Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think it is useful for us to talk a little bit about the relatively little debate that goes on here. I think it is appropriate to talk a little about that. I know my friend from Nevada, whom I respect greatly, is sincere in his view. But I don't agree with what he has had to say. That is what this is all about. So I think we ought to talk about a combined budget, and talk a little bit about off-budget kinds of things. Again, my experience comes from Wyoming. The Wyoming Legislature has control over about 30 percent of the budget. All the rest of it is earmarked off to other things. I don't think that is a good idea or a good way to legislate. Let me, first of all, say that, naturally, if you want to sell a point, you try and get some kind of an emotional thing to say like ``save Social Security.'' There is not a soul in this place that doesn't want to protect Social Security. We are not talking about protecting Social Security. We are talking about the best way to protect Social Security. Two years from now, when the Social Security revenues have changed substantially, you are going to have it more protected by having it as part of the budget than you will by having it sit off by itself. Let me talk about this idea of spending it somewhere else. I presume my friend from Nevada would want to invest those surplus dollars so they would have some return to the Social Security fund. They are invested. They are invested in Government securities. They are invested where the law requires they be invested. It is not a matter of spending Social Security funds for other things. The fact is, when we have a deficit in the operating fund of the Government, we have to sell securities. They can sell them to Social Security, to Japan, to me, or to you. Nevertheless, we are using borrowed money. It is borrowed from the Social Security fund. This idea that you are spending it on something else is absolutely false. They are invested. They are protected. Now, he wants to balance the budget without it. All that takes is $700 billion of new money. Impossible. You can't do that. You just can't do that. We ought to have a combined budget, and will we be responsible for Social Security? Of course. Those funds get paid in for that purpose. They will be repaid. They have to be repaid to somebody. So this is a difference of view, and I understand that. But the idea that we take this off budget and set it aside and pass the balanced budget amendment is, of course, just not the case. The courts will decide. Again, we have lots and lots of States that have a balanced budget amendment. Do the courts decide? No, of course not. If the courts are going to come into play, they say to the legislative body, ``You have overspent, and you have to find a way to reduce it.'' And there is nothing particularly wrong with that. So, Mr. President, I just want to say again this sort of scare tactic that somehow if you are included in there, you are going to forget having it, not think it is important to have Social Security protected, is a fallacy, simply a fallacy. And I just think that we ought to challenge those kinds of comments. It is a little like what happened last year in the election, that the Republicans were going to do away with Medicare. Well, that is not true. The fact is if you do not make some changes in these programs, they will not exist. Just to say leave your hands off of it, leave it alone, is sure death for these kinds of programs. So we have a dilemma, and we solve it. We have talked about it for a very long time. It is time we move forward and make some decisions that will put us in a financially strong position, that will make us financially responsible and will include in a combined budget all those things that are there. I guess we ought to take the highway trust fund off; we ought to take the airport trust fund off; we ought to take off everything that has a designation. No, we are not going to do that. We are going to use the emotional issue of Social Security to seek to kill an amendment to the Constitution which says the Congress ought to exercise the kind of responsibility that it ought to exercise anyway and has not. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for a few minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. I shall be brief. Continuing with this important discussion on the balanced budget amendment, I specifically, as was the case with most of us, spent last week in our home districts. I spent last week in Wyoming at town meetings in places like Sheridan, Buffalo, and Casper, to talk about what people think about what is happening here. Of course, the balanced budget was one of the prime issues there, and continues to be. I think people are increasingly concerned about our lack of financial fiscal responsibility, of having 28 years without balancing the budget, of continuing to have a government that grows in size, continuing to spend more than we take in. I was persuaded, certainly from those who came to my town meetings, from those I talked to who say, ``Look, you need to get this job done.'' They say, ``You all collectively in Washington have been saying every year, yes, we will balance the budget, I want to balance the budget. You have not done it. You have not done it.'' Now they continue to say, ``Well, we do not need a constitutional amendment. We just need to balance the budget.'' We have not done it. Even those who have been here for a very long time and have gone through this whole thing have not balanced the budget. The idea you do not need to do something rings a bit hollow to people at home. The Wyoming Legislature is currently meeting. Wyoming has a constitutional requirement that the legislature not spend more than it takes in. It works very well. We will have, I think, certainly a series of amendments, all of which are designed to simply detract from what we are seeking to do, all of which are designed to give an option and an opportunity to not vote for a constitutional amendment, to say, ``Well, I am for it, but--'' We have been through that before. We will see that again today. ``I am for it, but . . .'' ``. . . but we do not want Social Security included.'' Now, we like the President's budget, we are moving toward it. Is Social Security in there? You bet it is. You bet it is. And it would not balance without. It does not balance as it is. So we are moving toward continuing to have an unbalanced budget in this President's proposal. I feel even renewed, Mr. President, in my quest for a balanced budget amendment, having been home, having talked to people who say, ``We do not want more and more spending. We do not want more and more of a central government.'' Really, when it comes down to it, that is the decision. That is really what it is. Those who want to see Government continue to grow larger, obviously are not for a balanced budget amendment. Those of us who think that the real message over the last number of years from home has been, look, we want less central Government, we want less spending, we want less taxes, those kinds of activities that can, should be moved to the States, and that is really the core issue. That is really what it is all about. I am hopeful we will continue this debate this week and have a chance to finally vote, have a chance to pass a constitutional amendment, have a chance to have the discipline that is required to do the things that everybody says they want to do and have it done. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Sure.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 343, a bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--formerly known as ``most- favored nation status''--to the products of Mongolia. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Robb and Senator McCain as original cosponsors. Mongolia has undergone a series of remarkable and dramatic changes over the last few years. Sandwiched between the former Soviet Union and China, it was one of the first countries in the world to become Communist after the Russian Revolution. After 70 years of Communist rule, though, the Mongolian people have recently made great progress in establishing a democratic political system and creating a free-market economy. Just last year, the country held its third election under its new constitution, resulting in a parliamentary majority for the coalition of democratic opposition parties. Rather than attempt to maintain its hold on power, the former government peaceably--and commendably--transferred power to the new government. Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States on trade and related matters since its turn towards democracy. We concluded a bilateral trade treaty with that country in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994. Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trading status since 1991, and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In addition, it has acceded to the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. Mr. President, Mongolia has clearly demonstrated that it is fully deserving of joining the ranks of those countries to which we extend nondiscriminatory trade status. The extension of that status would not only serve to commend the Mongolians on their impressive progress, but would also enable the United States to avail itself of all its rights under the WTO with respect to Mongolia. I have another, more parochial, reason for being interested in MFN status for Mongolia. Mongolia and my home State of Wyoming are sister States; a strong relationship between the two has developed over the last 4 years. Many of Mongolia's provincial governors have visited the State, and the two governments have established partnerships in education, agriculture, and livestock management. Like Wyoming, Mongolia is a high plateau with mountains on the northwest border, where many of the residents make their living by raising livestock. I am pleased to see the development of this mutually beneficial relationship, and am sure that the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status will serve to strengthen it further. Mr. President, I introduced an identical bill in the last Congress at the very end of the legislative year, as did Congressman Bereuter in the House. We both realized that it was too late in the year to move the legislation forward before we adjourned sine die, but we hoped that by introducing the bill then that it would serve as a catalyst to serious discussion of the issue in this Congress. I was very appreciative that last year the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, indicated his willingness to favorably consider the legislation early in this Congress, and look forward to working with him.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 342, a bill to extend certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices located in the United States. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Robb as an original cosponsor. The Hong Kong Government maintains Economic and Trade Offices in several countries to represent the Colony's economic and trade interests abroad; there are three such Offices in the United States-- San Francisco, New York, and Washington. As my colleagues are aware, at midnight on June 30, 1997, Hong Kong will revert to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [HKSAR]. The HKSAR will purportedly, under agreements reached between the PRC and the United Kingdom, enjoy a high degree of autonomy from the central government in Beijing except in the areas of foreign policy and defense. That autonomy includes the right to maintain economic and trade ties with third countries independent of Beijing. The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 provided, inter alia, that the United States should invite Hong Kong to maintain its Economic and Trade Offices after June 30. The reasoning was not only to continue to facilitate our trade relationship with our ninth biggest trading partner; in addition, the move was meant to underscore our commitment to an autonomous Hong Kong after 1997. This bill would extend to these offices and employees the provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act and the Agreement on State and local Taxation of Foreign Employees of Public International Organizations, thereby assuring that these offices are treated in the same manner as others similarly situated--such as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Offices, Taiwan's representative in the United States. Identical legislation passed the Senate unanimously late last year, but was not considered by the House before we adjourned sine die. Because the June deadline looms so near, I hope that we can move this bill quickly and without amendment through both Houses before the July 1 reversion of Hong Kong to China's jurisdiction.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 342, a bill to extend certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities to Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices located in the United States. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Robb as an original cosponsor. The Hong Kong Government maintains Economic and Trade Offices in several countries to represent the Colony's economic and trade interests abroad; there are three such Offices in the United States-- San Francisco, New York, and Washington. As my colleagues are aware, at midnight on June 30, 1997, Hong Kong will revert to the jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China as the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region [HKSAR]. The HKSAR will purportedly, under agreements reached between the PRC and the United Kingdom, enjoy a high degree of autonomy from the central government in Beijing except in the areas of foreign policy and defense. That autonomy includes the right to maintain economic and trade ties with third countries independent of Beijing. The Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 provided, inter alia, that the United States should invite Hong Kong to maintain its Economic and Trade Offices after June 30. The reasoning was not only to continue to facilitate our trade relationship with our ninth biggest trading partner; in addition, the move was meant to underscore our commitment to an autonomous Hong Kong after 1997. This bill would extend to these offices and employees the provisions of the International Organizations Immunities Act and the Agreement on State and local Taxation of Foreign Employees of Public International Organizations, thereby assuring that these offices are treated in the same manner as others similarly situated--such as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Offices, Taiwan's representative in the United States. Identical legislation passed the Senate unanimously late last year, but was not considered by the House before we adjourned sine die. Because the June deadline looms so near, I hope that we can move this bill quickly and without amendment through both Houses before the July 1 reversion of Hong Kong to China's jurisdiction.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 343, a bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--formerly known as ``most- favored nation status''--to the products of Mongolia. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Robb and Senator McCain as original cosponsors. Mongolia has undergone a series of remarkable and dramatic changes over the last few years. Sandwiched between the former Soviet Union and China, it was one of the first countries in the world to become Communist after the Russian Revolution. After 70 years of Communist rule, though, the Mongolian people have recently made great progress in establishing a democratic political system and creating a free-market economy. Just last year, the country held its third election under its new constitution, resulting in a parliamentary majority for the coalition of democratic opposition parties. Rather than attempt to maintain its hold on power, the former government peaceably--and commendably--transferred power to the new government. Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States on trade and related matters since its turn towards democracy. We concluded a bilateral trade treaty with that country in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994. Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trading status since 1991, and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In addition, it has acceded to the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization. Mr. President, Mongolia has clearly demonstrated that it is fully deserving of joining the ranks of those countries to which we extend nondiscriminatory trade status. The extension of that status would not only serve to commend the Mongolians on their impressive progress, but would also enable the United States to avail itself of all its rights under the WTO with respect to Mongolia. I have another, more parochial, reason for being interested in MFN status for Mongolia. Mongolia and my home State of Wyoming are sister States; a strong relationship between the two has developed over the last 4 years. Many of Mongolia's provincial governors have visited the State, and the two governments have established partnerships in education, agriculture, and livestock management. Like Wyoming, Mongolia is a high plateau with mountains on the northwest border, where many of the residents make their living by raising livestock. I am pleased to see the development of this mutually beneficial relationship, and am sure that the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status will serve to strengthen it further. Mr. President, I introduced an identical bill in the last Congress at the very end of the legislative year, as did Congressman Bereuter in the House. We both realized that it was too late in the year to move the legislation forward before we adjourned sine die, but we hoped that by introducing the bill then that it would serve as a catalyst to serious discussion of the issue in this Congress. I was very appreciative that last year the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, indicated his willingness to favorably consider the legislation early in this Congress, and look forward to working with him.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation designed to protect open space near and around Grand Teton National Park. Currently, open space near the park, with its majestic, signature vistas and abundant wildlife, continues to decline. As the population grows in Teton County, WY, undeveloped land near the park becomes more scarce. This loss of open space negatively impacts wildlife migration routes in the area and diminishes the experience of visitors to the region. The repercussions due to the loss of open space can be felt throughout the entire area. As stewards, we must act now to preserve the view and make such a value a component of our environmental agenda. A few working ranches make up Teton Valley's remaining open space. These ranches depend on grazing in Grand Teton National Park for summer range to maintain their operations. The original act creating the park allowed several permittees to continue grazing in the area for the life of a designated heir in the family. Unfortunately, the last remaining heirs have died and their family's grazing privileges are going to be terminated. As a result, the open space around the park, which remains available due to the viability of these ranch operations, will most likely be subdivided and developed. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to help continue to protect open space in Teton Valley. In order to develop the best solution to protect open space near Teton Park, my legislation directs the National Park Service to conduct a 3-year study of grazing in the area and its impact on open space in the region. This report should develop workable solutions that are fiscally responsible and conscious of the preservation of open space. The study will be conducted by the National Park Service with input from citizens, local government officials, and the landowners in the area. With the approach of the spring and summer grazing season, it is vital for the Congress to act on this legislation as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with the National Park Service on this important matter to preserve and protect open space in Teton Valley. Grand Teton National Park is truly one of the treasures of our Nation and this legislation will help preserve this wonderful area for many years to come.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is one of my top priorities for this Congress. It is called the Freedom from Government Competition Act. It is I think a common sense, good Government reform bill. I am joined in the effort by Senators Hagel, Kyl, Enzi, Brownback, and Craig. This legislation has the potential to open up a $30 billion market for the Nation's small and large businesses. It is designed to level the playing field for thousands of businesses that span the economic spectrum of this country from the mundane to the high tech. It will also provide a more efficient Government, one that works better and costs less. Government competition with the private sector is a growing problem. Over the last 40 years, it has been the Federal policy of saying let us do those things that are commercial in the private sector, but it has not worked. We have not moved toward that goal. The bureaucracy has not found ways and means to procure goods and services from the private sector. For example, CBO has estimated that 1.4 million employees work in areas that are commercial in nature. We need a statutory provision to correct this problem. In order to reach the goal of a balanced budget, we need to rely, I believe, on the private sector for many of the Federal Government's needs. Various studies indicate that we can save up to $30 billion annually doing this. This competition, of course, not only wastes taxpayers' money but it stunts job growth in the private sector, stifles economic growth, erodes the tax base and hurts small businesses. And it has been one of the top priorities in the three meetings of the White House Conference on Small Business. The bill basically codifies the 40-year-old Federal policy and that is to use the private sector. There are exceptions to this policy laid out in the bill: those functions that are inherently governmental, those goods and services that are in the interest of national security, goods or services that the Federal Government can provide better at a better value than the private sector, and goods and services, of course, that the private sector cannot provide. This bill establishes a system where OMB can identify those functions to properly stay within the Federal establishment and those that can better be done by the private sector. This legislation establishes an office of commercial activities within OMB to do that. No longer is the agency that is charged with doing the contracting the one that makes decisions of whether it will be contracted or not. Certainly we are all sensitive to Federal employees' concerns should they be impacted. For those who are displaced, we have included provisions that facilitate transition to the private sector if they choose to follow that path. The intention of the legislation is to get agencies to focus on their core missions. This focus will ensure a better value to American taxpayers. I do not wish to abolish all Government functions. But I am saying that there is private sector expertise waiting to be utilized. Congressman Duncan in the House has introduced a companion bill. It also was introduced today. The U.S. Senate is already on record as supporting this concept. Last year you may recall the Senate voted 59 to 39 in favor of an amendment I offered on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill that would have prevented unfair Government competition with the private sector. However, it was dropped from the omnibus spending package. This comprehensive legislation builds on that success. Also, last year the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on this bill. We received some good input and have made some changes in the bill based on it. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this legislation. I think the political climate is right for enacting this concept. Finally, it is a fairly simple bill. It says that we still believe in the philosophy of having the private sector do those things that are commercial in nature. This legislation lays out a system for doing that, identifying those things that are inherently governmental and those goods and services that can be done in the private sector. It's an idea this Congress really ought to consider. It would be a money saver. It is philosophically right, it will help the private sector a great deal and give taxpayers a bigger bang for their buck. I ask unanimous consent that the following materials be printed in the Record: A copy of the bill, a section-by-section analysis, a list of groups endorsing the bill, a letter of endorsement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a letter of endorsement from the Business Coalition for Fair Competition.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I yield the floor. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation designed to protect open space near and around Grand Teton National Park. Currently, open space near the park, with its majestic, signature vistas and abundant wildlife, continues to decline. As the population grows in Teton County, WY, undeveloped land near the park becomes more scarce. This loss of open space negatively impacts wildlife migration routes in the area and diminishes the experience of visitors to the region. The repercussions due to the loss of open space can be felt throughout the entire area. As stewards, we must act now to preserve the view and make such a value a component of our environmental agenda. A few working ranches make up Teton Valley's remaining open space. These ranches depend on grazing in Grand Teton National Park for summer range to maintain their operations. The original act creating the park allowed several permittees to continue grazing in the area for the life of a designated heir in the family. Unfortunately, the last remaining heirs have died and their family's grazing privileges are going to be terminated. As a result, the open space around the park, which remains available due to the viability of these ranch operations, will most likely be subdivided and developed. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to help continue to protect open space in Teton Valley. In order to develop the best solution to protect open space near Teton Park, my legislation directs the National Park Service to conduct a 3-year study of grazing in the area and its impact on open space in the region. This report should develop workable solutions that are fiscally responsible and conscious of the preservation of open space. The study will be conducted by the National Park Service with input from citizens, local government officials, and the landowners in the area. With the approach of the spring and summer grazing season, it is vital for the Congress to act on this legislation as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with the National Park Service on this important matter to preserve and protect open space in Teton Valley. Grand Teton National Park is truly one of the treasures of our Nation and this legislation will help preserve this wonderful area for many years to come.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is one of my top priorities for this Congress. It is called the Freedom from Government Competition Act. It is I think a common sense, good Government reform bill. I am joined in the effort by Senators Hagel, Kyl, Enzi, Brownback, and Craig. This legislation has the potential to open up a $30 billion market for the Nation's small and large businesses. It is designed to level the playing field for thousands of businesses that span the economic spectrum of this country from the mundane to the high tech. It will also provide a more efficient Government, one that works better and costs less. Government competition with the private sector is a growing problem. Over the last 40 years, it has been the Federal policy of saying let us do those things that are commercial in the private sector, but it has not worked. We have not moved toward that goal. The bureaucracy has not found ways and means to procure goods and services from the private sector. For example, CBO has estimated that 1.4 million employees work in areas that are commercial in nature. We need a statutory provision to correct this problem. In order to reach the goal of a balanced budget, we need to rely, I believe, on the private sector for many of the Federal Government's needs. Various studies indicate that we can save up to $30 billion annually doing this. This competition, of course, not only wastes taxpayers' money but it stunts job growth in the private sector, stifles economic growth, erodes the tax base and hurts small businesses. And it has been one of the top priorities in the three meetings of the White House Conference on Small Business. The bill basically codifies the 40-year-old Federal policy and that is to use the private sector. There are exceptions to this policy laid out in the bill: those functions that are inherently governmental, those goods and services that are in the interest of national security, goods or services that the Federal Government can provide better at a better value than the private sector, and goods and services, of course, that the private sector cannot provide. This bill establishes a system where OMB can identify those functions to properly stay within the Federal establishment and those that can better be done by the private sector. This legislation establishes an office of commercial activities within OMB to do that. No longer is the agency that is charged with doing the contracting the one that makes decisions of whether it will be contracted or not. Certainly we are all sensitive to Federal employees' concerns should they be impacted. For those who are displaced, we have included provisions that facilitate transition to the private sector if they choose to follow that path. The intention of the legislation is to get agencies to focus on their core missions. This focus will ensure a better value to American taxpayers. I do not wish to abolish all Government functions. But I am saying that there is private sector expertise waiting to be utilized. Congressman Duncan in the House has introduced a companion bill. It also was introduced today. The U.S. Senate is already on record as supporting this concept. Last year you may recall the Senate voted 59 to 39 in favor of an amendment I offered on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill that would have prevented unfair Government competition with the private sector. However, it was dropped from the omnibus spending package. This comprehensive legislation builds on that success. Also, last year the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on this bill. We received some good input and have made some changes in the bill based on it. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this legislation. I think the political climate is right for enacting this concept. Finally, it is a fairly simple bill. It says that we still believe in the philosophy of having the private sector do those things that are commercial in nature. This legislation lays out a system for doing that, identifying those things that are inherently governmental and those goods and services that can be done in the private sector. It's an idea this Congress really ought to consider. It would be a money saver. It is philosophically right, it will help the private sector a great deal and give taxpayers a bigger bang for their buck. I ask unanimous consent that the following materials be printed in the Record: A copy of the bill, a section-by-section analysis, a list of groups endorsing the bill, a letter of endorsement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and a letter of endorsement from the Business Coalition for Fair Competition.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. It is interesting to stand here beside these budgets that have gone on for 26 years--this is less than that--and to then have to say we have not balanced the budget in all that time. Yet, we hear constantly that we do not need to do anything differently than we have been doing. It is hard to imagine that you are going to have different results if you do not do something different. I was interested in the comments of the Senator from North Dakota. Each of us has a little different idea about what has happened and what has occurred in terms of economics. Each of us has a little different idea about why we made some progress over the last several years in reducing the deficit. Certainly one reason is we raised taxes so that the average payment of taxes in this country is now about 40 percent of the income to families. You can balance the budget that way if you want to continue to let Government grow. Continue to raise taxes; that is a way to balance the budget. That is partly what this whole discussion is about. Interestingly enough, the Senator talked about the balanced budget amendment looting Social Security. I was going to ask the Senator, if he was still here, whether Social Security income is in the budget that he talks about that the President is going to balance by 2003. Of course it is there. All the trust funds are there that he says you cannot put into a balanced budget amendment. They are in the budget that the Senator brags about balancing. If you took the Social Security out of it, by that time you would have to raise $700 billion additional to do that. This is a unified budget. So, it is interesting how we seem to have different views. I guess if we did not have different views, why, there would not be any discussion about this. We would either do it or not. Basically, one of the differences, I think, between those of us here who want to have a balanced budget amendment to ensure that we, in fact, in the future have a balanced budget and have fiscal responsibility is whether you want more and more Government or whether you want a balanced budget to have something to do with holding down the size of Government and the increase in taxes. That is the choice. If you are going to use the balanced budget amendment simply to grow, and use the balanced budget, as the President has this year, to have an increase in spending by $1.5 trillion, then that is a choice. The other choice is to allow families to have more of their own money and spend it as they choose, to have a smaller central Government and move some of those activities to local governments, to States and counties. So that is the decision. It has been, I think, a most interesting discussion. Of course, the budget is, I think, the key to what we do here. Obviously, there are many other things that the Government must do and that the Congress must do and the administration must do, but it all pretty much turns around what you do with the budget. The budget is a guideline of where you go, what your priorities are, what your spending is. It is also a guideline of your idea of how large Government is, as opposed to a reduced size Government. It has to do with how much tax you intend to levy. So the budget is the key to where we have been. We talked about it for years and will continue to, I suppose, forever. It has a great deal to do with what you believe is the responsibility of this Congress and the responsibility of the Government, and the responsibility of you and me, Mr. President, to establish a spending pattern in which we are responsible for the spending we incur and not pass it on to all of our children and on to future generations, which is precisely what we have done now. I hear some on the TV saying, ``Well, a balanced budget isn't that important. The deficit really isn't that important.'' The interest payment on the deficit this year will be about $250 billion, almost as much as defense. It will soon be more than defense. If it continues as projected, it will be $330 billion a year out of the budget to pay interest on the debt. So it is important. It has to do with responsibility. The Senator from North Dakota mentioned Jefferson. Jefferson had a strong feeling about budgets. Let me quote from the desk of Thomas Jefferson: I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our Government. I mean an additional article taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing. Thomas Jefferson said if you are going to use it, you ought to pay for it. And certainly he's exactly right. I think we need to look at the benefits of having a balanced budget. We have talked about it a great deal. It is not just a benefit to the country, it is not just a benefit to the economy, it is a benefit to you and me in our lives. It's a benefit to you and me in what we have to pay to do the things we have to do. On an $80,000 mortgage, the savings per year with a balanced budget amendment with a reduction in interest could be $1,272 for the average family. On a $15,000 car loan, monthly payments would be reduced by 200 bucks. It's a real benefit for us, as well as being the financially and morally responsible thing to do. Some say, ``Just do it, we don't need an amendment.'' Good idea. The evidence, however, is that that is not the case. The evidence is that we have talked about it for 26 years, through good times and bad. We say, ``Well, you have to leave it flexible enough for emergencies.'' I certainly agree with that, and this balanced budget amendment has that provision. But we have done it through good times and bad. We have wanted to spend more than we have been willing to pay in, and that's what it is about. We say, ``Just do it.'' I don't think there is any question but what the President's budget doesn't just do it. The President's budget doesn't get us there. The President's budget doesn't balance the budget over a period of time. Really, there is very little reason to oppose a balanced budget amendment. There are a number of reasons that are given, a number of excuses that are given. Social Security is one. Almost everyone who looks at it says, if you want to save Social Security, it needs to be part of the integrated budget. Right now, there is a surplus in Social Security. We know there will not be later, and we will have to make that accommodation. If you take Social Security out of it, I wonder how many things will be put into the Social Security Program by the Congress so they would be off budget. We have been through that before. We have seen that happen before. Oversight by the court? How many States are there that have a balanced budget amendment of some kind? There are 40, I believe. We do in Wyoming in my home State. The court's job is to say if you haven't balanced the budget in terms of revenues equaling expenditures, then you fix it. That is the authority that they should have. An emergency? It provides for an emergency with 60 votes, a supermajority. If we have an emergency, 60 votes would not be hard to get. Mr. President, I think we will be going forward for some time now, for a couple of weeks, talking about the balanced budget amendment, talking about the benefits that it has to this country, the benefits that it has to American families. And I am hopeful that we have now come to the position where we will say, ``Look, let's pass this amendment, send this amendment to the States, and three-quarters of the States will have to ratify it.'' I believe there is strong feeling among the American people, that among all things, we ought to be financially and fiscally responsible, that we ought not to pass on these debts to our offspring. So, Mr. President, a number of us have come to the floor this morning to talk about that. I believe very strongly that it is the responsible thing to do. I believe that the amendments that we will have are not designed to strengthen our responsibility but, indeed, to kill the amendment so that there will not be the constant of fiscal responsibility applied to our future budgeting. And, therefore, I feel very strongly that it ought to pass. I appreciate the opportunity to share some of those thoughts. I now yield to my friend, the Senator from Iowa, for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. We will expect several more of my associates here, but I will begin that.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe that we have special order time for 12:30 to 1?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arkansas. It seems to me that is a very important aspect of this business of balancing the budget. It is not only a mechanical matter, it is not only a fiscal matter, it is a moral matter, and whether or not we have the responsibility to balance the budget and pass on to our kids something that is as good as we had. Certainly the economics of it are very important, the economics in terms of the amount of interest we pay and all those things. But it is a moral imperative that we be responsible for what we are doing. If we are going to buy it, we have to pay for it. That is a great concept. I thank the Senator from Arkansas. Let me now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Ohio, Senator DeWine.

Mr. THOMAS. We are going to talk about the budget--not a new idea, but, I suspect, the most important issue that we have to talk about, because everything else, everything else that is discussed here, everything else that is decided here will be a function of doing something with the budget. The Senator from New Hampshire, who just finished, talked about education and special education, which happens to be something that I am very interested in, but it is budgetary; it has to do with the budget. The budget has to do with more than just arithmetic, more than just a balance sheet; it has to do with priorities, it has to do with fiscal responsibility for our kids, and our grandkids, it has to do with deciding what our direction will be in this country in terms of the Federal Government. So, Mr. President, we want to talk about that this morning. I will be joined by several of my associates in the freshman and sophomore class who have come together to put a focus on events, and particularly a focus to try to talk about how what we do here with regard to the budget in this instance has to do with where we live, has to do with you and me in terms of our families, has to do with how we have the resources to send our kids to school and pay our bills. There is a direct relationship. So let me yield 10 minutes to my friend, the new Senator from Arkansas, Senator Hutchinson.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank my friend from Kansas and welcome him in his initial visit to the floor. I am sure he will be back many times, and I hope that is the case. Mr. President, we have now an opportunity. I am optimistic about it. We all heard the President's State of the Union Message last night. He listed a great many things that he is interested in. Certainly most of them are positive kinds of things that, in one way or another, we want to work with as well. So we listened to the President. We listened to the voters. We listened to the American people. And now we are ready to work on some solutions toward really all of America. There is a plan soon for the congressional leadership to visit with the President, to sit down and talk about a number of things. Balancing the budget is one. Improving education, certainly, to move more and more education toward local communities and parental involvement; to provide some permanent tax relief so that we can increase investments, so that we can increase jobs, and so that we can increase the ability of families to prepare for themselves. Much of that is affected by what we do. What we do about interest rates that have a direct impact on the budget has much to do with what we do with this debt, a debt of $5.5 trillion, the interest upon which will become, if not this year, soon, the largest single line-item in the budget--$275 billion in interest, none of which is used for education, none of which is used to fight drugs, and none of which is used for investment--interest on the debt that we accumulate. Mr. President, I am excited that the President of the United States said to us last year that the ``era of big Government is over.'' He said that the Government is not the answer to everything, that we need to be responsible, that we need to be responsible to ourselves as individuals and citizens. Certainly, that is true. We need to be responsible as a Government, and we need to be responsible as people who have been sent here to deal with the budget--about physical matters. So that is what we are dealing with, two things: One is balancing the budget and being responsible; and then having the ability, which we have not had for 28 or 29 years, of doing it, and how do we change things to cause that to happen? We believe that it is the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which provides, as it does in Wyoming, Mr. President--as you well know just coming from the legislature there--a requirement as a legislature and the Governor not to spend beyond its revenues. It works. Many other States have the same kind of thing. So we have heard for some time from our voters and our constituents that they want smaller Government, a Government that is more efficient, and a budget that is balanced. We have heard from the President that he is ready for a smaller Government, that the era of big Government is over. We will see his budget, I think, tomorrow, and that will be when the rubber really hits the road. It is not just talking about it, but doing it. We will be sharing that responsibility with the President to do that. There will be all kinds of suggestions as to how a balanced budget ought to be changed. There will be some scare tactics saying it is going to ruin Social Security. If you want to protect Social Security, you need to balance the budget. I am one who believes that we ought to have a Social Security net for the elderly. I want to continue it. I do not want to see it run out. The same is true with Medicare. The best way to do that is to balance the budget. If we do not do that, we will not have money to do any of those kinds of things. So we will hear a lot about it. We need a budget that is honest. We need one that is out there not one that is backloaded, where it looks good for a couple of years and all of a sudden for somebody else it is piled up at a very high rate. We need one that is honest and forthright. We do not need gimmicks. We do not need to move things from one place to another. We do not need to trigger it so that it takes over in a certain way. We do not need budgets that have tax relief in it for a little while and then they go away. We need some real honest budgeting so that everyone is confident in understanding that that is where we are. I hope each of us remembers the impact it has on everyone at home. Interest rates could be lower. Debt for kids to go to school could be less. Borrowing on our homes, borrowing on our cars, these are all related. This is not an abstract thing that belongs in somebody's accounting book. This is not for accountants and CPAs only. They affect each of us where we live. Families pay $1,500 a year easily on mortgage payments. So these are the kinds of things that we are doing. So I think all of my associates welcome the President's commitment to a balanced budget. We certainly look forward to his ideas and to how that budget will work as he releases it tomorrow. But most of all, I think we need to take the responsibility to make the changes that have to be made, and now is the time. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio. You hear these arguments, and almost no one would disagree with the notion that we need to pay the bills. Few would argue with the idea that it is irresponsible for us to leave it for someone else to pay later. Yet, it has been 1969 since we have had a balanced budget. There is a legitimate argument to be addressed that we must be flexible if there is a war or a disaster. There has to be some movement, as there is in your family. But the fact is that we haven't done it. We have not done it. So we need to make some difference. You can't expect to change things if you continue to follow the same course. That is precisely what has gone on here. So we have an opportunity now, for the first time in some time, to do what I think most people believe ought to be done. You might ask why are the freshmen and sophomores particularly doing this this morning, and doing it as a focus on issues throughout the year? I think it is because we are the ones who have most recently gone through the elections, who have most recently been to Greybull, WY, and small towns in Ohio. We know that people want to balance the budget. We know that the folks where we come from say, ``Look, we have to be fiscally responsible, and our State has a balanced budget amendment. We have to do that stuff, and it works.'' Furthermore, we want some control of the growth in Federal Government. We don't want it to grow exponentially. We want it to be under control. Everyone in this place says, ``Yes, I am for a balanced budget, but I don't want to do anything that would cause us to have to do that. I don't want any discipline applied.'' I think that is the issue that we are coming upon, the issue we will deal with. Do you want a balanced budget? Yes. How do we get there? Just do it. Well, that doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for some time. So that's what it's all about and where we are. We are talking about a process to cause us to do the things that almost unanimously we would choose to do. Mr. President, I am glad to be joined by the Senator from Kansas to talk a bit about the balanced budget. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me assure you that I do not intend to talk for 60 minutes. However, we do intend to use some time as a special order today and will be doing this over a period of time to talk about issues that are important, I think, to the American people and that are important to this Congress, the issues that we now begin to deal with.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is an honor to join the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, in introducing legislation to create a 2-year budget and appropriations process. Senator Domenici has worked long and hard on this issue and I am hopeful that we can finally enact this commonsense reform this year. The current budget process is breaking down. Congress and the executive branch spend entirely too much time on budget issues. Since the most recent budget process reform in 1974, Congress has consistently failed to complete action on the Federal budget before the start of the fiscal year and, as a result, has increasingly relied on omnibus spending measures to fund the Federal Government. In fact, since 1977, Congress has passed over 60 continuing resolutions just to keep the Federal Government open. The budget resolution, reconciliation bill, and appropriations bills continue to become more time consuming. In the process, authorizing committees are being squeezed out of the schedule. There are too many votes on the same issues and too much duplication. In the end, this time could be better spent conducting vigorous oversight of Federal programs which currently go unchecked, exacerbating the Federal budget deficit. In response to these problems, last Congress I introduced legislation that would create a biennial budget process. I am pleased to continue this effort by joining Senator Domenici in offering this bill. It will rectify many of the problems regarding the current process by promoting timely action on budget legislation. In addition, it will eliminate much of the redundancy in the current budget process. This legislation does not eliminate any of the current budget processes--each step serves an important role in congressional deliberations. However, by making decisions once every 2 years instead of annually, the burden should be significantly reduced. Perhaps most importantly, biennial budgeting will provide more time for effective congressional oversight, which will help reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government. Congress simply needs more time to review existing Federal programs in order to determine priorities in our drive to balance the budget. Another benefit of a 2-year budget cycle is its effect on long-term planning. A biennial budget will allow the executive branch and State and local governments, all of which depend on congressional appropriations, to do a better job making plans for long-term projects. Two-year budgets are not a novel idea. Nor will biennial budgeting cure all of the Federal Government's ills. However, separating the budget session from the oversight session works well across the country in our State legislatures. It is a solid first step toward restoring some fiscal accountability in our Nation's Capital. I am hopeful this bill will be a catalyst for action on this commonsense, good Government reform.

Mr. THOMAS

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

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