Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I must say that this is one of the least straightforward legal arguments that I have seen. In effect, the administration is saying ``go ahead and hold a hearing on the fitness of this nominee to occupy and conduct the duties of an office which we have not yet created but will create at some time in the future.'' I believe that the clear and serious problems with that argument are self-evident. Mr. President, what the OLC proposes raises a serious constitutional separation of powers issue in my mind. The Senate's advice and consent function requires a review not simply of the nominee, but of his or her qualifications and fitness to fill a particular office. To call for Senate confirmation of a nominee before the creation of the office that he would fill would deprive the Senate of that complete inquiry. The OLC has sought to brush aside the problems created by asking us to hold a hearing on an uncreated office by stating that ``[e]ven if that particular ambassadorship has yet to be created, the duties and responsibilities of an ambassador are of course perfectly familiar to the Senate.'' But hypothetically, Mr. President, if we were to confirm an ambassador for an as-yet uncreated office, what is there to assure us that a President could not simply change the nature or duties of the office at his whim after the fact, leaving us--having given our consent--with no constitutional recourse? The Framers of the Constitution did not envision a carte blanche for the State Department in circumstances such as these. To hold a hearing under these circumstances would set an unadvisable precedent for the Senate. Although the OLC states that there is precedent for our confirming a nominee for which the office did not yet exist, their two examples are not applicable to the facts in the Peterson case. First and foremost, none involved the position of ambassador. Second, both involved executive-branch bodies that were legislatively created--the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The legislation creating each office had already become law, but provided that the particular respective offices and their holders --in these cases OSHRC Commissioner and Secretary of HEW--were to become effective at a later specific date. So OLC overlooks the fact that the offices had therefore already been created, but they were just not yet functional at the time the nominees were confirmed. An unfilled office is hardly the same thing as an uncreated office. Given all this, Mr. President, I feel that the Constitution presently precludes our giving our advice and consent regarding the Peterson nomination. Moreover, I believe that it is inadvisable--in view of the Senate's constitutional role in the nomination process--to move ahead with the nomination hearing. If we accept for the sake of argument the White House position that, as the State Department spokesman put it, the office of ambassador is not created until the nominee actually takes up that office, we would be holding a hearing on confirming an individual for a position that does not yet exist. I have just mentioned the problems I have with that conclusion. How then would we exercise what is basically our constitutionally mandated oversight function? How would we determine whether the nominee is fit for the office to which he has been nominated if that office--and consequently its constituent functions and duties --has not come into being? Given all these substantial problems, I and the chairman have concluded that it would be better to postpone the hearing on Representative Peterson's nomination until after January 3, 1997, when his term--and the constitutional issue--expire. I pledge to my colleagues, and more importantly to Congressman Peterson, that if I am chairman of the East Asia Subcommittee in the next Congress my very first hearing will be on this nomination. And I will, in any case, do everything I can to expedite the nomination process for him. Mr. President, in closing let me stress what our decision to postpone the hearing is not about. First, as I mentioned at the beginning of my statement today it is not about Pete Peterson. I have never heard any Member, regardless of their position on normalization of relations with the SRV, have anything but praise for the Congressman. He has an exemplary record of service to his country spanning several decades of which I believe all my colleagues are aware. As an Air Force captain, he was flying a combat mission in September 1966 when a North Vietnamese surface-to-air missile struck his Phantom jet fighter. He ejected free of the plane, but parachuted into a tree in the dark breaking an arm, leg, and shoulder. He was captured by the Vietnamese and spent 6\1/2\ years as a POW. He first came to Congress in 1991. When his nomination comes before the committee and the full Senate, I intend to vote in favor of it. It is unfortunate, frankly, that Congressman Peterson has become the victim of what I would charitably characterize as administration bungling. The administration completely failed to address this issue until our staffs brought it to their attention in mid-July. But it should not have come as a surprise to them, Mr. President--the issue has come up several times in previous administrations and even once in this administration with the nomination of Senator Lloyd Bentsen to be Treasury Secretary. Sadly, the only mention of the issue in the Administration prior to our raising the issue was the following one- page memo dated May 17, 1996, which somewhat ironically only addresses the emoluments portion of the clause--the only portion of the clause not applicable in Congressman Peterson's case. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the memo be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 5179.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is an amendment, obviously, that decreases the funding level for the Council of Environmental Quality in the amount of funding that was passed by the House, and I rise to discuss this. This amendment is offered largely because of what I think is the unfortunate changes that have taken place in CEQ during the Clinton administration. Congress established this council, the National Environmental Policy Act, to facilitate the implementation of NEPA and to coordinate the environmental activities of the executive branch. Congress envisioned CEQ as a technical resource for Federal agencies that were confronted with questions about NEPA. Unfortunately, the intention and reality have diverged under the Clinton administration. CEQ has not fulfilled the statutory mandates of NEPA, nor many of the promises which the chairman made to this Congress. I happened to be involved with the committee hearings last year on the confirmation of this chairman, and we talked a lot about how we were going to work together. Instead, CEQ has been actively engaged in partisan kinds of things with respect to those issues before the Congress. CEQ has not done many of the things that have been prescribed under the law. NEPA requires CEQ to provide an annual quarterly report--annual. The last report prepared was completed 3 years ago, in 1993, and that report remains the only report CEQ has prepared under the Clinton administration despite the statutory mandate. In that report, CEQ promised a handbook to facilitate Agency compliance of NEPA. This handbook still has not been drafted, let alone published for Agency use. CEQ promised the Congress a comprehensive study of NEPA's effectiveness at the end of 1995. CEQ's effectiveness study has still not been finalized despite repeated assurances that it would be. They promised Congress it would assist the Forest Service in streamlining the Agency's issuance of grazing permits. After some initial progress, there has not been a meeting between the Forest Service and CEQ in 6 months. Last November, Senator Craig and I sent a detailed letter to Ms. McGinty, the chairman, suggesting reform to NEPA, compliance at the Forest Service. Other than an initial ``thank you'' for the letter, we have not heard anything about those suggestions. This lack of followup is all too common at the CEQ and indicative of an Agency which apparently has lost its way. Things CEQ has been doing under the administration, CEQ has been involved in every timber sale which has occurred in national forests, been involved in the northern spotted owl debate in the Pacific Northwest, and now injected itself into the California spotted owl. Ms. McGinty has taken up a number of things that are basically political, propaganda, including grazing, and has characterized the Public Rangeland Management Act, passed by this Senate, as a special interest give-away; lambasted the Republican platform as full of ``anti-environmental language,'' such as private property rights and streamlining regulations, despite the fact that in the hearings she indicated that is what we ought to do, make it simpler and streamline. On timber salvage legislation, House Members have written to the President complaining about mischaracterization of the law. Mr. President, I guess I use this opportunity to talk a little bit about something that bothers me a great deal. I am very much interested in the kinds of things that go on in the environment and very much interested in the kinds of things that go on in the West. I am very much interested in trying to simplify and make more effective NEPA and some of the other activities that relate to that. I think that this has not been done. I think it should be done. There needs to be a wake-up call to that committee. Perhaps this will be that. Rather than pursue it, however, in view of the time and things we are doing, I will withdraw my amendment. But I do want to have this opportunity to say that I think we need to do something differently. There are great opportunities for this committee to be effective and to bring about less rhetoric and more action. So, Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill for this opportunity. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn, and I will continue to work with it in the conference committee.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Maryland, and I look forward to further discussion.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I rise in strong support of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. We all travel through our States extensively, and the topic of unnecessary regulation in the environmental areas comes up as often as any other topic when I hold meetings in Wyoming. Wyoming folks are tired of the top-down approach mandating expensive regulations for questionable benefits. This bill says we can do a better job of protecting public health, and at the same time, inject common sense into the process. This bill helps State and local communities meet Federal standards by creating a Federal grant program to capitalize State revolving loan funds for drinking water treatment. The mandate that 25 new contaminants are regulated every 3 years, whether at risk of human health or not is repealed. Finally, EPA will be able to prioritize efforts and cost benefits are inserted into the process. The State role is increased. Systems will be able to focus their monitoring efforts on those contaminants that actually occur in the systems. Most importantly for my State, small communities will finally be given special consideration and assistance under the bill. States can grant variances for systems that serve people under 3,300. That is 90 percent of the water systems in Wyoming. With EPA approval that number goes up to 10,000. Small systems qualify for monitoring relief. There are a few groups that will, once again, find an excuse to oppose this legislation, just as they did when it passed the Senate 99 to 0. I agree with them, this bill is not perfect. For instance, I am skeptical of the so-called consumer confidence report. These reports will not build confidence, in my judgment. They will simply create confusion. They will simply create confusion. I call them consumer confusion reports, at a cost of about $20 million per year. CBO says that, on balance, this bill will save local water systems in State and local governments millions of dollars. That is good news to the taxpayers. This bill includes several provisions to ensure that Wyoming, the only nonprimacy State, can take full advantage of the benefits of this bill. It makes sense, it furthers the protection of human health and enjoys widespread bipartisan support. S. 1316 is a bill the President can support, he should support it without reservation, and we should get it on his desk quickly. Mr. President, this is truly historic legislation and I was pleased to have the opportunity to play a part in its development as a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works as well as the conference committee that crafted the compromise legislation before us today. This legislation is historic for both what it does, and what it does not do. What this bill does is trust folks in the states and local communities to protect their citizens, increases flexibility to meet standards, injects common sense into the regulatory process, allows the Environmental Protection Agency to set priorities and focus limited resources on the biggest health threats, and finally recognizes that small communities in Wyoming face unique challenges and need different strategies to meet standards than New York City does. What this bill does not do is impose expensive unfunded mandates on localities, rely on the Washington knows best command and control method of regulation or blindly force regulation for regulation sake without addressing the costs and benefits. This is a massive shift in the way we approach environmental regulation that allows us to increase environmental protection while reducing unnecessary costs to the regulated community, and I hope it becomes a model for other statutes that desperately need reform. I am particularly pleased with the approach this bill takes in helping small public water systems comply with the standards set by the Safe Drinking Water Act. As you know, Mr. President, small communities face unique challenges not found in large cities. These small systems, by their very nature, don't have the economies of scale found in large cities. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has always set standards and determined affordable technologies based on water systems of 100,000 or more. What may be affordable for a system of this size is obviously prohibitive in Pinedale, WY. There are several provisions in this conference report that will help small systems affordably comply with the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act and continue to protect the health of their citizens. The vast majority of public water systems serve small cities. In my home State of Wyoming, 90 percent of our public water systems serve fewer than 3,300 people. This bill gives States the authority to grant variances from Federal standards for systems serving up to 3,300 people, and for systems serving up to 10,000 people with the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency. Small systems are given flexibility to meet the new consumer confidence reporting requirements contained in this bill. Under this bill, small systems can receive relief from monitoring requirements that today require them to monitor for contaminants that don't even occur in their water. This bill authorizes $15 million per year to provide technical assistance to small public water systems and up to $30 million per year to pay the cost of mandated operator training for small systems. Finally, this bill creates a grant program for at least five university programs to support research, training and technical assistance with respect to problems experienced by small systems. These small public water systems technology assistance centers will provide significant assistance to State and local governments in the development of programs to address special concerns relating to the water systems of rural communities and native Americans. These centers will be particularly important to states, like Wyoming, with relatively low population density that cover very large geographic areas. Coordination of research, training, technical assistance and outreach efforts through these centers will play an important information role for State and local governments. It should be noted, Mr. President, that the Water Resource Research Institutes located at the land grant university in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam, can provide similar information on rural water system treatment technologies, development of alternate supplies, and training to enable compliance with State and Federal regulations. I hope the Environmental Protection Agency will better utilize these institutes as part of its drinking water programs. In addition to the very important accommodations made for small systems in this bill, important changes were made throughout the drinking water program. I am extremely pleased about the increased flexibility that the legislation brings to the standard setting process under the act. This legislation, with its emphasis on using the best available scientific methodology for standard setting, facilitates efforts to bring more rationality to the process. The EPA has already started down this road with its risk characterization policy and its carcinogen risk assessment guidelines and I think our approach in this legislation will build on that effort, hopefully leading to the reevaluation of the standards for a number of substances. I am also pleased that States retain ultimate discretion in this bill over the content of programs that implement a capacity development strategy, and that existing State operator training programs will be allowed to continue unchanged under this legislation. Mr. President, as with any compromise, this bill is not perfect. This bill truly is a compromise, reflecting hours of negotiations between Republicans and Democrats here in the Senate, then days of hard work and negotiations between the House and Senate. In order to move forward with this bill, and the significant benefits that go with it, it became necessary to include some provisions that I oppose. For instance, I strongly believe the provision in this bill that requires so-called consumer confidence reports is misguided, will cost local water systems from $15 to $20 million per year and will not result in consumer confidence, but instead will confuse consumers and destroy their confidence in their local water supply. Fortunately, the Senate was able to make clear that these reports should contain language that will tell consumers that the presence of trace elements of contaminants are in all drinking water, including bottled water, and this does not create a health hazard. We were also able to increase flexibility for small systems to meet this mandate. Despite some reservations, I strongly support this bill. We create a State revolving loan fund for drinking water infrastructure under this bill, to help local communities pay for needed improvements to their water supply. We increase flexibility and reduce costs to local communities. The Congressional Budget Office says this bill will: * * * change the federal drinking water program in ways that would lower the costs to public water systems of complying with existing and future requirements. On balance, CBO estimates that the bill would likely result in significant net savings to state and local governments. Finally, the bill would extend the authorization of certain existing appropriations and would authorize the appropriation of additional federal funds to help state and local governments meet compliance costs. Finally, this bill recognizes the unique situation of the State of Wyoming. Mr. President, Wyoming is the only State which does not have primacy over the Safe Drinking Water Act. Chairman Chafee, Senator Kempthorne, and Senator Baucus worked with me to ensure that the citizens of Wyoming would be able to take full advantage of the benefits of this legislation, despite the fact we don't have primacy. The State of Wyoming will receive a minimum allocation from the new loan fund and will be able to apply for monitoring relief and variances. Most importantly to me, the State of Wyoming will be able to continue their current operator training and certification program. We are very proud of that program, Mr. President, and it is fitting that States continue to be allowed to structure their own programs and not be forced to follow an EPA-directed structure, as the House bill would have required. Mr. President, many people deserve credit for passage of this legislation. I want to thank Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, Baucus, and Reid for their leadership. This bill would not have been possible without their hard work, and that of their staffs. Senator Kempthorne in particular took some unfair hits over the last few weeks. Well financed Washington-based environmental extremists attacked Senator Kempthorne's integrity and questioned his resolve to get this bill done. Mr. President, these attacks were outrageous, designed to prevent us from passing this important legislation and to build the coffers of the environmental extremists. There is no excuse for this behavior and I want to make it clear that this bill will be signed into law thanks to Senator Kempthorne and despite the irresponsible behavior of a few groups who would rather scare the American people with distortions than see positive reform to environmental laws. That's unfortunate, but we overcame their objections to the Senate bill and approved it 99 to 0, and we should do the same today.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much. Madam President, I wanted to rise in support of this bill before it is voted on. I have been involved in it for some time not only here but in Wyoming, and I just wanted to kind of generally share some thoughts that I have. We have talked about it a great deal. We probably have talked about it more than we really needed to. Nevertheless, there has been a great deal of detail naturally, as there should be. But it seems to me that there are some basic things that most of us do understand and most of us accept, and I think that is where we are. First, we have nuclear waste. We have to do something about it. It is there. It is stored all over the country in a number of sites--I think 80. Clearly, it is more difficult to ensure safety that way than it is if we put it in a place that we can ensure safety. We are going to have more. We need to be prepared for that. The ratepayers have paid to do something about it. They have paid, I think, somewhere near $12 billion. We spent $5 billion already in preparing this spot. There is not much to show for that. Yet, we need to make sure that there is. It makes sense, it seems to me, to move to the permanent site with an intermediate site that we have for storage. We have been through that intermediate storage thing for several years. We have been unsuccessful in doing it. Transportation is, in fact, something that is the highest of scientific study and I think as safe as anything can be. There are always risks. I have been disappointed this whole time of dealing with the storage of nuclear waste. Opponents in the press talk about nuclear waste dumps. They are not dumps. They are high-tech storage, as high tech as we can be. It is also true that the Government has agreed to storage in 1998. Let us do it. So even though that is very nontechnical, Madam President, I think those are about the basic ideas we have to understand. Most of us know we have to do something about it. This bill gives us the opportunity to live up to the challenges we have and to do the things we have to do. I thank the Senator for the time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the propriety of a commercial lease issued by the Bureau of Land Management at Lake Havasu, AZ, including its consistency with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and Department of the Interior land use policies. The hearing will take place on Thursday, August 1 at 9:00 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Kelly Johnson or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in full support of the Cohen amendment to the Burma provisions of H.R. 3540. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I strongly object to the present language in the committee substitute amendment. My problems with the provision are both procedural and substantive. First, on the procedural issue, this matter is clearly one for an authorizing committee to consider, not--with all due respect--an appropriating committee. The subject matter of the provision is clearly legislative in nature; it has absolutely nothing to do with funding. Consequently, it has no business being included in an appropriations bill. In the House, this provision would be subject to a point of order on that grounds alone, and would have been formerly in the Senate too until the recent Hutchinson precedent. Second, if enacted into law, the provision would create a significant change in our relationship with Burma. Although I will readily admit that our present relationship with Burma is not especially deep, the imposition of mandatory economic sanctions would certainly downgrade what little relationship we have. Moreover, it would affect our relations with many of our allies in Asia as we try to corral them into following our lead. Finally, and I have heard precious little from the manager of the bill on this, it would have a substantial and detrimental impact --to the tune of many millions of dollars--on several United States businesses with investments in Burma. Consequently, the provision and its possible ramifications are a matter which should be carefully considered by the authorizing committees of jurisdiction: the Committee on Banking and the Committee on Foreign Relations. To date, Mr. President, neither committee has had that opportunity. The Banking Committee held a hearing on Burma sanctions several weeks ago. At that hearing, the committee heard from only the first of three witness panels; the first panel consisted of supporters of the legislation, while the second and third consisted of the administration--which is opposed to the bill--and sanctions opponents. The remainder of the hearing has been indefinitely postponed. Under those circumstances, I do not believe that it can be said that the Banking Committee has had an opportunity to fully consider the matter. As for the Foreign Relations Committee, neither the full committee nor my subcommittee has held a hearing on Burma or the sanctions provisions in this Congress. We were prevented from holding hearings on the Burma sanctions bill [Mr. McConnell] Senator from Kentucky because the Parliamentarian ruled it was referable only to Banking. Yet despite the fact that the provision strikes at the very heart of bilateral relations with Burma, neither Senator McConnell or his staff has ever even discussed this matter with me or the chairman of the full Foreign Relations Committee. When Congress acts it should do so only after careful and considered deliberation, something lacking in this case, and not by a last-minute attachment to appropriations legislation. Substantively, I believe the sanctions provided for in the bill are a completely ineffective way to get Burma's attention. We all know very well that economic sanctions only work if they are multilateral. We've seen that proven time after time. It is clear that in this case, we would be the only country imposing sanctions. All of the ASEAN countries, especially those which border Burma, have told us point blank that they will not join us in imposing sanctions. They will continue their policy of constructive engagement with Burma, and they told a recent United States mission to the area that imposing sanctions would be foolish. In fact, Mr. President, no other country I know of has agreed to go along with proposed sanctions--no other country, Mr. President. Therefore, we are left in a position of imposing unilateral sanctions, and unilateral sanctions are just like no sanctions at all. If we prohibit United States companies from doing business in Burma, foreign business with no similar handicap will be more than happy to step in and take our place. There is very little I can think of that we are in a position to supply to Burma which couldn't be supplied by a foreign country were we removed from the arena. This was a principal argument put forward by many Senators against imposing sanctions against the People's Republic of China. I wonder how many of those Senators are now arguing in favor of sanctions against Burma? In addition, the Burma provisions strike me as somewhat hypocritical. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, in same region, is a Communist country that routinely violates human rights and suppresses democracy; free speech is forbidden, opponents of the government are locked up for years, just like in Burma. But Mr. President, I don't see anybody moving to impose sanctions against that government. On the contrary, we're doing everything we can to increase U.S. business there because we believe that's the best way to effectuate change. We've seen that increased business contacts are the best way to influence China; this seeming truism is the principal reason why we continue to renew China's most-favored-nation status each year. Most Senators have apparently concluded that the same is true for Vietnam. Why, then, are we taking a different position with regards to Burma? Mr. President, I am the first to agree that democracy needs to be restored in Burma, that SLORC has to go, and that Daw Aung Sun Suu Kyi and her party are the rightful government of that country. Unfortunately, this bill is not going to bring us one step closer to bringing that about. All it is going to do is hurt U.S. companies, put us out on a limb without the support of our allies or other countries in the region, and make us look somewhat foolish. For these reasons, I oppose the committee amendment and support the Cohen amendment. I strongly urge my colleagues to do likewise. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I think we had some time allotted. I would like to take that time now, as much as I use.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we wanted to visit just a little bit about the program that has been set up by our friends on the other side of the aisle. I am delighted that there has been some kind of effort to put together an agenda. I think it goes to indicate a little bit about the differences that we have, in terms of solving problems for this country; differences that we have in terms of how we see the role of the Federal Government in our lives and, really, an issue about this whole matter of the end of big Government. It is interesting. The Prime Minister this morning quoted the President and so on, saying ``The era of big Government is over,'' yet our friends on the other side bring out an agenda that describes all the things that the Government is going to do. I have to tell you, I am a little impressed with the notion that it is a matter of some spinning for political purposes, rather than talking about what we really want to do. The Democrats come out with an agenda to do something at the same time they are keeping from happening all the things practically that we decided to do this year. It seems to me it is a transparent kind of an idea of talking about it but not doing. Walking the walk? No. Talking the talk? Of course. And that is where we are. So I really think we ought to challenge our friends over there to really take a look at what is happening here, and if they are talking, really wanting to do what they are saying, let us do it. Let us talk about health care. My friends on that side have not even allowed us to appoint conferees, to do something with the health care program that is there and ready to be passed. Our friends talk about balancing the budget. The Democrats were in charge of this place and the House for 25 years and never balanced the budget. Now the agenda is: Balance the budget. Madam President, when you and I were in the House, we had a budget called ``Putting Families First.'' That budget included a $500 per child tax credit, it included anticrime initiatives, it included welfare reform, it included market-based health care reform, indexed capital gains. Our friends opposed it. They said, ``We can't do that.'' That budget would have been putting families first, giving an opportunity for families to do the things for themselves that we think they ought to do--putting families first. I guess all I can say is I am really getting exasperated with this process of ours where the idea is to see how much you can spin and how much you can talk and how much you can say but not do anything about causing it to happen. It is almost cynical that we have now the most technical, greatest opportunities to communicate so people can have input into their own Government and, at the same time, it is more and more difficult to really understand what people are for. And as this election comes up, that is what we ought to be deciding: What direction do we want this country to take, not what people are going to say but, in fact, what they have done. The records do not match this kind of rhetoric. President Clinton opposed the balanced budget amendment. Those folks all voted against a balanced budget amendment, practically all. The President vetoed the first balanced budget in a generation. That is the walk, that is not the talk. We have had that this year. Most of us came to the Senate and said voters told us very clearly, ``We have too much Federal Government, it costs too much and we're overregulated,'' and we have tried to change that. Frankly, the Democrats have done all they can do this whole year to keep things from happening. We had an opportunity and we still have an opportunity: the first balanced budget in a generation to reduce the size of Government, telecommunications reform happened this year, line- item veto happened this year. It never happened before. Congressional accountability, product liability. We have done those things, and we were able to achieve some of these goals, understanding that Washington is part of the problem, not, indeed, part of the solution. So, Madam President, I have been very impatient with this idea of getting up and making all these great speeches about things we are for, and then when we have an opportunity to do it, we have an opportunity to put it into place, then all we find is opposition, all we find is, ``Well, I'm for a balanced budget, but I can't be for this one.'' ``I'm for welfare reform, but I can't be for this one.'' ``I'm for sending Medicaid back to the States some more, but I can't be for this one.'' That is what we have heard the entire year, and continue to hear that. Now they come forth with the families first agenda, promoting most of the things they have opposed throughout the year. Madam President, I just find it frustrating, as you can probably tell. It is time that we begin to measure performance rather than measure rhetoric. We have an opportunity to do the things that we set out to do this year. We still have an opportunity to do it. We have an opportunity to have medical reform, we have an opportunity to have some welfare reform, we have an opportunity to balance the budget, we have an opportunity to reduce the size of Government, we have the opportunity to have some tax relief. Which of those things have been supported on the other side of the aisle? None. But then they have an agenda, an agenda because that is what the polls say, and that is what it sounds good to say to people. It does not matter that it is not going to happen. It does not matter that they are not walking the walk, it is just talk the talk. I suppose this is fairly harsh stuff, but I can tell you, I have watched this go on now for some time, and it continues. Of course, as we get toward an election year, it becomes more and more heightened in terms of the rhetoric that is there. So I hope that as we make some of the changes that need to be made in this Government, a government of the people and people deciding, making decisions--that is what elections are about, talking about what direction this country will take, and we have an opportunity to really measure performance, not rhetoric, and that is what we have an opportunity to do. Madam President, let me yield to my associate from Minnesota. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we wanted to continue our effort with the freshmen focus to bring to the Senate some of the views that from time to time may be unique because we are freshmen, unique because this is the first term we have served here, I suppose unique because, perhaps, we are a little impatient to move forward. Of course, all of us have great respect for the traditions, but sometimes it is a little discouraging to say, ``Gee, we ought to be doing something a little different,'' and to hear, ``Well, it's the way we've done it for 200 years,'' you know. And there is some merit to the 200 years thing. I want to talk a little bit this morning--and I will be joined by a number of my colleagues--about health care and about the issues that surround health care. I suppose, in a broader sense, we are talking about choices, talking about issues, and the choices we have among issues, the choices that we have as to the ways in which we can accomplish the things that all of us want to accomplish. I do not think there is a soul in here who does not want to move forward with health care. There is no one in the Congress, there is no one in the country who does not want to create a program in which there are greater opportunities for American families to have access to superior health care. Nobody quarrels with that. The quarrel, of course, comes in, how do you do it? There are legitimately different views as to how you accomplish the things that we want to accomplish. Unfortunately, some of it is promotional rhetoric. We make great speeches about wanting to do this, accomplish health care for American families and so on, but then when we get down to it, why, there are differences. One of the differences, of course, was highlighted in the last 2 years when the proposal was to have a federalized health care program--a legitimate point of view: Have the Federal Government provide basically health care for everyone in this country. That idea was rejected, soundly rejected, I think, throughout the country. I happen to think that was a good idea to reject it, that we are better off to strengthen the opportunities for health care in the private sector. So that is where we are. I have to tell you that sometimes one wonders if the opposition to what we are doing now is not an effort to move back to the idea of having the Federal Government provide health care for everyone. But nevertheless, now we are on a new track. Now we are on the idea of, how do we strengthen the health care program in the private sector? I guess the real question we ought to ask ourselves is, can we do better in providing health care? And the answer is, yes, of course, we can. We have made some progress in the last couple years, made it in the private sector. In my State of Wyoming, there has been substantial progress made in terms of recognizing what can be done to bring together the doctors and the hospitals and to share among different towns the kinds of services that are available but cannot be available in every small town. So we are making progress. We have the opportunity to make a good deal more progress right here in this place in the next week. We should have made it 3 weeks ago, but we have not, because there has been an obstacle to progress. It is sort of discouraging that my friends on the other side of the aisle put out a statement saying, health security, we want the portability of health care, elimination of preexisting conditions, guaranteed renewability. This is what the Democrat leadership committee put out a month ago. We have that bill before us, Mr. President. We have that bill. We have had that bill since April, ready to be moved forward. But, unfortunately, we have had the objection of Members on the other side of the aisle that have not allowed it to move. I hope that we can do that. We support reform of health insurance. We support reform of availability of health care and have done a great deal about it over the last couple of years, starting, I suppose, with Medicare, the idea of strengthening Medicare so that over a period of time that is available to the elderly. There is no question that if we do not make some changes in Medicare, it will not be there. We have proposed those changes. We have been for those changes, those changes to strengthen Medicare, to make it available to the elderly, to make it continue to be available after 2001, at which time the trustees say it will fail if we do not change it. Medicaid, health care to the low-income families of this country, we suggested much of that be transferred to the States so that decisions can be made that fit the needs of the various States. Mr. President, our health care needs, our distribution system in Wyoming must be different than the presiding officer's State of Ohio. So we need to have the opportunity for our States to work in Medicaid. That has been a proposal that we have been forwarding. We have favored, and continue to favor and urge, the acceptance of reform in the private sector. We have been eager to pass insurance reform, which is out there, which is available now. In March, the House passed historic legislation to make insurance more portable for families. In April, the Senate did the same thing. Sixty-five days have passed, and still no bill. I think we have to say to ourselves, ``Let's just do it. Let's do it.'' But there continues to be opposition. The Democrats have blocked appointment of the conferees, so there is no movement in this area in which they say they are for: portability of health care, elimination of preexisting conditions, guaranteed renewability. I say, come on, let us do it. You say you want to do it. Now is the time. President Clinton has hinted at vetoing the bill. I hope that does not happen. On the other hand, Mr. President, frankly I am getting a little weary of the idea, ``We don't do that because the President may veto it.'' That is the President's prerogative, but it is our opportunity and responsibility in the Congress to do those things we think are right, to pass bills we think are right. If the President vetoes them, that is his decision, but we ought not to fail in moving, in doing our part simply because of that. There are philosophical differences, and I understand that. There are philosophical differences in most everything we approach here. That is healthy. There are going to be philosophical differences in the election. That is what elections are about. That is what we will be deciding, the direction, whether or not we are going to have more Federal Government, more expenditures at the Federal level, or whether, in fact, we move some of these decisions closer to people and move them closer to the States and to the cities from which families will receive the services. So, of course, there will be differences in philosophy. Republicans believe Americans should be in charge of their own decisions with respect to health care. One of the great controversies in this bill, one of the things that has kept it from moving, is the idea of medical savings accounts. Medical savings accounts provide an opportunity for people to make their own decisions with respect to expenditure of money. They provide the opportunity for people to save, to cut down on the utilization of health care, and at the same time be able to choose the health care program they think is best for their family. Employers can accumulate over the years dollars that can be spent for employees. It has been proven and several recent reports confirm that out-of-pocket expenses would decline and benefit all Americans. That is part of this package. Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle would prefer the status quo and refuse to give medical savings accounts a try. They think it deviates too far from the idea of the Federal Government controlling. We think that is the right thing to do. The Kassebaum-Kennedy bill has a good many things that we need to do. Certainly it is not a panacea for all health care, but it moves us in the direction of fixing some of the things that need to be fixed. I happen to be very interested and involved in rural health care. There are unique things about rural health care that need to be changed. Unfortunately, this does not address them, but it does make some of the changes that we need to make to cause health care to be more available, more useful for Americans and American families. Job lock--we all know of people who would like to move forward with the opportunities of jobs and to change jobs and to move up in the economic stratosphere, but they are concerned about doing that because they lose health care, particularly folks that are a little older. This changes that and provides portability for health care, something most everyone agrees with. It has to do with allowing people to have insurance, despite the fact that there are preexisting conditions. If we are going to be in the private sector with health care, then people have to be insured. It may cost more for everyone. I guess that is what insurance is about, spreading the risk. We think we can do something about it in our State. We have risk pools. They work. But preexisting conditions should not keep someone from having private health insurance. It allows small businesses to join and form purchasing cooperatives so that you get some kind of volume advantage in small businesses. Pretty simple stuff, but it is useful and can help with the problems that exist there. All these measures go, I think, to the core of what American families want. They want availability of health care, they want it in the private sector, they want choice. That is what this bill is about. I certainly urge our friends on the other side of the aisle to not resist movement on this bill. We have an opportunity now. That is why we are here, to accomplish things. We are moving down to where I think there are 25 or 26 work days left in this session. We have a lot of things to do. We have spent a lot of time on this. It is not as if it has not been discussed. We need to move forward. The question, I suppose, we ask ourselves in health care, as in other areas, but particularly in health care because all of us are involved, it affects everyone, all of our kids, and all of our families, the question is, can we do better? Of course we can. Of course we can. It is not the job of the Federal Government or the Senate to provide health care for everyone. It is the job of the Senate, in my view, the job of the Federal Government, to provide an environment in which the private sector can do what we want to have it do, and that is provide an opportunity for all Americans to have access. We ought to just do it. The time has come to just do it. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Minnesota who has joined in the freshman focus this morning.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator. I am now glad to be joined by our colleague from Pennsylvania. First of all, on April 23, this was published, the Senate Democratic Action Agenda. It says, ``health security, payroll security.'' Then it turns to health security and says ``portability of health care.'' This is on the 23d of April, this action agenda. We have that available. We have it here. We have had it for 65 days. So I guess the real issue is that it is one thing to talk the talk and another thing to walk the walk. We have an opportunity here to do that, to make it available to families, to have health care for children. What we really ought to do is just do it. I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased that earlier today the Senate approved my amendment to S. 1745, the Department of Defense authorization bill, dealing with the Department of Energy's liability for damages to natural resources with respect to Federal Superfund sites. I want to thank Chairman Thurmond and Ranking Member Nunn and their respective staffs for working with me to ensure the passage of this amendment. My amendment requires the Department of Energy to conduct a study of the Department's natural resource damages liability at its Superfund sites and report back to the appropriate committees of Congress 90 days after enactment of this bill. This is an issue of great importance and one that has been surrounded by uncertainty. Since the beginning of the 104th Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee, under the leadership of Subcommittee Chairman Smith and Committee Chairman Chafee, has been working tirelessly to bring much-needed reform to the Superfund Program. During the course of hearings held on this topic, significant questions were raised regarding the Department of Energy's liability for natural resource damages at its Superfund sites. During testimony at a hearing in 1995, a Department official speculated that the Department's liability could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. It has been reported that he termed the Department's liability for natural resource damages the sleeping giant of Superfund. However, during a follow-up hearing in April of this year the Department changed its tune. When asked about earlier statements, the same Department official who had a year earlier called natural resource damages a serious problem produced a study by the Council on Environmental Quality that claimed these damages are a ``minor problem.'' While the timing of the release of the study was obviously circumspect, it became increasingly clear that the contents of the study were equally so. The CEQ study estimated the Department of Energy's NRD liability at between $200 and $500 million. In the meantime, GAO has also been conducting its own study of Department liability and their preliminary results put the estimate at between two and $15 billion. Mr. President, you can see why this issue has raised so many questions. We have a Department of Energy official estimating liability in the hundreds of billions of dollars, then his superiors in the White House overruling him and painting the problem as minor, and finally a GAO study which will come down somewhere in the middle. I find this all rather troubling, Mr. President, and frankly it seems like this situation has created more questions than when we began. There are several aspects of CEQ's study that I find remarkable to say the least. I understand CEQ is currently modifying their first study and will shortly issue a corrected study, but fundamental questions about their assumptions remain. It is my intention, as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight, to hold a hearing later this summer to address some of these questions. But what I find most troubling of all, Mr. President, is that the Department of Energy has not undertaken their own study of this issue. The Department of Energy is the single biggest responsible party at Superfund sites in the Nation. That means the taxpayers of this country are on the hook for the biggest piece of liability at Superfund sites. Yet the Department has not done one study to determine what their liability might be in the second phase of superfund liability--the lurking, sleeping giant that is only now awakening--natural resource damages liability. My amendment corrects that incredible oversight in the hope that we can have an accurate estimate, done by those with the most knowledge about the nature of this complicated situation. In addition, my amendment ensures we will have a realistic view of that liability by forcing the folks conducting the study to use the same program parameters that the private sector has been dealing with. This is the only fair way to calculate the Department's liability. Again, I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member, and I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate for passing this important amendment. Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I just want to reiterate again, so others will understand thoroughly. When the Senator from Arizona said, come over, bring anything you have in mind, this is not in that category. The letter is here. It is entered. It was sent to the committee. And it was inadvertently left off the list. I think it is unfair to make that kind of a characterization.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will take a moment. I appreciate very much this opportunity. My senior Senator has described the issue. I just simply want to tell you that this Camp Guernsey is a very important part of the National Guard, not only for Wyoming, but it is also the training facility for a good many of the units surrounding Wyoming. It is an artillery unit with a range there. So, as the Senator said, this was inadvertently left out of the accelerated budget process. It combines the support and maintenance shop. This is a very compelling need here. Three tenants have occupied the same building since 1948. The building is environmentally in noncompliance, with problems of ventilation and electrical systems. The National Guard Bureau has identified seven serious risk assessment discrepancies, as the Senator has pointed out. We have, as was mentioned, the letter from the National Guard Association, the letter from the Director of the Army National Guard, written in support of this funding. The original funding actually was $12 million. Now it is less than that. Mr. President, as we downsize, of course, we call on the Guard and the Reserve to carry more of the load. Someone mentioned earlier in the debate that the Congress pretty much is responsible--the Senate--for supporting the Guard funds. This, I think, is part of that. So, Mr. President, I will not take any more time. But I certainly ask for support from our colleagues for this important National Guard addition. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to discuss what in my view is the continuing deterioration of the democratic process in Cambodia. In October 1991, the signing of the Paris peace accords ended years of devastating civil war in Cambodia and started that country on the road to instituting a democratic civil society. Cambodia's leaders agreed to support a democratic resolution of the country's longstanding civil war, to protect and advance human and political rights and fundamental freedoms for its citizens, and to begin the difficult task of rebuilding the economy and civil institutions. The U.N. transitional authority in Cambodia [UNTAC], established to implement the accords, supervised the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia, repatriated over 350,000 refugees, and oversaw the first free national elections in 1993. The constitution adopted in September 1993 established a multiparty democracy, committed the Government to hold new elections by 1998, required that Cambodia recognize and respect human rights as defined in the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other relevant international agreements and treaties. The transformation was not without its costs. The United States and other donor countries and the United Nations spent an estimated $2.8 billion implementing the accords and subsequent elections. United States assistance to Cambodia alone since the mid-1980's has totaled more than $1 billion. Beginning in fiscal year 1994, the U.S. Agency for International Development [AID] planned on providing about $111 million over 3 years. The AID mission in Phnom Penh planned to spend $8 million to help the Government plan for national elections, and has programs in place to improve the functioning of the National Assembly and the legal system. Yet despite all of this work by both the donor countries and the people of Cambodia, I am still concerned that Cambodia's nascent democracy is showing some signs of being under attack. First, the country faces some serious obstacles to holding national elections by 1998. As noted in a February 1996 GAO report on Cambodia, and I quote: Cambodia's constitution requires that the government hold national elections by 1998. However, the country currently lacks the electoral framework (laws, regulations, an independent commission) and resources (both human and financial) needed to hold elections. Although U.S. and other foreign officials estimate that creating such a framework will take considerable time and involve many difficult political decisions, little has been accomplished so far. In late 1995, the Cambodian government began drafting an electoral law. Discussion at a late October 1995 seminar, sponsored partly by the U.S. Agency for International Development (usaid), explored the relative advantages of different types of electoral systems. By December 1995, the government still had not completed a draft electoral law and was falling behind a proposed timetable for holding elections in mid-1998. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Event Timing ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Draft national election law........... November 1995 (not met). Interior Ministry reviews draft law... December 1995 (not met). Co-Prime Ministers review draft law... January-February 1996. Draft law submitted to the National Spring 1996. Assembly. Natinal Assembly enacts law........... Summer 1996. Implement new law (create an election 1997. committee, issue regulations, train workers, educate voters). Hold national elections............... May 1998. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Pre-election technical assessment for Cambodia prepared by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, August 1995. According to U.S. and other foreign officials, Cambodia lacks the human and financial resources needed to hold an election on the scale of the one held by the United Nations in 1993. The U.N. electoral assistance unit could help plan and organize the elections, but this would require a significant financial commitment from the international community. Although some international assistance may be provided, such as election monitors, some U.S. and other foreign officials doubt that the international community will support a costly, large-scale operation to help conduct the elections. The Cambodian government currently appoints local officials but has proposed holding local elections in 1996 or 1997. Some U.S., other foreign government, and Cambodian officials support holding local elections because they would introduce democratic practices at the local level. Other such officials oppose holding local elections because they would divert limited financial and human resources from the task of holding national elections and/or because antidemocratic government officials could use local elections as evidence of democratic progress and then cancel national elections. While preparations for the logistical framework to support the elections is lagging, there is also concern that even if the elections are held in 1998 it is doubtful that they would be free and fair. As the GAO report notes: The Interior Ministry is drafting the election law and may be responsible for organizing the elections. Ministry deliberations and work are not open to public oversight and participation, and the Ministry played a role in the violence and intimidation before the 1993 elections. According to some U.S. and other foreign government officials, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and others, the Cambodian government cannot ensure that parties could campaign without violent intimidation and that voters would feel free from retaliation. The United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) was unable to control key government ministries before the 1993 elections, and the Cambodian People's Party (CPP) used some of them to sponsor violence against its political opponents. Some foreign officials and reports point out that CPP still controls the Interior Ministry and its internal security forces, plus the armed forces. Several NGOs report that fear of politically motivated violence is a key issue for members of the National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful, and Cooperative Cambodia (FUNCINPEC) and the Buddhist Liberal Democratic Party (BLDP) but not for CPP members. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of State noted that Prime Minister Ranariddh has proposed establishing an independent, neutral commission under the King to control the police and armed forces during the elections to prevent them from intervening in the elections. However, we question the effectiveness of such a commission in controlling the police and armed forces when UNTAC, with over 20,000 personnel, was unable to control them before the 1993 elections. Recently, the friction between the two main political parties-- FUNCINPEC and the CPP--has come to the forefront. As my colleagues know, in order to bring an end to the civil war these two parties entered into a power-sharing agreement whereby members of both parties occupy the most important political posts in the Government. Recently, the First Prime Minister Prince Ranariddh--the head of FUNCINPEC-- complained that Second Prime Minister Hun Sen and members of his party were failing to abide by an earlier agreement that power should be shared at all levels of government. Ranariddh spoke of withdrawing his party from the Government, in response to which Hun Sen threatened to use military force to deter protests against the Government and any dissolution of the National Assembly. It seems clear that the term ``political strength'' in Cambodia will continue to refer to the number of guns a particular party has. Besides the obvious disruptive effects this interparty friction is having within Cambodia, it is also complicating its external affairs. To illustrate, Cambodia's drive to join ASEAN is being held up because the other member nations consider a key criterion for being admitted to the regional grouping to be political stability--something of which the other countries presently consider Cambodia to be short. The GAO report continues by noting that voters lack widely available resources of accurate information about the elections, particularly radio; and that political parties other than the CPP are weak and lack a unified leadership: UNTAC officials knew that providing Cambodian voters with accurate information was essential for free and fair elections. Consequently, guaranteeing fair access to the media--especially radio, because most Cambodians are illiterate and television stations have limited broadcast areas--for all political parties was an essential element of UNTAC's pre-election strategy. Several studies conclude that the 1993 elections probably could not have taken place or succeeded without the flow of information provided largely by ``Radio UNTAC.'' Unfortunately, Cambodia currently lacks widely-available media sources of accurate information. Although more than 30 newspapers operate in Cambodia, they have limited nationwide distribution and the quality of their news reporting is unreliable. Also, the government tightly controls broadcast media licenses, limiting opposition parties' access to radio and television. For example, a BLDP official told us that the government had turned down the party's application for a radio station license. Moreover, as discussed later, the government has grown increasingly intolerant of dissenting opinions. USAID's strategy for promoting democracy in Cambodia recognizes the media's weaknesses; one of its objectives is to increase media access and professionalism. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense said that, despite restricted access to the media, outspoken government critics still may be able to generate popular support and influence the elections. With the possible exception of CPP, Cambodian political parties lack the leadership, organization, and financial resources to conduct effective national campaigns, according to U.S. and other foreign officials and reports and other documents we reviewed. Over a decade of single-party rule has given CPP the opportunity to build a solid party structure (largely indistinguishable from the government bureaucracy) at the provincial, district, communal, and village levels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials and NGOs indicate that FUNCINPEC and BLDP have weak party structures at these levels and are further weakened by political infighting. Given their weak party structure and disunity, several NGOs and others conclude that the parties will be unable to compete effectively in future elections. USAID plans to provide training to strengthen the capabilities of all political parties to participate in the election. However, several observers suggested that CPP, with its generally better organization and structure, might benefit disproportionately from such training. Several U.S., other foreign government, and NGO officials questioned the wisdom of providing training to strengthen any of the existing parties because they are undemocratic and authoritarian. USAID officials said that they plan to fund training for grassroots civic organizations instead of established political parties. The National Democratic Institute suspended political party training in Cambodia in 1995 but plans to work with other NGOs to train election monitors and educate voters. The major political parties are already beginning to gear up for the race. A recent report in the Cambodia Times noted that Second Prime Minister Hun Sen has made several tours of the countryside ``presenting gifts of rice, foodstuffs and krama [Cambodian scarves presented as welcoming gifts] * * * the Cambodian People's Party [which Hun Sen heads] has also carried out many projects to build schools and irrigation canals and [has] dug numerous wells in the provinces.'' The FUNCINPEC Party led by Prince Ranariddh, in response to the surge in the CPP's popularity, has begun to make similar moves. At the end of last month, both parties complained that programs broadcast on Television Kampuchea slighted them in favor of their opponent. What worries me, Mr. President, is that without a strong framework in place, electioneering in Cambodia may devolve back into the situation which existed before 1991 where political strength depended on the number of guns a party had rather than the number of seats in the Assembly. In addition, the report paints a pessimistic view of the development of the adherence to human rights: Cambodia has ratified and agreed to abide by all major international agreements guaranteeing human and political rights, for example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Yet the current government has made limited progress since late 1993 in meeting the basic international human rights standards contained in these agreements. Indeed, some U.S., other foreign governments, and Cambodian officials and NGOs conclude that Cambodia's human rights situation worsened during 1995. According to human rights NGOs, the United Nations Center for Human Rights (UNCHR) office in Phnom Penh, and USAID documents, Cambodian military and police forces continued to violate human rights frequently during the past 2 years. These sources reported numerous cases of extortion, beatings, robberies, and other violations by soldiers and police. USAID and Cambodian officials and others noted that this problem touches on the larger issue of desperately needed reforms of the Cambodian bureaucracy, including the provision of adequate pay for police, military, and other government officials to reduce or eliminate low-level corruption, which currently is endemic. According to human rights NGOs, UNCHR, some U.S. and Cambodian officials, and USAID documents (1) few Cambodians had received due process or fair trials in the past 2 years; (2) prosecutors and judges lacked basic training and skills for properly investigating, preparing, presenting, and deciding cases; and (3) trained public defenders remained scarce. They also said that official corruption was widespread and growing, undermining the rule of law, and that the government had resisted some legislators' attempts to introduce anti-corruption legislation in the National Assembly. Human rights NGOs and UNCHR told us that Cambodia's prisons remain overcrowded and still fall short of meeting basic international and humanitarian standards for the treatment of prisoners. In late 1994, NGOs reported that they found a secret government prison where prisoners were tortured and denied basic human needs. According to the Department of State, this prison was closed in 1994. Finally, in the area of political rights, recent Government actions indicate increasing official intolerance for dissent from both inside and outside the Government. This intolerance has a predictable chilling effect on efforts to improve the Government's effectiveness and reduce corruption. For example, as I noted on the floor on June 22, one outspoken member of the National Assembly--Sam Rangsi, a frequent critic of the Central Government--was expelled after attacking Government corruption and several others have been threatened with expulsion if they speak out. Prince Norodom Sirivut, a member of the royal family and political opponent of Hun Sen, was charged and convicted in absentia in February of plotting to kill the latter. The trial was seen by legal and human rights observers as evidence that Cambodia's judiciary is controlled by politics. On May 2 of this year, the Government ordered all political parties except the four represented in the National Assembly. While aimed primarily at Sam Rangsi's Khmer Nation Party, a party formed after Sam was expelled from the FUNCINPEC because he disagreed with the party leadership, the order affects 16 parties that were legally registered for the 1993 election but won no seats in the Assembly. Recent attempts by the KNP to open offices in outlying districts were met with armed police forces which closed the offices down. As I noted on September 5, the Government closed some newspapers and prosecuted several members of the press, enacted restrictions on press freedoms, and tightly controlled broadcast licenses. Several members of the press critical of the Government have been beaten or killed. Non Chan, editor of the Samleng Yuveakchon Khmer, was gunned down in broad daylight in Phnom Penh. Ek Mongkol was also shot and wounded in broad daylight. At the end of May, unidentified assailants assassinated opposition newspaper editor Thun Bunli. Thun was editor of the newspaper Oddamkeakte Khmer, a frequent critic of the CPP. Thun's funeral procession, consisting of members of Sam Rangsi's KNP, was broken up by hundreds of police armed with shock batons and assault rifles. The Government attempted to muzzle the press further by criticizing an existing journalists' association and pressuring members to join a competing association formed and controlled by the Government. In addition, the co-Prime Ministers attempted to close the UNHCR office in Phnom Penh in response to its criticism of human rights abuses, but later backed down under international pressure. In May, the Interior Ministry also ordered provincial authorities to produce reports on the past and current activities of local and international aid agencies, religious organizations, and associations. Mr. President, I appreciate that we cannot expect the development of a perfect democratic system in Cambodia overnight. I also do not want the Cambodian Government to feel that I am somehow denigrating the strides it has made. But the problems cropping up in Cambodia are not related to the more esoteric nuances of democracy, they are the basic building blocks: a free press, an independent judiciary, and the like. Statements by some members of the Government--most notably Hun Sen-- that we have no business butting in or being concerned about their lack of progress overlook one important point: as one of the major financial donors responsible for the continuing operation of the country, we do indeed have a role to play. I agree with the State Department; if Cambodia continues its downward spiral, the United States and other donor nations should reconsider the amount and extent of our financial aid. Mr. President, I also continue to be concerned about an issue that brought me to the floor on July 21 last year: the trading in Cambodian timber across the Thai-Cambodia border. Cambodia shares a lengthy and relatively uninhabited border with Thailand. The entire region consists primarily of heavily forested jungle; formerly, 76 percent of Cambodia's 176,520 square kilometers of land area was covered by forest. That amount, however, has declined dramatically over the last 15 years due to increased commercial harvesting of timber. The loss has been especially pronounced in western Cambodia, where a handful of foreign firms are responsible for a majority of the deforestation. As I noted last year: These companies purchase concessions from the Cambodian government, and theoretically make payments to the government based on the amount of cubic meters of timber felled. The timber is then exported over the Thai border, either by boat or overland on dirt roads built expressly for that purpose by the companies, where they are collected at places called rest areas before being sent further on into Thailand. According to both Thai and Cambodian regulations, the logger/exporter must secure a certificate of origin from the Cambodian government, a permit from the Thai embassy in Cambodia, and permission from the Thai Interior Ministry to import the logs into Thailand. There is one more party, however, that plays a major role in the logging: the Khmer Rouge. Led by the infamous Pol Pot, the KR controlled the government of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. During that time, it was directly responsible for the genocide of more than one million Cambodians in the ``Killing Fields.'' Since the 1991 UN peace agreement established a democratic government in Cambodia, the KR has been relegated to the role of a rebel guerilla force. Although the government has made some inroads in combatting the KR, including implementing a somewhat successful amnesty program, the KR remains a strong force in the western khet of Battambang, Pursat, Banteay Meanchey and Siem Reap. Despite the campaign being mounted against them, though, they still receive a steady flow of food, military supplies, and currency sufficient to pay their 10,000 to 20,000 man militia; and therein lies the connection to the timber trade and the Thai military. Over the past several years, the press has consistently reported that the Thai military has been providing assistance and support to the Khmer Rouge. The links between the two are longstanding. Beginning in 1979, Thailand acted as a funnel for Chinese-supplied arms being transshipped to the KR-- apparently in return for an end to Chinese support for rebel Thai communists in northern Thailand. Since then, the evidence suggests that the Thai have regularly supplied the KR with logistical support and materiel. In return for this support, Thai business interests and certain government sectors have benefitted from access to timber and gem resources within that part of Cambodia along the Thai border controlled by the KR. Their interest is sizeable; in 1993, the U.S. Embassy in Thailand estimated that Thai logging companies had some $40 million invested in timber concessions in KR-held areas. It is from the sale of these resources that the KR acquires funds sufficient to continue its reign of terror in Cambodia. The process is actually quite simple. Foreign companies interested in harvesting timber in western Cambodia purchase official lumber concessions from the government in Phnom Penh. Having dealt with the de jure government, however, the companies must then deal with the de facto government in western Cambodia: the KR. The companies pay the KR for the right of safe passage into KR-held territory, to fell the timber, and to transport it out to Thailand safely. The present going rate of payment to the KR per cubic meter is between 875 and 1000 baht, or between $35 and $40. It is estimated that the weekly income [in 1995] to the KR from timber carried across just two of the many border points [was] around $270,000, with total monthly income to the KR estimated at between $10 and $20 million. Once felled and placed on the back of trucks, the logs are driven across the Thai border. That crossing, however, is not without its costs. The Thai military--the Marines, actually-- controls a 4-mile wide strip along the Thai side of the border, and in order to negotiate it the logging trucks must pass through guarded checkpoints where, it appears, payments in the form of ``tolls'' or bribes are made to Thai concerns. The Thai have consistently, albeit often disingenuously, denied any ties to the KR or to the timber trade. Each round of denials, however, is soon followed by press reports and concrete evidence to the contrary. For example, in 1994 Thailand officially ``closed'' its border with Cambodia partly as a result of the murder of more than twenty Thai timber workers by the KR and partly as a result of international criticism. In a press statement made shortly thereafter, Maj. Gen. Niphon Parayanit, the Thai commander in the region, stated flatly that the border was closed, that the military had severed all links with the KR, and that ``there [was] no large-scale cross-border trade going on.'' The official denials . . . continued . . . including one . . . by Prime Minister Chuan noted in the May 26 [1995] edition of the Bangkok Post. Despite these denials though, and despite a Cambodian ban on logging, credible eyewitness reports from members of the London-based group Global Witness fully confirm[ed], in my opinion, that the trucks are still rolling across the Thai border. If--as the Thai military alleges--it is not involved in the timber trade either directly or by turning a blind eye to the shipments, I can think of no other explanation than that the military personnel in the border zone are completely incompetent. One of the more heavily travelled timber roads in the border zone, one that according to my information is in daily use even as I speak, is within sight of one of the Thai Marine camps. Nor can the central Thai government claim ignorance; Global Witness [in 1995] brought to light a timber import permit signed by the Thai Interior Minister. Mr. President, I stated that continuing Thai support for the KR--in this or any manner--concerned me greatly for several reasons. First and foremost, the financial support the trade afforded to the KR continued to allow it to survive thereby seriously endangering the growth and continued vitality of the nascent Cambodian democracy. That system, as I have noted today, is having enough trouble getting off the ground and running smoothly without having to deal with the KR insurgency. Second, Thailand's actions ran counter to its obligations under the 1991 peace accord and served to undermine it. Finally, the clandestine nature of the timber extraction has removed it from the control of the Cambodian Central Government. It was subsequently free to continue without regard to any regulations aimed at limiting the amount of timber taken, preventing serious ecological damage, ensuring sustained growth, or protecting the lives and livelihoods of the local populace. Unfortunately, Mr. President, since my statement last year the situation has only gotten worse. Workers from Global Witness returned to Thailand in November and December 1995, and once again since then, have furnished my staff with completely credible evidence that the trade continues unabated. They have furnished me with photographs, documentary evidence, and the precise locations of several timber staging areas on the Thai side of the border. They have even acquired one of the passes issued by the KR to drivers of the logging trucks that drive in from Thailand. The Phnom Penh Post, as recently as April, has run a series of articles detailing the illicit timber trade. Instead of taking the time of the Senate by reciting the evidence in detail, I would direct my colleagues to two Global Witness reports: ``Corruption, War and Forest Policy: The Unsustainable Exploitation of Cambodia's Forests'' issued in February 1996; and ``RGC Forest Policy and Practice: The Case for Positive Conditionality'' issued in May of this year. Mr. President, if a significant effort not made as promised by the Thai Government to fully investigate and then stem the cross-border trade and their dealings with the KR, then I would find myself placed in the position of calling on our Government to abide by that provision of Public Law No. 103-306 requiring that the President shall terminate assistance to any country or organization that he determines is assisting the KR either directly or indirectly through commercial interaction. I intend to send the Secretary of State a copy of my statement today, and ask him to respond in writing as to the administration's position on this issue.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we appreciate the opportunity to take some time this afternoon. This is a continuation of our effort among the freshmen to have a freshman focus and to bring what is often a unique perception of Senate Members, those of us who just came less than 2 years ago, on the topics of today. So we appreciate that. Some of my colleagues will join in. Mr. President, we want to talk a little today about me, too politics. I think it is a timely topic. It is one that has been very prominent here in this body over the last several months or even, in fact, year. It sounds kind of good--me, too. It sound like that ought to give us an opportunity to agree. We will order something and there will be a resounding, me, too. Unfortunately, that is not the way it works. Unfortunately, me, too politics means when there is an idea that comes up, I say, me, too, and then find lots of reasons why you cannot do it, so that there is a very difficult problem in determining--walking one way and talking another, saying, ``I'm for it,'' but making sure that it never happens. That is what we increasingly are seeing with this administration, President Clinton, and with the minority here in the Senate. There are, of course, real choices to be made. There is nothing wrong with choices. That is what politics is about. It gives you and me, as voters, a chance to choose because various candidates are for various things. That is how the system works. When those choices are made indistinguishable, then it is very difficult. It is very difficult to have politicians who say one thing and do another, and continuously do that. So there are basic decisions that have to be made. Are we going to have more Government, more Federal Government or less? Are we going to move in the direction of having more taxes, or are we going to move in the direction of having American families spend more of their money themselves? Those are basic decisions. Are we going to spend more? Are we going to borrow to spend more so that the credit card can go to our kids, or are we going to reduce spending? These are tough decisions, but they are fairly clear decisions. What is happening is they are being blurred by this me, too politics. The technique, of course, is that whatever is suggested as fundamental change, then the others say, ``Well, I'm for that as well,'' and then go about making sure it never happens. The technique, of course, is to speak for it, and then decide, ``Well, but it goes a little too far,'' or, ``There are some details here that we can't do. I want a balanced budget, but this isn't the right way.'' So it is a way of saying, ``I'm for it,'' but making sure you never have to vote for it. Mr. President, I think that is troublesome. I think that is troublesome in terms of the system. It is troublesome certainly in terms of elections where, at least in my view, the purpose of elections is to give some direction to our Government. We have to generally do it in fairly broad areas. Certainly no one talks about 800 different votes that you take in a year, but they do talk about your philosophy. Are you for less Government or for more? More spending or less? A balanced budget or not? Term limits or not? Unfortunately, the President has become a me, too President. There are countless examples of echoing the fundamental changes that have been brought about by the Republican Party, or by Bob Dole, almost like a shadow. Every time the Republicans come out with a plan to make fundamental change, to bring about the reforms that people have asked for, why, we see the President standing up and saying he agrees; but when the chips are down, he goes the other way. It is no longer ``Me, too.'' It is more like the old Frank Sinatra song, the old tune of ``My way.'' ``Do it my way.'' So it is easy to say, ``Well, I'm for that, but, you know, it's not the right way to do it,'' or, ``I'm for that, but it goes too far,'' or, ``I'm for that, but there are the details.'' So it confuses where we really are. Balancing the budget and cutting taxes and reforming welfare, ending the days of big Government, why, the President continues to sound in tune with fundamental change, but when the reform comes around, then his position shifts and it does not happen. That has happened so many times this year. For example, he vetoed the balanced budget after saying he was for a balanced budget. After running on a balanced budget, after saying, we can do it in 5 years, in 8 years, in 10 years, in 7 years, he vetoes a balanced budget. He vetoed welfare reform after pledging to change welfare as we know it. He vetoed legislation that would have kept Medicare solvent for the next generation after promising to save the program. These are the issues that we are seeing too much of ``Me, too'' instead of reform. We need to really bear down on the idea of people saying one thing and doing another. I am pretty proud of this body and of the majority in this body who came here a year and a half ago and said we believe that voters want some fundamental change in terms of the direction of this country, a balanced budget being one of them. Of course, the idea of moving welfare and many of the programs closer to people by moving them to the States, these are fundamental changes that people talk about. We have done many of those things, but unfortunately, the ``Me, too'' politics has kept them from being completed. We have sent the first balanced budget in 25 years to the White House--the first time. Vetoed. So we need to really take a look at what we are for. If people disagree, if people want more government--and there are those who do, a legitimate point of view. I do not happen to share it. But you can argue that, ``Yes, there are more things Government can do. Yes, we ought to take more money from folks because we can spend it better in the Government.'' That is a legitimate point of view; not one I share. But we at least ought to decide where we are on those things so that what we say and what we do are the same. Welfare reform is one that comes, of course, to mind. We provided the President an opportunity to reform the Nation's welfare system, not just once, but twice. On both occasions the President said no; first, as part of the Balanced Budget Act in November and then a bill that stood on its own in January. Just last month the President issued an Executive order requiring States to end welfare payments to teenaged parents who quit school or refuse to live with a responsible adult, language in part that was part of the proposal. Now the ``Me, too'' politics will say, ``Yeah, I'm for that. I agree with that. Look what I've done,'' which is about one- hundredth of the total package. We see more and more of that. Another flip-flop occurred on, of course, announcing support for Wisconsin's historic welfare reform plan to put able-bodied recipients to work, something the Republican welfare program that was vetoed would have accomplished. Now the administration is backing off of that, flip- flopping again, saying there are some details in the Wisconsin plan that need to be negotiated. Let me tell you, the people in Wisconsin have a better idea of what needs to be done to deliver services in their State than bureaucrats here do. I come from a State that is small. We need a different system than you need in a large State. The States are the only place to do that. So you cannot talk one way and walk another. Balancing the budget clearly has been the most significant issue over the last year and a half, not simply because of the numbers, not simply because of the arithmetic, but because the budget reflects the kind of approach we take to govern, whether we are fiscally responsible, whether we say, ``Yes, we will spend more than we take in,'' whether we say it is morally correct if you want services, those people who receive them ought to pay for them, rather than putting it on the credit card for the kids. Those are basic issues. We cannot balance the budget unless we are willing to adjust and make fundamental changes in Government. Budgets are vital to where we are going. The first 2\1/2\ years the administration never submitted a balanced budget to the Congress despite all of the talk, and opposed a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, arguing we do not need to do this. ``Just balance the budget,'' the same argument that has been going on 25 years right here in this place, and we have not balanced it. Of course we need the discipline of a constitutional amendment. Finally, under the pressure to produce a balanced budget, but not basically making the changes that have to be made to do it. You have to deal with entitlements. Two-thirds of the expenditures are in entitlements. If you do not deal with entitlements, several things happen. One is that you never balance the budget. The other is that programs we want to strengthen and save, like Medicare, cannot exist unless you make some fundamental changes in them. Tax cuts, promises to cut taxes--instead, what do we get? The largest tax increase in the history of this country. Last year, we came forward with plans to reduce taxes--vetoed, of course. Mr. President, I have great confidence in the American people. I have great confidence in voters that they will make decisions based on fundamental direction. I certainly hope so. That is our job as voters, to decide where we want to go and then, of course, have to decide who the candidates are that are going in the same direction we are, not that any party or any politician is going to represent every detail of our point of view, but in general this party, this party, this candidate or that candidate comes closer to representing my view than the other. That is the choice we have. Mr. President, I hope we all understand this business of ``Me, too, politics'' is not leadership. It is not decisiveness. It is a matter of avoiding taking strong positions. It is a matter of saying, ``Yes, this is a good idea. I am for it, I want to balance the budget, but I just cannot vote for it the way it is,'' and never will. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. I see my associates have come forward. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join in the tribute to Senator Bob Dole. Certainly, his accomplishments extend over many areas, but I want to limit my remarks specifically to health care. His record is one that truly demonstrates compassion, dedication and selflessness. This is not a man who simply talks about quality health care. He knows the importance of it firsthand. Of course, we all know the story, Bob Dole's valiant service in World War II. He spent 4 agonizing years in a hospital bed. It was this experience that led to his commitment to give each and every American the security of knowing health care is there today and will be there tomorrow. Proof of such dedication is reflected, not just in the way he votes on major issues, but also in smaller efforts like helping to keep a 12- bed hospital in rural Kansas open, or creating employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. These are little things that do not always receive a lot of fanfare, but over the course of 35 years, they build a solid legislative record. As the Wyoming State chair for the Senator's 1988 Presidential bid, I came to know and understand the person who has so willingly fought the good fight to make insurance more affordable and accessible to all. For instance, during the 1970's, when many policymakers were advocating a nationalized health care system, it was Bob Dole who recognized the flaws of such an approach. Rather than let the Federal Government be in control of individual medical decisions, he coauthored a more simple, practical piece of legislation, the 1979 Dole-Danforth-Domenici health insurance bill. The initiative aimed to improve access to health care, but in a manner that did not turn the reins over to Washington, DC. He had the foresight back then to keep reform affordable and free of Federal mandates. This same philosophy continues. A few years ago when the Congress considered the Clinton health care plan, it was Bob Dole who warned against the ill effects of federalizing our health care system. As an experienced legislator, he reminded Congress that increased taxes and price controls are not the way to improve coverage for the uninsured. But, before I reflect on the Senator's more recent accomplishments, I want to highlight an issue near and dear to the hearts of Wyoming people--rural health care. In the 1980's, hospital closures were plaguing rural America and providers were vacating these communities for urban practices. To be exact, 237 rural hospitals closed during the decade. There would have been more if not for Bob Dole's commitment to a notable package of rural health care reforms. Reforms that improved Medicare reimbursement rates to small hospitals, created primary care centers, and recruited vital family practitioners. These solutions helped to revitalize our communities and gave rural families the same access to quality medical care as their urban counterparts. As someone who hails from a town of 500-people, I know the importance of such measures. If a rural hospitals closes, it often devastates a community. Jobs are lost and individuals are left without care during times of a medical emergency. Establishing a successful rural health care delivery system can be very difficult. Yet Senator Dole and his staff have helped make that goal more plausible. I am sure I speak for many members of the Rural Health Care Caucus when I say, ``Thank you.'' Mr. President, Bob Dole's commitment to quality health care extends to senior citizens as well. Last year, when Medicare was projected to be bankrupt in 2002, it was our leader who fought to preserve the program well into the next century. His plan provided thoughtful solutions to complex problems while still maintaining spending increases for every senior citizen. Unfortunately, the President rejected the proposal, not because it did not do enough, but because it was politically expedient thing to do. Despite the administration's refusal to save Medicare from insolvency, Bob Dole continues to work on behalf of the elderly. Just 1 month ago, before he announced his intention to leave the Senate, he steered passage of an amendment to the Health Insurance Reform Act. The measure helps alleviate the burden of long-term care costs, which is becoming all the more important as nursing home expenses rise. Mr. President, these are a few of the many accomplishments of Bob Dole. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to list them all. But the purpose of reciting his achievements is not to boast about our longest serving Republican leader. Rather, it is to provide insight into the man who represents the State of Kansas. He has served his State and his country well. He is one of the most effective and wise legislators of our time. Great legislators should be measured by their actions, not by their words. Bob Dole's actions on health care clearly state where his priorities are. So my friend, Bob Dole, good luck. It has been a pleasure serving with you and I know you will continue to serve our country in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think there is nothing more important as we look toward an election, as we look toward closing this session of the Congress, as voters and citizens, than examining some of the things that are really important in making these decisions. I think I must tell you I have been distressed, somewhat, over the last couple of years about this tremendous communication system we have where, for the first time ever, whatever happens in the world, you just instantly know about it. I compare that to what it must have been like 100 years ago. In my State of Wyoming, people did not know what in the world happened in Washington. They probably did not care very much, but they did not know for a very long time. Now we know and we have the greatest communications system, but I have to say I think we have developed this sort of spin process to where it is very difficult for us to know what the facts are so we can make decisions. That is really what this whole thing is about. That is what this Congress is about, what this Senate is about, is making choices, hard choices. I guess, again, I reflect on elections where--obviously, you are not able to talk with candidates about 800 different issues which will be talked about during the course of a year here. So, instead, you have to sort of talk about philosophy and talk about where you stand and talk about the values that you have that you measure the issues against so the people that you talk to can say, ``Yes, I understand. I understand that set of issues. So when I measure against that, I have a pretty good hunch as to how those decisions will be made.'' Never have we had, I do not think, as clear a set of choices as we have had this year and will have in the coming year. I certainly respect that there are different philosophies and different points of view. We get up here and argue, often, the merits of the issues, which is valid, but when you really get down to it, what we are really talking about is the difference in philosophies. A balanced budget is probably the most significant item we have talked about this year, the most significant item that has been brought before all of us as citizens: Whether we are going to be responsible for the spending, whether we are going to be morally responsible to pay for it as we use it, whether we are going to be fiscally responsible, to not spend more than we take in. Everyone says that is a great idea, but not everyone agrees with doing something about it. That is the choice you have. We have everyone saying, yes; we want to balance the budget. But then we have a vote and we do not have enough to get a constitutional amendment to do it. So I think we have some real choices. We have to decide for ourselves what it is that we think is important. Regulatory relief--I do not think anyone would reject the notion or resist the idea that we are overregulated. Overregulation is difficult for the economy, it causes fewer jobs, it causes less prosperity. We can change it. Everyone is for it, except when you get to it, and then they do not do it. Welfare reform--we all talk about welfare reform. Is there anybody who says, ``Oh, no, we do not he need to change welfare, it is perfect''? Of course not. Do we get it done? No; we sent it to the President, and he vetoed it. This is the same President who campaigned on welfare reform. So, these are the kinds of choices we have to make all the time. It seems to me it has become increasingly important that there is some credibility to where you stand, philosophically, on issues. Should we have less Federal Government or more? That is pretty basic, pretty basic stuff. When you talk about many of these issues, that is really the core issue. Should we do it here? Does it need to be done? Could it be done better? Could we, in fact, shift it to the States, closer to people, where it can better be done? That is a good issue. Less government or more? More regulation or less? There are even some more basic issues, I think. They have to do with personal responsibility. They have to do with whether or not you really believe--and I really believe, I do believe --that we are responsible for our own actions. My wife happens to be a high school teacher. She probably says more often than anything else, ``You are responsible for your own behavior. You are responsible for your own actions.'' If that is good enough for kids, it is good enough for us, too. That is how you build a strong freedom, a democracy, is people being responsible for their own actions. But when you take a look at some of the issues we find ourselves saying, discretely, ``Well, no, the Government really ought to be responsible for that. After all, there are a lot of things I am really not responsible for, so somebody else must be.'' That is pretty basic stuff. Bob Dole will be here for the last time tomorrow. I cannot help but think here is a man who has served his country for so long and has consistently been for the things that he said he was for, voted for them and supported them. He is not someone who has said, ``Yes, I think I am for that,'' and then shortly after, ``Well, I am not sure, I am really for something else. Yes, I am for it, but I am not going to vote for it, not that.'' Bob Dole has been consistent in what he is for. Responsible spending--throughout his career he has been for less government rather than more. He has been on the side of moving more and more government back to the States and local government, closer to people, so people can participate. He has been for self-responsibility, for sacrificing for his country. These are the things that--as I said, I think we had 800 votes or something last year on all these issues. But when you peel it all away, there is some pretty basic, fundamental stuff people either believe in or they do not. There is another legitimate point of view--more government. A lot of people think the Government does a better job of spending money, that the way to balance the budget is to raise taxes, not to decrease spending. That is a legitimate point of view. I do not happen to share it, but it is a legitimate point of view. I guess what I am really saying is, we are going to have another opportunity, our biennial opportunity, as citizens, to evaluate where we think we should go, in your Government--in our Government; what you think are the fundamental pillars of defending democracy and freedom. I have had a couple of chances the last couple of years to go some other places. Frankly, I come back feeling more strongly about the elements of democracy and freedom and self-government than I ever did before. So we have that opportunity now. We will be measuring all of our candidates and all of our issues based on what we think is right and who we think will follow what they said they were going to do, where the credibility lies; people upon whom you can depend to stay with what they say. Mr. President, it seems to me that is kind of the real, old-fashioned, fundamental issue of this country. I am excited we are getting onto it. I appreciate my friend from Georgia having this conversation about where we are going, his conversation of credibility, of being able to rely on what we say we are going to do, and do it. We have set about to do that this year. I am pretty proud about what we tried to do. I am sorry we have not come to closure on more things, but we have changed the total debate here. Two years ago, no one was talking about balancing the budget. Now it is not a question of whether we are going to do it, it is a question of how we are going to do it. And that has been because I think we brought, from the last election, many of us, a message that said: ``Look, we expect you to make some changes. You say you are going to have less Government, it is going to cost less and have less regulation. Do it.'' That is what we are seeking to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I will only take 5 minutes. I wanted to do a couple of things. I want to thank the Senator from Georgia for bringing some discussion today as a follow-up to this vote on the balanced budget amendment. I am very disappointed that that balanced budget amendment to the Constitution did not pass. I think there are obviously reasons that it should have passed. Obviously, it was very close to passage. The reasons, of course, have to do with responsibility, with morality of Government, with fiscal responsibility. Everyone accepts the idea that we should not be continuously spending more than we take in. It has to do with the historic performance of the Federal Government for 25 years, or more, since we have balanced the budget last. Everybody gets up, and the first thing they say is, ``Yes, I am for balancing the budget''--the same people who have been here for 25 years and have never balanced the budget. They say, ``We do not need an amendment; we will just do it.'' Well, we have not just done it. So I am very disappointed in that. I suspect that we will have some more opportunities to do that. I come from a State where the constitution provides for a balanced budget. Frankly, it works very well. It is a discipline, and the government works within that discipline. It is one of the elements of good government--one of the elements that says, ``All right. We want a program. Here is what it will cost. Are you willing to pay for it?'' If you are not, if we are not, if I am not, then we should not do it. That is what this fiscal responsibility is all about. I think the best instance of that, of course, is a property tax where we live. The school district says, ``We need a new science building. Here is what it will cost.'' Is it worth it? You vote. Are you willing to pay for it, or are not you? I want to talk about a change that needs to take place in the budget process. Last year we took the whole year and deferred getting the budget finished. Now we are in a year of budgeting, and we are spending such a large amount of our time on the budget. Congress has more responsibilities than simply the budget. Indeed, the budget is very important. The budget is sort of an outline of what we are going to do. But the Congress also has, and the Senate also has, many other responsibilities, such as oversight, such as seeing if bills that have been passed and are up for renewal have, indeed, been effective, whether they need to be changed, whether they need to be renewed. This is a big job, and we are supposed to be doing that. But instead, we are going back and forth spending the whole year practically every year on the budget. I have a bill that has bipartisan support that asks for reform in budgeting and doing a biennial budget. I think there is a great deal of merit in a biennial budget. No. 1, it is better for the Government. It is better for the agencies. They at least have 2 years of planning for what they can do in their expenditures; 2 years in which they can plan how to manage their dollars. It is much better for the Congress. It is done in most legislative bodies--biennial budgeting. It has been supported by both sides of the aisle. The resolution that we introduced this year is supported by Senator Domenici, who is head of the Budget Committee, and we think we can make this reform next year. I think, as we spend all of this time on budgeting, we spend the whole year practically on budgeting rather than some of the other things that we ought to be doing in addition to budgeting, it makes it more clear that there needs to be some reform. We need to have a biennial budget. So, Mr. President, obviously, we are not going to get to that this year. There are relatively few working days left. That will not be one of the issues. I am not naive to think that. But I do say to you that I do not think there is anything more important in terms of restructuring our process than to take a look at biennial budgeting. I intend to bring it up again next year. I have been promised support by those who are much more knowledgeable than I about budgeting. I recognize that there is always resistance from the appropriators. I was on the Appropriations Committee when I was in the legislature. Appropriators have a great deal of influence over all kinds of things because they control spending, and everybody is interested in how spending is done and how it affects their State. So appropriators are reluctant, of course, to lose the authority that they have every year by going through this process. I am sorry for that, but I think they to do a better job if they do it on a biennial basis. Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I hope we will continue to talk a little bit about how we might change some of the processes in this Congress; that we talk about results rather than procedure; that, instead of saying we have been doing it for 200 years, maybe so, but we ought to see what the results have been for having done that for 200 years. There are some things that should not be changed. There are some fundamentals that should not be changed. But there are some processes that are not producing the results that we want, and one of them is budgeting. The result is a $5 trillion debt, the interest on which is the largest single line item in the budget. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator very much. In any event, I just think it is time we have to take a look at what we are doing. Certainly a balanced budget amendment is something most people have thought was a good idea. A number of people on that side of the aisle thought it was a good idea a couple years ago; now, in the last time we voted, did not. Of course it takes two-thirds. It is a difficult thing to do. Mr. President, one of the things that we ought to talk about a little bit, and I think about a great deal, is, why is it important to me as a citizen in Casper, WY, why is it important to anyone who pays their taxes, and is part of this Government? It seems to me that is where we ought to start. First of all, I think a balanced budget has a great deal of impact on our lives. We have gone for a very long time with an unbalanced budget and we did not think much about it. There were no great discussions about it until fairly recently. Why? Because the debt has gotten so large that very likely next year the largest line item in the budget will be for interest of $260-some billion, which will not be available to spend in other areas. People have made the good point that if we did not have the interest payment, the budget would be balanced. But we do. I have heard others say, ``Let's get rid of the debt. It is just Government debt.'' That is not true. You and I own Treasury notes. It belongs to people. It is a real debt. We have to pay that interest. That is part of it. Another is, if you did not take all that money out of the economy, we would have, I think, a strengthened economy. We would have more jobs. Interest rates will be lower with a balanced budget. We have seen that happen fairly recently as we move toward that. Those are things that affect you and me as we live at home and work. This is not some esoteric exercise about budgets, about legislation. It is a very real thing. Interest rates are lower on your home, on your school costs for your kids, on your car. It is very real. It makes a great deal of difference for the economy to be stronger, and jobs make a great deal of difference. Furthermore, and maybe just as important to most of us, is that there is a moral and fiscal obligation with our Government to not spend more than we take in. That applies to everyone else. But we say, ``Well, if we want something and we do not have the money, we will charge it to our kids, our grandkids.'' That is what we have done. This business of reducing the deficit, which is terribly important, has nothing to do with the corpus of the debt. We still have $5 trillion out there that we have not even started to do anything about. We are still trying to reduce it. Over this 6-year period, as we move toward a balanced budget, the debt continues to grow, the interest continues to grow. Mr. President, I think it is fairly easy to get up here politically and go into great economic ideas and so on, but the facts are pretty basic. That is, that it strengthens this country. It strengthens families. It is responsible. It is morally right. We have not done it. We need to do something different. The idea that you continue to do the same thing and expect different results is simply not a realistic expectation. Mr. President, we have asked for some time--``we'' being the freshman class--for the next 1\1/2\ to talk about this issue. I suppose some of us take a little different view than others in this body in that we all came through the last election. We are very conscious of what our voters said to us 2 years ago. Most of us would agree that one of the strong messages was the Federal Government is too large and costs too much and we need to do something about that. If you talk about balancing the budget in my State, it is one of the highest priorities of anyone there. I think those of us who have just been here now for less than a year and a half have a little bit of special interest in it. That is why we have asked for some time as freshmen, to have a special order on balancing the budget. I yield to my friend and associate from Pennsylvania.