Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I claim my time back here. We can stand here, as we do, and as has been going on now since I have been here, in the House for 5 or 6 years, and particularly this year, and think of all these reasons why it cannot be done. ``Oh, so Social Security is there.'' ``Oh, it's not enforceable.'' ``Oh, the courts are going to get into it.'' But, you know, you really come down to the bottom line. And the bottom line is this year, for the first time in 25 years, the Congress sent to the President a balanced budget. The President promptly vetoed it. So I think you have to ask yourself, is it morally and fiscally responsible to balance the budget? Do we have a responsibility as representatives of our constituency to say, ``Look, we're not going to spend more than we take in except in an emergency?'' I think that is reasonable. I know the Senator would agree to that. But that has not happened. So we go into all these reasons and all these excuses why we cannot do that. First of all, all we are doing is we are sending a constitutional amendment to the States. The folks will have another chance to look at this, which I think makes some sense. But I feel very strongly that we have tried the other things. Some say, ``Well, you shouldn't tamper with the Constitution. The Framers didn't put that in there.'' I do not think the Framers also expected that you would have the largest line item in the budget being interest on a debt that has been built up because we do not balance the budget. I think we are making some progress. I have to tell you that part of the largest tax increase in history helps do that. I think on the other side of the aisle you found, for the first time, some people willing to reduce spending, cut that back some. The combination of those two things are moving us in the right direction. There are two different points of view on it. That is why we are going to vote one of these times.

Mr. THOMAS. I am not sure.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS. Of course, enforceable.

Mr. THOMAS. Sure.

Mr. THOMAS. I am sorry. I do not think that is the way to do it. I think we are looking for some sort of discipline. We just have an honest disagreement about this. I think that the constitutional amendment provides the discipline within which this body or other legislative bodies can work. Obviously, the Senator mentioned Gramm-Rudman. It did not work because there was not the discipline. This body found its way to go around that, did they not? They said this is an appropriations but did not score it under Gramm-Rudman.

Mr. THOMAS. By raising taxes, the largest tax increase in history, I agree. I did not vote for it. The Senator did, did he not?

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, of course. Let me give you an example. The Senator has been here for 20 years, or whatever, and we have not balanced the budget in the time the Senator has been here. The Senator points to some areas--I do not mean this personally--but this has not been done. The Senator points to some possibilities that might happen under a constitutional amendment. Look at what has happened without one. So I say to the Senator that--he talks about a sham. The sham is that we have gone on for 25 years here and we have spent more than we have taken in. Every time we talk about it, everyone who gets up in this place says, ``I'm for balancing the budget. I'm going to balance the budget.'' What is the evidence? The evidence is you have not.

Mr. THOMAS. Sure.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to continue this discussion on the balanced budget amendment. It has been a long discussion. It is not a new discussion. It is one that has gone on for years. Unfortunately, it is one that is going to go on for a number of more years. Let me comment for a moment on the presentation of the gentleman from Louisiana. I respect him very much. Certainly he is one of the most polished and dependable Members of this body. I disagree with him in this instance. I disagree on the notion that somehow the courts will inject themselves into this and this will not work. I cite the fact that some 35 States, mine included, has it in their constitution. We have not had the problem with the involvement of the courts. The courts in some instances can come to the legislature, can come to the Congress and say, ``What you have done is unconstitutional, and you need to redo it.'' That is a legitimate function of the court. They may do that, I suspect, in the spending area, but not to establish what you are going to spend. ``What you're doing is not right, and you have to do it again.'' There is a substantial amount of evidence that that does work.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, to introduce legislation to protect public land in our State. This bill would transfer 680 acres of land currently administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to the State of Wyoming. This property commonly known as Ranch A is located in Crook County, WY, and is scheduled to be disposed of by the General Services Administration in the coming months. Since the area is unique and possesses many historic and distinctive characteristics, the State of Wyoming would like to have the property transferred to it so that the property and facilities on the land can be preserved for the public for many years to come. The Ranch A lodge, which sits on 680 acres of property, was constructed by a private developer in the 1930's and acquired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1963. Since the area has an abundant supply of spring-fed water, it is ideal for trout research and the study of trout genetics. The Fish and Wildlife Service continued its research operations at Ranch A until 1980 when all of the agency's trout research work was transferred to Bozeman, MT. Since that time, the Service has maintained the facility but has leased the area to a variety of groups including the Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the South Dakota School of Mines. Although the area has significant historical and cultural values, in 1995 the Department of Interior took action to divest itself of ownership of Ranch A. Recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service declared the property as ``surplus'' and is planning to dispose of Ranch A through the General Services Administration. No formal action has been taken on the disposal request and the property is still owned and maintained by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The State of Wyoming is interested in protecting Ranch A and working to ensure the area is protected for future generations. Earlier this year, the Wyoming congressional delegation was approached by Gov. Jim Geringer and asked if we could introduce legislation to have the property transferred to the State of Wyoming. The State is willing to assume ownership of the area and maintain the facility and the adjacent land for educational, historical and wildlife management purposes. The legislation I am introducing today would achieve that goal. The bill would transfer all right and title of the 680 acres and all buildings on the Ranch A property to the State of Wyoming. The State would assume control of the property and would be required to manage the area for public purposes including fish and wildlife management, education and historical uses. In order to ensure the area remains public, the legislation contains a reverter clause that requires the State of Wyoming to manage the property for public uses or it would be transferred back to Federal ownership. The bill is the product of long negotiations between the State of Wyoming and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Initially, the State would only accept the land if Federal funds were authorized to refurbish the area. However, by working with the State, the Federal Government and local officials, we have been able to craft a compromise that does not require any Federal expenditures and keeps the land public. Mr. President, the Ranch A property is a truly unique facility that should be kept in public ownership. The area has significant historic and cultural value in addition to its wildlife and research opportunities. Keeping the area clean and pure is a goal of the residents in the region who hope to preserve the beauty of the facility and surrounding land for future generations to enjoy. The State of Wyoming is willing to take on the responsibility of protecting this wonderful property and I strongly support their efforts to ensure that Ranch A is protected for many years to come. Instead of allowing the Federal Government to dispose of this unique property that has such a variety of uses, I urge Congress to take action and allow the State of Wyoming to protect Ranch A. The choice is clear--either we pass this bill and keep the area open to the public, or we allow the Federal Government to move forward and dispose of the land into private ownership. I hope we can move quickly to support this outstanding area and pass this legislation in the near future.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I offer to the Senate a sense-of-the- Senate resolution which states that we would have biennial budgeting. I make this recommendation for several reasons. The primary factor is my personal experience with biennial budgeting. I come from the Wyoming legislature where we employ a 2-year budget cycle. It works very well. It seems to me that we ought to bring that Western wisdom inside the beltway. I know it has been considered before, but obviously Congress has not enacted the concept. I want to take just a moment to recognize the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, who has been a real leader on this issue for a number of years. In fact, he and Majority Leader Bob Dole joined me when I recently introduced a bill, S. 1434, that would create a biennial budget process. Obviously, there are some great benefits from biennial budgeting. One of them is being demonstrated here today. This Congress we have spent most of our time working on the budget. I am not sure what the numbers are, but if you looked at last year, I suspect that we will have spent fully two-thirds of the year in this place talking about the budget. The alternative to that, it seems to me, is the opportunity of having a biennial budget in which basically we could talk about a budget, debate a budget, discuss a budget, enact a budget in 1 year, put that budget into place for a period of 2 years, and have the following year to do one of the other major responsibilities of the Senate, and that is oversight. I strongly believe that we do not spend enough time on oversight in Congress. That is one of our basic responsibilities. This failure has led to the continuous growth of the Federal Government. So there are a number of reasons why biennial budgeting would be important. One is that it would promote timely action on budget legislation. We would not drag the process out as much as we do now. Another benefit is that it would provide an opportunity for Federal agencies to plan a little further ahead. Although it is not long term-- 2 years--it would create more stability in executive branch programs. A 2-year budget cycle would also eliminate some of the redundancies of the current process. I am not on the Appropriations Committee here. I was, however, in my legislature, and I know how much time and effort goes into it and how important it is. Quite frankly, it is not any more difficult to do it for 2 years than it is for 1. I suspect that there is not generally a great deal of support by appropriators for this concept. Obviously, one of the reasons is that appropriators have a great deal of authority around here, primarily because they consider the budget every year. Naturally, they don't want to relinquish that power. Appropriators who want something out of the budget for their State are beholden to the current budget process. I do not say that unkindly, that is just the way it is. Consequently, I do not expect the appropriators to support this reform. One of the other benefits, of course, is you reduce the frequency of Presidential/congressional conflicts, though those instances will always occur. There is a responsibility on the part of the Congress, of course, for the House to initiate and the Congress to put forth a budget. Under the Constitution, the President has an opportunity to approve or disapprove it. I think this is one of the areas where there is a certain amount of frustration; where we find ourselves sometimes changing and fixing everything to meet the President's requirements. The fact is, the President has some requirements, too, to accommodate himself to the Congress. It is not a one-way street down Pennsylvania Avenue. So biennial budgeting would reduce these conflicts. It would, as I mentioned before, encourage long-term planning, particularly in the executive branch and in State governments. Mr. President, I am not going to take a great deal of time to discuss this issue. I know this is not the time to go into great length to debate it. This is the time, however, to give it some consideration, when we are in the middle of the budget process. We will be moving into the appropriations cycle, when this budget is over, which will likely take until October to complete. In addition, we recently finished last year's appropriations process. So biennial budgeting provides a great opportunity, I believe, to streamline the process. But making the process more efficient is not even the most important benefit of biennial budgeting. In a 2-year budget cycle, more time can be spent on oversight, and less time can be spent on budgeting conflicts with the executive branch. Mr. President, all in all, I think it makes a great deal of sense. Biennial budgeting will not cure all of the Federal Government's ills, of course, but it is, I believe, a solid step toward restoring some fiscal and oversight accountability in our Nation's Capital. As I mentioned, now is not the time to debate it. However, I intend to pursue the issue in the future. Though I plan to withdraw the amendment, I am putting my colleagues on notice that this issue must be addressed. I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I can bring up an amendment that I have filed on the biennial budget.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, simply, on behalf of the manager, I want to make it clear that the majority has not yielded back time on the Wellstone amendments, nor have we given up the right to second-degree these amendments. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. No, this is the first time I have talked. I would like a chance to do that. Thank you. So it is backloaded, and no one can argue with that. It is there and perhaps none of it should be backloaded. Of course, it will be when you reduce so much this year, it builds up, and I understand that. But we have to make some tough decisions if we are going to do that, and that is what it is about. Raising taxes--as I understand, the Clinton budget takes out $97 billion in taxes, puts back 60, a net reduction of $37 billion. That is really not much of a bite; not much of a bite for a country that pays that much in taxes. The Republican budget, on the other hand, is about 122, I believe; $500 credit for children. That is a pretty good idea, I think. Permanent; age 18. We do not start with three.

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THOMAS. Five minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is the first time that I have spoken on the budget. I am not on the Budget Committee, I am not an appropriator, but I, obviously, am very interested in this process, perhaps more interested in it as it pertains to the policy direction it would take than specifically in the dollars. The budget is a document that has more impact than simply spending. The budget document is one that gives us some direction in terms of where we go. It gives us some direction in terms of philosophy. Do you want more Government or would you have less? I have to tell you that I believe the people in Wyoming think the Federal Government ought to be less expensive, ought to be smaller, we ought to spend less. It has to do with balancing the budget, and it is interesting to listen to those who have worked so hard through the years: ``Balance the budget.'' Have you ever heard anyone rise who did not want to balance the budget? I do not think so. It has not been balanced for 25 years. I begin to wonder if all this rhetoric has been so meaningful. But in any event, we need to balance the budget. It is morally and fiscally responsible to do that. It is a philosophical question if you want to balance the budget. We hear a lot of talk about how we moved the deficit down. How did we do that? By the largest tax increase in the history of this country. I do not happen to think that is the proper way to do that. I think we ought to reduce spending. Of course, whenever you talk about reducing spending, somebody says, ``No, I don't want to reduce it there, I want to reduce it there. I want to reduce it for you, not for me.'' I understand that. When the average family spends 40 percent of their income in total taxes, that is an excessive amount. So we need to talk about that, and we need to take a look at our goals and see if this really, really does it. I agree with the Senator from North Dakota that maybe we get bogged down entirely with all these details, which somebody has to do. But for most of us, it is a direction, a philosophy, it is where we are going, and the budget has something to do with that, a great deal to do with that. I was very involved in our budget in the Wyoming Legislature. It was much smaller, much easier, same principle. One of the differences was we had a constitutional amendment that said we had to balance the budget. We could not spend more than we took in. What an idea. So we talk about that Washington has never spent more on bureaucracy than it does now--this administration--never spent less in real dollars on defense since World War II. The tax burden has never been higher than it is now. Americans will pay half a trillion dollars more in taxes because of our tax increase. I am concerned as well about the backloading. Now I hear, ``Well, we all backload.'' That is true. But the fact is that the Clinton budget backloads much more than the other one, 66 percent of the savings in the last 2 years.

Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate that, Mr. President. Thank you.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to very briefly follow up on a rather lengthy statement I made on May 3 regarding the present intellectual property rights dispute with the People's Republic of China. Since then, I have read a number of reports in the Chinese media regarding their view of the present situation which I feel bear examination and call for some response. First, I am struck by the fact that the Chinese Government's position on its level of compliance with the IPR agreement appears to be somewhat schizophrenic. On the one hand, I have seen statements from both the Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation stating, for example, that ``the Chinese side has fully and conscientiously carried out its duties as stipulated in [the] Sino-U.S. IPR Agreement.'' On the other hand, I have also read statements from the same spokesmen for the same ministries tacitly acknowledging that China has not adhered to the letter of the agreement but falling back on the excuse that ``demanding that a developing country such as China do a perfect job [in regards to enforcing the terms of the Agreement] within a short few years is not practical as well as unfair.'' Well Mr. President, which is it? I, and most other observers I believe, would credit the latter as being closer to the truth. Starting from that premise, I would remind the Chinese that we are not asking that they do a perfect job of rooting out IPR piracy. We are simply asking that they adhere to an agreement that they signed; we are simply asking that they live up to their voluntarily assumed responsibilities. If, as the Chinese assert, it is unfair for us to assume that they can try to stem IPR piracy in only a few years, then why on Earth did they sign the agreement to do so in the first place? How can it be unfair to hold the Chinese to their own word? It is sort of like two ranchers who sign a contract, one agreeing to buy 10 head of cattle from another. The buyer takes the 10 head, but gives the seller only one-third of the agreed-on payment. When the seller complains, the buyer says that it's unfair to blame him for not living up to the agreement in full because he doesn't have enough money to pay for all 10 head. Well, the buyer knew going into the deal that he couldn't live up to his side of the agreement, but went ahead in spite of that and signed it anyway. So who is the guilty party, Mr. President, certainly not the aggrieved seller. Second, the Chinese have repeatedly stated that they are opposed to our imposition of sanctions because economic and trade disputes ``should be settled through consultations in the spirit of mutual respect, equality, and mutual benefit.'' Well Mr. President, we have tried consultations, only to have the Chinese side continually promise adherence but fail to carry through. As the Chinese are so fond of saying, ``deeds speak louder than words''; and their deeds clearly show that they are not living up to the agreement. We have tried mutual respect, but there is no mutual respect when one side systematically fails to live up to an agreement. We have tried mutual benefit, but there is no mutual benefit when IPR piracy in the People's Republic of China costs United States' companies in excess of $2 billion in lost revenue per year. Third, as I noted in my last statement, I have noticed a tendency on the part of some Chinese officials when faced with statements regarding the lack of Chinese adherence to the agreement to attempt to deflect the criticism by taking the offensive and claiming that the United States has not held up its side of the agreement. Unfortunately, Mr. President, when pressed for specific examples of that alleged noncompliance, my Chinese friends have grown somewhat vague and noncommittal. Mr. President, as the two sides continue 11-hour talks on this impasse, I hope that the Chinese side will remember that it is the United States, and not them, that is the aggrieved party.