take this year if we are to be financially and fiscally responsible. This is more than just a balanced budget. This is more than just arithmetic. It is more than numbers. It has to do with character. It has to do with our willingness to face up to the realization that you cannot keep spending more than you take in. It has to do with debt. We now have a debt of $5.5 trillion, which we have put on our credit card for young people to pay. Our card is maxed out. It has to do with interest payments. Probably, next year, the largest item on the budget will be interest on the national debt--$270 billion a year in interest. It has to do with priorities in the Government. We have not had to choose what we think is most important for Government. We have simply said, ``Let's do it and put it on the tab.'' That is not responsible for any of us. It has to do with smaller Government. There is a relationship between how much money you spend and how much Government you have. I can tell you, the folks in my State would like to have less central Government, less activity. It has to do with savings for families, if we can reduce the interest payments on their cars and on their kid's college. It is the right thing to do. I am proud of the 55 Republicans who will vote ``aye'' and 11 Democrats who will join them to vote ``aye'' on this issue. I am proud of the fact that Members of this institution have talked the talk, and now are ready to walk the walk. That is important for us to do.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. About 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Utah for the time, but more particularly for the effort and the leadership he has given to this issue. Interestingly enough, it is one of the toughest issues. One would think moving to a balanced budget, ensuring a balanced budget, ensuring financial responsibility would not be such a tough issue. But this has been going on for a very long time. So I appreciate very much the job that has been done. We come to the vote on the issue finally. We have talked quite a little about it this year. We, of course, have talked for a number of years before. We can talk about a balanced budget if you choose, but what we are really talking about is financial responsibility. It is interesting to me to hear those who oppose it--and for good reason--who have been here for 20 years and say, ``Let's just do it, take the tough votes.'' But they haven't done it for 20 years. The monument in front of the leader's desk represents 28 years of unbalanced budgets. Yet, we hear all the time, just do it, take the tough votes and do it. Well, the evidence is that isn't what is done. We hear the same words every year: ``I am for a balanced budget, but * * *'' and then they go on to say why it can't be done. They go on to find reasons for not voting for the kind of discipline that it clearly takes to balance the budget. That is not a brand new idea. It is something we do in most of our States. We do it in my State of Wyoming, and we are proud of that. The legislature doesn't spend any more, under the constitution, than they take in. I am always interested in how we seek to shift this to some kind of a partisan thing and talk about the Presidents. Frankly, the Presidents don't decide the budget. That is specifically, under the Constitution, the prerogative and the role of the Congress. It starts in the House of Representatives. Spending--the President cannot do any spending without the Congress. So we say, oh, Reagan did this, and Bush did that, and Bill Clinton did this. I think we ought to get real with ourselves and say, wait a minute, it is the Congress that does the spending. But we hear the same thing. Then Senators go home and talk about balancing the budget, but then come and say, ``But, gosh, there is this little thing, and I cannot accept it in this present form.'' How many times have we heard that? Well, today, we have a chance to vote. I am very proud of the fact that there will be 55 Republicans and 11 Democrats voting aye, voting for fiscal responsibility, voting to say $5.5 trillion debt is more than we want to send off to our kids and grandkids. Other than defense, interest is the largest item in the budget--interest on the debt. We pay $270 billion in interest on the debt. So the real issues here, it seems to me, are broader than the details of the amendment. They are broader than whether we are going to balance the budget. They really have to do with your view of how large and inclusive the central Government is going to be. There is a very real relationship between the size of spending, the size of the deficit, and the size of Government. When I go home--and I think it is true of every other place--I hear that we have too much Federal Government. Every night on TV, we see all these things that are being spent. Nearly everyone believes that. Yet, spending continues to go up. The Senator talked about the great amount of courage it took to move, in 1993, to seek to balance the budget. How? The largest tax increase in the history of the world. So you see Government grow as that tax increase grows. So the real basic issue is more than just the amendment, more than just arithmetic, more than just the budget, it is how much Federal Government do you want in your lives and what are the proper roles of State and Federal Government and the private sector? Those are the real issues. So it divides pretty clearly between those who want more Government and want to spend more and whether or not people ought to be able to keep their own money. After all, the Government has no money except what it takes from us. So we hear constantly, ``Let's just do it.'' But the monument stays right in front of us. We haven't done it. Then we hear, ``Well, but we are going to do it now.'' But the President's budget has not moved toward balance. The President promised us a balanced budget, and it is not a balanced budget. No one would agree it is a balanced budget by 2002. On the contrary, there will probably be a $50 billion to $70 billion more deficit then. It will go up from where it is now. Furthermore, we don't have the kinds of things we would like to have that are targeted to needed tax relief for families. We need permanent tax relief that is not triggered. We need capital gains to encourage the economy. Instead of that, we have a budget presented--and we are to accept that as movement toward a balanced budget, by having a 75- percent backload; temporary tax cuts of $98 billion, but tax increases of $76 billion? Taxes go up the first year, and the tax cuts are not phased in until later. More entitlement spending, more Government--$60 billion in new entitlement spending. Is that called balancing the budget? It is, if you want to continue raising taxes. That is the real choice you and I have as voters and taxpayers. If you want more services, you have to pay more. That is the way that works. You know the best example of a really good government, I suppose, is on the local level when the school board says we need a new science room for the high school and it is going to cost you $50 a year and you get to vote on it and you balance it. You say, is it worth it, yes; is it worth it, no. Do we get to do that in the Federal Government? Oh, no, of course not. So what we are talking about here is really direction, whether we have less Government or whether we, on the central level, move more Government to States and local communities, whether we in fact are able to spend more money for our families as we choose or whether we spend more total tax--now the average family in the country spends 39 percent--on our income. I saw a poll the other day in which almost unanimously they said 25 percent is the maximum that we ought to pay. We are paying nearly 40. So, Mr. President, this is our opportunity. This is our chance to put our money where our mouth is. If we are going to balance the budget, this is the way to do it. The evidence is that we can't do it any other way. So I hope we have our vote this afternoon and it passes. If it doesn't, it is not the end. We will continue to do this. We will have to. It is the only way that we can be financially and fiscally responsible for the future. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will not, myself, use 30 minutes. I rise today to talk about a bill we introduced this week, introduced the day before yesterday, along with several of my friends from rural areas, including the Presiding Officer and Mr. Grams, who joins me, the Senator from Minnesota. We will talk a little bit about the Medicare Payment Equity Act. I come from a place called Wapiti, WY. It is actually a post office between Cody and Yellowstone Park. This is a rural area. So, the unique problems of rural medicine are near and dear to my heart. We have in the Senate what is called a rural health caucus which, actually, 77 Senators have shown an interest in. I do recall the rural health group in the House, as well, which was very active and, as a matter of fact, the Senator from Kansas, now presiding, was cochairman of that group. So, we have a bill that deals with rural health care. And there are unique problems in rural health care. Other sponsors include Senator Burns from Montana, Senator Grassley from Iowa, and Senator Kempthorne from Idaho. Basically, it is a question of fairness. All Americans pay the same rate into the payroll tax for Medicare, and I believe, as I think all would believe that each, then, deserves the same kind of health care and the same kind of health care choices, the same kinds of services for having paid that. But that is not the case. The payments for Medicare, managed care within Medicare, are greatly different throughout the country. They are greatly different largely because they were put into place, as a matter of history, as a matter of utilization in the fee-for-service area. So they vary a great deal. This chart will give some idea of what they are. Remember, each of these folks who receives these benefits has paid in similarly. However, the payments for managed care in Medicare, in Arthur, NE, are $221 a month. On the other hand, in Richmond County, NY, $767 a month. You can see the changes that exist here, and they are basically the highly utilized areas, the Floridas, the New Yorks and others who, in history of payments, have had high utilization so have a history of higher payments. The costs are not necessarily the same, but they are not that much different. What has happened is these risk contracts have basically been set on history and give enough additional services to take up that additional dollar. Not only do they get more money but they get more services. Here, in Blue Earth County, MN, the yearly payment is $600. Portland, OR, had $500; the beneficiary has to pay additional money, as is shown in the yellow. However, in Dade County, in Florida, the payment is $8,200 dollars a year. Not only do they get the additional payment, they have unlimited prescription drugs, a $700 credit for hearing aids, and have a great deal of additional benefits. Remember, all of them pay the same into the program. So what we have is a bill that would, over time, tend to equalize or at least levelize these kinds of payments. There are cost differences. The costs in New York City for rent and other kinds of things are higher than they are in Greybull, WY. We are willing to take that into account. However, expertise, medicines, and other kinds of things are just as valuable in Kansas as they are in Florida. So, what we propose to do and what this bill does is, rather than to continue this kind of reimbursement that is so out of place, it would gradually bring into account not only the costs that differentiate, but also a national average, intending to level these out. We do not propose to reduce the costs that are in place in the higher levels but we do propose to lift the increases, bring the increases up in the bottom levels so Wyoming providers will have an opportunity to compete, to provide these kinds of care. The other effect, in addition to not getting the kinds of services that are available through this inequity, is that users, seniors in Medicare who would like to have the option of managed care, really do not have it in rural areas because it has not come, due to the payments. For example, where is there growth in managed care and Medicare? Only 3.6 percent in rural areas have an opportunity for this. On the other hand, it is over 70 percent where the benefits are high, in the larger areas. So, our proposal is to equalize, at least move to equalize these payments, to move to equalize these benefits to reflect the fact that everyone pays the same and that there ought to be some equity with respect to the benefits that are provided. It is a fairness bill. It is one we have talked about before and, indeed, was part of the omnibus bill last year which was vetoed by the President. So we come back with it singled out to show that there is a problem, there is an inequity, there is an unfairness between rural and more populated areas. This bill, the Rural Medicare Payment Equity Act, will move to remove that inequity from Medicare and managed Medicare to all seniors of this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield as much time as he may use to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think maybe it is appropriate that the pages brought to the floor after we went into session what is essentially 26 years of unbalanced budgets. I think this is a great symbolic pile of stuff. We ought to remember that is what this whole thing is about. We hear people continuing to say, ``Well, let's just do it.'' We have not just done it, and here is the evidence. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want, first of all, to congratulate the Senator from Idaho for his leadership in this matter. I don't think there is a more important issue before us than the idea of being financially and fiscally responsible. I say that also to my friend from Florida, who supports this concept of accountability as well. Certainly there will be a lot said--there has been a lot said, maybe everything has already been said but maybe not everyone has said it--but it is broader than the books, it is broader than the numbers, it is broader than math. It is a question of being responsible to ourselves, being responsible to our children, being responsible to the future. It is a question of priorities. It is a question of, really, dealing with the issue rather than what has been done over the last 30 years, by saying, yes, we are going to balance, yes, we are going to balance the budget, yes, we are going to do it, and not doing it. I think one of the ironies is many of those who oppose this balanced budget amendment say, ``Oh, yes, we are going to do it,'' and point to the President's budget--which does not do it. It does not achieve balance by 2002 and stay in balance. It does not provide permanent tax relief. It does things in Medicare that are strictly gimmicks. It spends $21 billion more on welfare and raises taxes by $80 billion. It has $60 billion in new entitlements. So let us be clear that, if we want different results, we have to change the way we do things, and that is what this amendment is all about. Let me yield to my friend from Missouri. We have approximately 18 minutes left, and I will yield as much time as he requires.

Mr. THOMAS. How much time remains, I ask the Chair?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?