Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about several things. I am not the one who is, of course, engaging in the obstruction of the gas tax repeal that we have been going through now for nearly a week. I would like to comment just a bit on the budget. Even though we are not into the budget debate, there are comments that have been made this afternoon that I think require some little comment. Finally, just a little comment on where we have been this year in terms of obstructionism and holding us back. It is kind of frustrating, maybe more so for those of us who are new here, and I think very frustrating for the people in the country, to see the Senate not able to move forward on issues that certainly cause disagreement. Nevertheless, we do have a system for that, and that is called voting. If the issue gets more votes than it does not get, then it passes. It if does not, it does not. That is the concept of most of us on how to run things. So it is a little frustrating finding yourself in the position of not moving when there are things to be done, when there are things that are important to families in this country. One of the other things I think is particularly frustrating is we have here, and very proudly so, a government of the people and by the people, where people make the final decisions on how they stand, how they believe on issues. But, to do that, it is necessary to have the facts. Increasingly in our society, I think, and it troubles me a bit-- we have more ability now to communicate than we have ever had. We have the opportunity now, regardless of what happens here or what happens around the world, to know about it instantly through this communications system. Yet, at the same time, despite that system, we find ourselves with more noninformation all the time. It is not the province of any one particular party, it is not the province of any one person, but we find ourselves, I think, with more and more information that is spun to make a point and that is not, frankly, accurate. I think that is too bad. It is really difficult to make decisions with respect to policies and issues if the information we have is distorted. I think we see that increasingly happen to us. Talking about the budget, a little bit ago there was discussion on the floor about the budget that will be brought out and talked about tomorrow. Among other things it was said EPA takes a whopping cut. The fact of the matter is discretionary spending at the EPA would remain at the level provided in the recently signed appropriations bill. It is not a cut. It stays as it is. The allegation was also made that education would be cut. Education will increase from $47.8 to $52 billion. That is not a cut. Last year we got into this business about Medicare and talking about the cuts. There were no cuts. What it was was reducing the level of growth so we could maintain that program. If you like Medicare, if you like health care for the elderly, then you have to do something. We thought then that you had to do something by about 2005 or whatever. Now it has been refined to where you have to make some changes by 2001 or the system will go broke. That is no one's projection except the trustees, three of whom are appointed by the President. The resolution, as a matter of fact, would increase the spending for beneficiaries from $4,800 in 1995 to $7,000. That is not a cut. Yet we hear, and the media continues to utilize that word, ``cut.'' So it is very difficult, it seems to me, to really deal with this. There is a legitimate difference of view. I understand that. Much of the conversation that goes on here, even though we talk about details, is basically a philosophical difference. A little bit ago one of our associates on the other side of the aisle was talking about the benefits of tax increases because they helped reduce the deficit. Of course they do. But the philosophical question is, do you want to reduce the deficit by controlling spending and reducing the level of spending, the rate of spending which would balance the budget, or do you want to continue to spend at the same level and raise taxes to offset it? That is a philosophical difference. That is basically what we talk about here. It is a defining choice. I suspect everyone, even though it does not happen, says: Yes, let us balance the budget. We have talked about a constitutional amendment here, talked about it this year--everybody, when they initially stood, said, ``I am going to balance the budget. We do not need a constitutional amendment. We can do it.'' Yes, we can. We have not done it for 25 years, however. So it does seem to me a constitutional amendment is something reasonable. But further than that, and at least as important, is what is the philosophy of doing it? Do you want to continue to grow at the rate we have in the past, which is like 8 percent a year faster than the growth in the economy? Or do we want to reduce that level, that rate of growth, and balance the budget that way? I happen to favor that idea. I think voters said, in 1994, the Federal Government is too big, it is too costly, we need to do something to contain it. I think we should do that. So that is the great debate. To have that debate, you have to have some facts there. You have to talk about the same numbers. Then we argue about the philosophical difference, because there is one. The idea, somehow, the statement that ``I am not going to vote for any tax cuts'' does not seem to me to be the kind of thing that I support. I think we ought to have tax cuts. I think we ought to be able to leave more money in the pockets of American families. About 40 percent, on average, of our income goes to some level of taxation. I do not think anybody ever intended for that to be the case. Of course, there are functions of Government that we all support. There are functions of Government that we need to fund and finance, but I do not think anyone had the notion that we would be doing it at the level of 40 percent of our income. So I hope as we go through this budget--and it is more apparent in budgets than anything else--that we can say: Here are the basic sets of facts. We ought to start there. Then if you disagree, fine. Disagreement is what it is all about. Let me talk a minute about the gas tax filibuster. We have been trying to do that for a while. What are we talking about? First of all, the bill that is on the floor has to do with Travelgate reimbursement, reimbursing those employees who were unjustly taken to court, who had worked at the White House, to pay their legal fees. That is the basic issue. The amendments to that included a gas tax reduction of 4.3 cents. It has to do with the minimum wage, a controversial issue, but a valid issue, useful. It has to do with the TEAM concept of allowing employers and employees to be able to come together to use some of the new techniques that have been developed in management, to allow employers to call upon employees to find better ways to do things. We have seen this happen around the world. I come from Cody, WY. The guy who started that kind of management in Japan came from Cody, WY, of all places. And it works. But we do not allow that to happen unless there is a change. The minimum wage is a legitimate issue. Interestingly enough, it came up here in the Senate about a month ago and had not been talked about for 3 years. But when the AFL-CIO was here and promised $35 million for the election, suddenly it became an issue. It is a legitimate issue. We ought to talk about it. The gas tax, however, the 4.3 cents--the average gas tax paid in this country is about 38 cents. About half is Federal, about half State. I come from Wyoming where people drive a good deal more. Someone mentioned their family, when using their car, would save about $20. Ours is about $70, because we do drive a great deal more. So it is a little unfair regionally. I have a parochial concern about that. I think one of the interesting things, though, is that this 4.3 cents, out of the 18 cents, is the only portion of the gas tax that does not go to the maintenance and building of highways. It goes into the general fund. I think it would be a mistake to begin to tax this commodity generally for nonhighway uses. That is what we have done. So we have an opportunity now to change that. One of the reasons it comes up, of course, is because of the extraordinary recent prices in gasoline over the last month or less. Is this the answer to that? No, of course not. But this needs to be repealed under any circumstances. It provides an opportunity to talk about it, some way to say, ``Well, the 4.3 cents will never get to the consumer.'' I do not believe that. First of all, it has such a high level of visibility that it surely will have to go there. Second, there is great competition, as you know. If I have a gas station on one corner and you have one on the other, and I lower mine, you are going to lower yours, too. That is going to happen. Competition has a great deal to do with that. We had a hearing this week and took a look at the costs of gasoline, and it is roughly a third--about a third for crude oil, about a third in the refining and marketing, and about a third in taxes. Not many commodities are taxed that high. So we ought to do that. I am very disappointed that instead of voting on it, instead of following the advice of the President, who over the years has indicated that he was opposed to a gas tax, who indicated during his campaign that that was not a good tax because it taxed the poor at a much higher level of a percentage of their income than the rich--it is true--now supports it, brought it to us. So we need to change that. Why do we not? Because our friends on that side of the aisle will not let it come up. Filibuster. This is not the classic filibuster where people stand up and talk all night and bring their sleeping bag and cook dinner out in the back. This is the kind where it is simply obstructionism that will not let it come to the floor, and it continues. So we need to change that, Mr. President. We need to move forward. Let these issues stand for all as they will. Finally, I think there has been some frustration, at least on my part, this year in that this is not the first time or the only time it has happened. My friend from Georgia just indicated that some 60 times this has happened this year, more than any other time in recent history. We have set about to make some changes this year. I think those of us who just came last year in the last election are maybe more aware of the need for change, feel more of a mandate to make a change. I think, to a large extent, we have succeeded in causing that change to happen. We have not come to closure on as many things as I wish we would have and could have, but I can tell you that we have changed the debate here. Now we are talking about how do you balance the budget, arguing about which aspects of the budget we can change to balance it. For 25 years we did not talk about balancing the budget at all. Now we are. Now we are talking about ways to make Government more efficient and more effective and, indeed, to move some of the functions of Government back closer to people, the States and the counties. That is a new idea. Not since the Great Society with Lyndon Johnson have we talked about making it smaller rather than larger. So there have been a lot of things that this same sort of obstructionism has caused not to happen. Tort reform. A lot of people believe that we ought to do something in our legal system, do something about litigation so that we do not have this constant pressure. We cannot do that because there is obstruction from the White House. Regulatory reform. Almost everybody understands and recognizes that we are overregulated. Sure, we need regulations, but they need to be the kind that are efficient and effective and not so costly. We did not get regulatory reform because it was obstructed. The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution failed by one vote in the Senate. As I mentioned, people argue, ``Well, we don't need to do that.'' The evidence is we do. We do it in my State. We do it in most of our States. We do it in about 43 States, I think. There is a constitutional amendment that you cannot spend more than you take in. That makes sense. It is morally and fiscally responsible. We ought to do that. Welfare reform. Almost everybody believes that we need to help people who need help, but we need to help them back into the work force, and we need to make some changes so that can happen. We need to move that much more to the States. Certainly the delivery system in Wyoming for welfare needs to be different than it is in Pennsylvania. We have 100,000 miles and 475,000 people, half of what is in Fairfax County across the river. Our system has to be different. We need to let the States devise that delivery system. Health care reform is stalled right now. It is not an extensive health care reform, but it has to do with portability; it has to do with accessibility to insurance. It is hung up now. We cannot move forward. I have been involved, as have many of us, with Superfund reform. Everybody knows Superfund reform has to come about. One of the main contributors to cleaning up Superfund sites are insurance dollars, and 85 percent of those dollars go to legal fees, not to cleaning up Superfund sites. That needs to be changed. We need to reduce spending. Talk about balancing the budget--spending has continued to grow. So, Mr. President, those are some of the effects, it seems to me, of sort of obstructing moving forward. This one is more pronounced than most. We cannot move on the gas tax. But it has been going on all year. That apparently is the strategy to move into this election, to make sure we do not do anything. I think that is too bad. So, Mr. President, I hope that we can do something about it. I hope we can make a move. I think the 4.3-cent gas tax needs to be repealed and needs to be returned. I hope, as we move into the debate on the budget, that we can at least talk about facts, put the numbers out there as they really are, and then argue about whether you like it or not. I hope that we can move forward on a great many of the issues that I believe people would like to see considered and would like to see passed. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take advantage of the 10 minutes you granted to talk a little bit about this tax decrease that is on our menu today. We have talked about it for some time, but I think it is always useful to refresh ourselves about exactly what we are talking about, as the Senator from Georgia indicated, and I appreciate him bringing together this time to talk about it. We are talking about 4.3-cent tax cut on the gas tax. The average gas tax in this country is about 38 cents, about half of which is Federal, half of which is State. We had a chart the other day at a hearing that we held. It showed the cost of crude, the cost of refining, and the cost of taxes. The three of them were nearly equal. So we have substantial tax on fuel. The unique thing about this 4.3 cents, that I think everyone needs to understand, is that it is the only part of the gas tax that does not go to the maintenance and preparation of highways. This was added onto highway users and to drivers for other purposes--to go to social programs, to go to general spending. I think that is a problem. I think that is a problem in direction. We have always tied together the gas tax to the preparation of highways and the maintenance of highways, to building the Federal highway program to serve all States. Here, now, we deviate from that and use this source--we take it away from what gas taxes were really intended to be for and to use them for general spending. I think that is a mistake. Why should it not be 10 cents more or 15 cents more, when some believe we need the money? The reduction would be, temporarily at least, until the end of this calendar year. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about a tax that was part of the President's tax increase in 1993, the largest tax increase in the history of this country, $260 billion of tax increase. The President has indicated when he had his tax increase he was going to tax the rich. Let me tell you, a gas tax does not tax the rich. A gas tax taxes everyone. Selfishly, I have to tell you, it taxes people in my State twice as much as it does the people in the District of Columbia because we are the ninth largest State--100,000 square miles and 50,000 people. We drive a lot. We have no public transportation. So it is an unfair tax regionally. It is an unfair tax in terms of income. It is paid by everyone, despite their income. In fact, the lower one-fifth of earners in this country pay 4\1/2\ times as much in this tax as do the top fifth, because it is not related to income. Mr. President, I have never favored the tax. I voted against it, as you did, and all Republicans did; partly because I am not one who thinks we ought to look for more taxes. I believe strongly in what I think was the message of the 1994 election, that the Federal Government is too big and it costs too much and we are overregulated. So we ought to be looking at ways to find efficiency, we ought to be looking at ways to reduce the expenditures, as opposed to finding more taxes so we can continue to grow. By the way, there is a great deal of talk, and I am pleased for that, that the deficit is down. It is down because we have more taxes. Spending is up. Spending continues to go up. I think we ought to be going the other way. Some say a reduction in taxes by 4.3 cents will not go to the consumer. I think it will. I do not think it should be done necessarily because gas prices are high. That does focus on it and gives us an opportunity to talk about it, but I think it should be done regardless of where gas prices are. When the money does not go to highways, when it is an increase in taxes to the lowest income-earners in our country, then I think we ought to change that. I ran into this in the House a couple of years ago. When we talk about the details of issues--in that case it happened to be land use issues, in this case it happens to be taxes--we can go on and on about the details of why you should do it or why you should not do it. The fact is, it is basically a philosophical question. My friend on the other side of the aisle who talks quite often comes from a Western State and is against the repeal. He is against the repeal and I am for it because he and I differ in philosophy. He likes more Government. I would like to have some less. If you like more Government you need more taxes. If you think the Government is better at spending people's money than having them keep it for themselves, then more taxes are the appropriate thing to do, and I understand that. It is a legitimate point of view. It does not happen to be mine. My only point is, when we get into the details of some of these things, the details really are not the issue. The issue is the philosophy. The issue is the philosophy. If you want more Government, if Government is the best answer to all of our problems, then you should be for more taxes because you certainly ought to pay for at least a portion of the program you have. If you believe Government can spend the money better than the people who earn it, and more efficiently--and there are those who do--then you should be for more taxes. The argument that is used is: It harms the deficit. Let me tell you something, spending next year will be $1,600 billion, $1.6 trillion. In that budget, if we cannot find offsets of $4 billion in programs that ought to be reduced, indeed ought to be eliminated, I will--almost anybody can find them. The Presiding Officer has outlined most of them. They will be used for offsets. The other argument is it will not be used for consumers. I do not believe that. As competitive as this industry is, if I have a service station on one corner and I reduce the price, you do not think everyone else on the other corners is going to? Of course they are. Furthermore, they have said they would. So, I think this is an issue that really reaches in the direction we have been going. I think the Presiding Officer talked a little bit about the frustration of the slowness of action on this particular issue. We have been talking about it now for 2 weeks. Our friends on the other side of the aisle will not let it move and have adopted a very defensive position about everything that is sought to be done. I just want to say a little bit, off that subject. I have thought about this a little bit, and frankly I am a little frustrated. This is my second year in the Senate. I am pretty frustrated with the fact we do not move, we do not decide to take up an issue and vote on it. That is what voting is for, to make those decisions. Instead, we use the system to procrastinate. But, as I reflected on it, I am really pleased in what has happened over the last year and a half. We have seen a total redirection in this Senate. We have seen a total redirection from what has been going on for 40 years--and that has been one of the difficulties. We have been going along with pretty much of a New Society, Great Society Program started with Lyndon Johnson. How long ago was that? Each year we have come here and we have said, ``How much more will we spend on these same programs?'' For the first time in 25 years, we talked about balancing the budget. We are going to balance the budget. We are going to commit ourselves to it. We have changed the whole direction of the discussion from how much more do you add to balancing the budget and doing it by reducing the size of Government and reducing taxes, by transferring some functions to States, doing away with some functions, putting some functions in the private sector, but continuing then to look for efficient ways to deliver those services that are essential, that do need to be there. Let me tell you, there are plenty of them that are not that essential and many that are. So I am delighted that we have done that. We have done a lot of things. We have the line-item veto; we have congressional accountability; we passed unfunded mandates reform; we reduced congressional spending; we have small business regulatory reform; a telecommunications bill; lobbying reform; gift ban; a farm bill that moves it back to the marketplace for the first time in how many years? Fifty. Securities litigation reform. So, Mr. President, I think we get frustrated, and we should. On the other hand, we have changed the whole complexion of this place in 1 year, and it is going to take longer than that to change 40 years of habits. But this is one of the ways that I think you begin, by saying, ``Look, gas taxes ought to be dedicated to highways and highway construction.'' We have one here that is not. We have one here that is designed to keep the Government going as it was. We have an opportunity to reduce spending for the American families. We have a chance to do that. I am very hopeful that the other side of the aisle will give us an opportunity to vote on the gas tax reduction and give us a chance to vote on some of the other issues that are there as well so we can move forward. The fact there is now a Presidential election going on does not mean that we should stop doing something, that everything has to be tied to the Presidential election. Things ought to be talked about on the merits. I understand there is a difference of view, and I recognize that. I guess that is really what I have been trying to say. There is a philosophical difference about the size of Government, a philosophical difference about how people ought to spend their own money, a philosophical difference about taxation. And that is where we are. I support strongly the idea of reducing this tax of 4.3 cents, continuing to reduce it in the budget and finding some places in this $1.6 trillion budget that we can offset this and continue to do that, continue to make programs more efficient, more responsive, more close to people by involving the States. Mr. President, I appreciate you giving me this opportunity. I appreciate what you are doing on the floor. I think we need to talk about these issues. People need to know what they are. People need to know this is a different gas tax than the other 14, 15 cents that is there. This was designed for a specific purpose, and this is a great opportunity to change it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use 5 minutes of the time on our side to talk about the issue that is before us. This has been going on for some time. I have not been privy to the internal workings of it. But I have to tell you, I am a little bit disappointed in the system where we have gone now for almost 2 weeks and have effectively done nothing. It seems to have been perfected on that side of the aisle--the idea of being able to keep things from happening. Let us talk about what we are really doing here. As I recall, the basis is the Travelgate question, the question of reimbursing those employees who were unfortunately, and I think perhaps unfairly, accused regarding their fees in the Travelgate affair at the White House. We are talking about minimum wage, which I do not happen to support. I think it takes more jobs than it creates. But I am certainly willing to have a vote on it. I think it is interesting. You get accusations about politics. The minimum wage did not come up for 2\1/2\ years when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate, as well as the White House. But suddenly--I guess it was just happenstance--when the AFL-CIO was here, they promised to give $35 million for the election, this issue came forward. I am sure that was an accident. The TEAM bill, which seems to me to be pretty hard to argue against, is an opportunity for people to work with their employer to find ways to deal with issues that affect them as a business person. It seems to me that is a great idea. There seems now to be questions about whether it can be done, and that needs to be clarified. I support that. The tax reduction, I think, is one of the most important things that we have talked about here. I was in the House when this came up. I voted against it for several reasons. One is that it does not have anything to do with the maintenance of highways. It does not have anything to do with roads. Someone in our hearing this morning said, ``Well, why don't we do the 10 cents that came up earlier?'' There is a significant difference between the two. This one goes into the general fund for social programs, or whatever. The other one goes to the maintenance of highways, which has traditionally been our system, where the gas tax goes for the maintenance and building of the highways. The other is, of course, that it is another tax that is added on. It is a tax that some claim is used, of course, to balance the budget. I would like to suggest that we ought to be a little more proud about balancing the budget if we reduce the spending rather than raising taxes, rather than talking constantly about how we are coming closer to balancing the budget because we had the largest tax increase in our history. Instead, we might talk a little bit about how we might reduce the size of Government. I think people in my State say the Federal Government is too big, that it costs too much. But instead we talk about how we are going to balance the budget by raising taxes. I am a little surprised that that tax increase passed at all, of course. The President said, and I quote from 1992. ``I oppose Federal excise tax increases for gas.'' That is when he was campaigning. After he was elected, then he started with a Btu tax and ended up with this one. Bill Clinton said in 1992, commenting on the gas tax proposal, ``It sticks it to the lower income, middle-income retired people in the country, and it is wrong''--talking about a gas tax. So, Mr. President, I think we ought to move forward. I understand that this is the deliberative body. I understand the rules that, when I ask about them, I usually am told, ``Well, they have been that way for 200 years.'' But their needs to be a way for us to move forward. We are here to solve problems. We are not here to find ways to keep from solving them. I think we ought to move forward. I am pleased with what I hear from the leaders that we might be in a position to move forward and make some decisions. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the management and costs of class action lawsuits at Department of Energy facilities. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 14 at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or 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 am sure there will be more conversations today, as there should, about the fact that this is tax freedom day. This is the day that has been determined that each of us on the average has worked since the first of the year until now to pay our taxes to this country. A typical family of four pays 38.2 percent of their income in taxes. That is for all governments. In Wyoming, and this is the U.S. Census estimate, the median income for families is about $47,000. Federal taxes are about $10,000; local and State taxes are another $5,000 or $6,000, for a total of $16,000 in direct taxes. The estimated cost of Federal regulation for a family is about $6,600. Excess family interest payments caused by Federal borrowing are approximately $2,000 for a total of $24,000 that goes to taxation. So, Mr. President, it is an appropriate day for us to take a look at what we do with taxes. I would like to approach it from just a little different angle. Of course, taxes are dollars, taxes are numbers when we talk about those, but I think also there is a concern that we ought to have that taxes also are related to the size of Government. They are more than money. They have to do with the kind of Government we have. They have to do with the number of Government programs that we expect, and there is a relationship between spending and taxes. Of course, we ought to be willing to pay for the programs that we want. We have not done this. For 40 years, we have not balanced the budget. What we have done is said, ``Yes, we want more programs, but we are going to charge them to our kids; we're not going to pay for them.'' We ought to be willing to pay for the programs that we want. I think that the message in the election of 1994, and we are coming up to another one in 1996, the message was, ``government is too big, the Federal Government is too big, it costs too much and we are overregulated.'' Too often in the past 40 years, we have said, ``Well, we have all these programs. The question is, how do we pay for it,'' instead of taking a look each time at what programs we have, how effective those programs are, where should those programs be cared for, do they, indeed, need to be there at all. One of the problems is we have been sort of distanced from the idea of paying for them. The best relationship between a taxpayer and his or her Government is that as a taxpayer in a school district where the proposition is we need a new school or we need a new science lab, we say, ``All right, it costs x amount of dollars to have this new science lab. It is going to cost you this much on your taxes next year,'' and you make the decision whether or not you are willing to pay a cost- benefit ratio. Is it worth it to you to pay for that program? The Federal Government removes us from that. It removes us in several ways. That is, most of us have our taxes withheld, and so we talk about after-tax dollars, and for some it is really hard to understand how many dollars we do pay in taxes. I think it is great to have a tax day and say we have worked this year until now with nothing for ourselves, paid entirely for taxes. That is part of the problem. The other, of course, is the Federal Government is removed to the extent that seldom do we have a chance as taxpayers to say, ``Here's the program, here's what it costs. Is it worth it to me? Am I willing to pay what it costs?'' We do not have that same kind of cost-benefit ratio opportunity that we have on the local level. So I think it is appropriate that when we talk about taxes and we talk about the burden and we talk about the debt and we talk about the future, that we also take a look at government; take a basic, long look, some introspection of you and me as taxpayers and citizens, saying, ``I suspect in our form of government, those who put together the Constitution did not envision that 40 percent of our earnings, of everyone's earnings, on average, would go to pay taxes for government functions.'' Do you think? I do not think so. They so clearly defined in the Constitution those things that the Federal Government should do, and there are many things, indeed, that the Federal Government should do. There are many things that only the Federal Government can do--defense, interstate commerce, highways--many things. They also put in the Constitution the 10th amendment which says that only those things enumerated in the Constitution would, in fact, be carried out by the Federal Government and others would be reserved to the States and to the people. So we find ourselves with a great relationship between the taxes we pay and the amount of Government that we have. Big spending and big taxes go together. We have done a number of things this year to seek to work at this. When the Republicans came in and took control of the House and Senate, they changed the debate. We have changed the debate from talking about how do we get more money to continue to grow, to taking a look at the programs that are there. We have changed the debate to one of examining programs instead of simply saying they are going to grow some more, how do you charge it or how do you put it on the debt or how do you get some more taxes. We have changed the debate to balancing the budget. The budget has not been balanced in 25 years. For the first time, the conversation now is toward balancing the budget. We presented a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which says, as it does in almost all State constitutions, that you cannot spend more than you take in. It lost by one vote. I hope we get another chance, Mr. President, to take a look at that issue, and I think perhaps we will this week. In that debate, frankly, we forced the President to deal with balancing the budget. The President did not send up any balanced budgets until this year. Now, of course, we do not agree with the way it has been balanced. It does not do anything about those things that drive it. But nevertheless, the discussion now is how do you balance the budget, not if you are going to balance the budget. We have reduced the number of programs in Government. We have to do that if we are going to do anything about taxes. We sought to reduce taxes in a couple of instances. We had regulatory reform. Mr. President, I guess what I want to emphasize is we do pay a great deal of taxes. I think we pay too many taxes. I think we expect too much from the Federal Government; that there are other ways to accomplish those things more efficiently either through local government, State government, the private sector, that we ought to take our taxes and orient them, direct them toward those things that only the Federal Government can do. But I hope that we do not simply talk about the amount, because taxes have a great deal to do with the concept, with the principle of what you do in the Federal Government. I think that is a legitimate debate that each of us ought to undertake as we move into this election season. Each of us ought to evaluate in our judgment what role we think the Government ought to have at the Federal level, what role should the centralized Government have, how much money should we spend, how do we become responsible morally, physically to balance the budget, and that seems to me is what tax day is about. I am delighted that there will be discussions about it, there will be considerable interest in it. I think one of the things sometimes we do not even recognize ourselves is the amount that taxes have increased. Corporate tax increases between 1992 and 1995 have gone up 55 percent. Who pays corporate taxes? Corporations? I do not think so. It is the people who use their products, of course. They are passed on. Personal taxes have gone up 25 percent. Total receipts have gone up 23 percent. At the same time total receipts and taxes have gone up 23 percent, the GDP has only gone up 16 percent. So tax increases have outstripped our growth by at least 1.5 times. Payroll taxes have gone up 15 percent, and indirect taxes up 11 percent. I am not opposed to taxes. Taxes are how we fund our Government. We have to pay taxes, should pay taxes. We should pay them fairly. The real issue is, what do you want to pay for? What are you willing to pay? What should we pay for? How do we do it efficiently? Tax day ought to cause us to consider those things and consider them as we come into this election cycle. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, yesterday the U.S. Trade Representative released its annual Special 301 report on the protection of U.S. intellectual property rights [IPR] by foreign countries. It will come as no surprise to my colleagues that topping the list of countries which routinely permit the pirating of American IPR is the People's Republic of China [PRC]. In fact, the PRC is the only country identified as a ``priority foreign country,'' meaning that its policies and practices--or lack thereof-- have had the greatest adverse impact on American goods. The Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, which I chair, has held three hearings on this issue. Let me share a little of what the subcommittee has learned from those hearings with my colleagues. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 is the principal mechanism through which an administration addresses unfair foreign trade practices. Section 301 gives the President broad powers to enforce U.S. rights under bi- and multi-lateral trade agreements, and to seek to eliminate acts or policies of foreign governments that burden or restrict U.S. commerce. In addition, it authorizes the President to retaliate against such practices if negotiations to eliminate the objectionable practice fail. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended the Trade Act of 1974 to include what has been commonly called the Special 301 provision. Special 301 requires the U.S. Trade Representative [USTR] to identify on an annual basis those countries that, inter alia, deny adequate and effective protections for IPR; and those countries within that category determined by the USTR to be priority foreign countries. Such countries are those that ``have the most onerous or egregious [policies].'' Section 302(b) of the 1974 act directs the USTR to initiate a Section 301 investigation within 30 days after a country is identified as a priority. After such an investigation is initiated, the USTR is required to determine within 6 months if the country engages in unfair trade practices and if any retaliatory measures should be imposed. Investigations may be extended 9 months if complex or complicated issues are involved. At the end of the investigation, the USTR has the discretion in deciding whether to retaliate. As a means of increasing the effectiveness of the Special 301 provision, the USTR has divided into two lists those countries perceived to be denying adequate and effective IPR protection but whose problems are not as pronounced as priority countries: the priority watch list [PWL], and the ``watch list'' [WL]. Countries placed on the PWL are those the USTR considers to have made less progress in strengthening IPR protection than those on the WL. These countries are considered to have practices that meet all or some of the statutory criteria for placement on the priority country list, but are seen as making progress in negotiations to improve their IPR protection. WL countries are those that the USTR believes to have better IPR protection, but still need to be monitored. USTR completed the first Special 301 review of foreign countries' protection of IPR in April 1989. In that year and in 1990, the USTR placed the PRC on its priority watch list, citing a lack of protection of IPR and enforcement of intellectual property laws. IPR piracy in the People's Republic of China [PRC] was rampant, especially in the southern and eastern provinces close to Hong Kong such as Guangdong and Jiangsu. Factories in these areas mass-produced pirated versions of American computer software, compact discs, CD-ROMs, and audio/video cassettes. Of the American computer software sold or produced in China, over 94 percent was pirated; many Government ministries--including the Trade Ministry--made extensive use of pirated software. CD's and audio/ video percentages ran close to 100 percent; video copies of movies were being exported in China even before being released in the United States. Trademark piracy was also prolific. Consequently, in 1991 the PRC was designated a priority foreign country. In January 1992, the People Republic of China and United States signed a memorandum of understanding governing IPR protection. Pursuant to the MOU, the PRC enacted a comprehensive body of laws protecting IPR, and providing civil and criminal penalties for persons violating those laws. As a result of that agreement, the PRC was removed from the watch lists. By 1993, however, it was clear that the PRC was not living up to the 1992 MOU and the country was placed back on the priority qatch list. The amount of factories known to be producing pirated goods had risen from single digits to 29. These companies were exporting pirated goods in alarmingly increasing numbers; production of CD's alone ran to 75 million while China's internal market could absorb only 5 million. Moreover, enforcement was almost nonexistent. The National Copyright Administration Office, located in less than half of China's provinces, had few qualified employees and no real authority to prosecute offenders. Compounding the problem, several of the factories were known to have financial connections to local and national political figures. In addition, several others were actually partially or wholly Government- or PLA-owned. On June 30, 1994, the USTR initiated another Special 301 investigation of the PRC. On December 31, that office issued a proposed determination that the PRC's IPR enforcement practices were unreasonable and burdened or restricted United States commerce. At the same time, the USTR issued a proposed list of Chinese goods to which tariffs of 100 percent would be attached as a retaliatory measure; the list included approximately $2.8 billion of goods. The goods chosen comprised 35 product categories of high-growth Chinese exports. Special care was exercised to include items in which the Chinese Government had a substantial involvement in producing, and to minimize any impact on United States consumers by picking articles readily available from other foreign or domestic sources. The investigation period was then extended to February 4, 1995 to facilitate continuing negotiations. On that date, though, having come to no resolution with the Chinese, the USTR ordered the imposition of the proposed tariffs effective February 26. Their intent was to allow goods that were currently in transit between the two countries to arrive before the tariffs were finally imposed. It also gave both sides more time to negotiate. Had the tariff action taken affect, it would have been the largest retaliation ever taken by the U.S. Government. At the same time, the Chinese announced that they would respond with retaliatory 100 percent tariff sanctions on a long list of United States exports. In the second week of February, the Chinese announced their willingness to resume negotiations. Then-Deputy USTR Barshefsky accepted the invitation of Wu Yi, the PRC's Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, to come to China on February 20. In the meantime, on February 15, the Chinese began a crackdown on the pirating. Authorities raided and closed seven of the factories, including two of the most notorious: the Shenfei factory in Shenzhen and the Dragon Arts Sound Co. in Zhuhai. The two sides finally reached an eleventh-hour accord on February 26, 1995, thereby narrowly averting the trade war. The agreement signed in Beijing had three principle goals: to take immediate steps to stem piracy of IPR material, to make long-term changes to ensure effective enforcement of IPR in the future, and to provide United States IPR holders with greater access to the Chinese market. As for the first goal, Beijing pledged to implement a 6-month Special Enforcement Period beginning March 1 during which time the Government would increase resources to target the 29 CD and laser disc factories known to be engaging in pirated production, and confiscate and destroy illegally produced output and the machinery used to produce it. In addition, Beijing proposed to tighten its customs practices to stem the exportation of illegal products. As for long-term changes, the Chinese Government pledged to ensure that Government ministries cease using pirated software. Furthermore, the Government pledged to establish an effective IPR enforcement structure consisting of IPR conference working groups at the central, provincial, and local level to coordinate enforcement efforts, and to ensure that the laws are strictly enforced. Similarly, the PRC stated it would remodel its customs enforcement system after that of the United States. Lastly, China would create a title verification system, and would ensure that United States copyright holders have access to effective and meaningful judicial relief in cases of infringements. Finally, the PRC pledged to enhance access to its markets for United States right holders. It agreed it would place no quotas on the importation of U.S. audio-visual products, and would allow U.S. record companies--subject to certain censorship concerns--to market their entire catalog. United States companies were also to be permitted to enter into joint ventures for the production and reproduction of their products in the PRC. On November 29, 1995, the subcommittee held a follow-up hearing to examine the on-going implementation of the agreement and China's compliance therewith. Since the signing of the agreement, several industry associations had complained that the agreement was not being fully implemented in the PRC and that the situation had degenerated to the pre-agreement state of affairs. According to the industry, many of the pirating factories that had been closed down in February 1995 had reopened and were doing business as usual. In addition, the Chinese Government had let pass several of the deadlines for action on its part as specified in the agreement. The subcommittee heard from the USTR and representatives of the IPR industry (computer software, film, and recording industry). Then-Deputy USTR Barshefsky testified that implementation had been ``mixed.'' On the positive side, she noted that: . . . the system is becoming more transparent--recently all of China's IPR laws, regulations, and administrative guidance were published, and public knowledge and understanding of IPR laws and regulations is much better than it was; [p]iracy at the retail level has been markedly reduced in many major Chinese cities, particularly along the booming southeast coast where U.S. losses have been the largest. According to Chinese [g]overnment statistics, since signature of the agreement, Chinese enforcement officials have launched 3,200 raids, seized and destroyed as many as 2 million pirated CDs and LDs, 700,000 pirated videos, and 400,000 pirated books; and [i]n addition, China has made many of the structural changes mandated by the agreement. China has set up ministerial task forces in virtually all provincial capitals and many major cities, 30 in all. It has set up high-level, tough enforcement task forces in at least 18 provinces and major municipalities. . . . China has now established IPR courts in Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and other major centers of piracy, and has begun an active program to train Chinese judges in the enforcement of IPR laws. However, having noted these positive signs, she continued: Despite these steps, China's overall implementation of the agreement falls far short of the requirements of the agreement. Despite improved enforcement efforts, U.S. industries still estimate that they lost $866 million as a result of China's piracy in 1995. She then listed several of the more notable problems: Overall, while China has taken steps to clean up retail markets, it has done little effectively so far to attack the heart of the problem--continuing, massive production, distribution, and export of pirated products. In particular, we remain deeply concerned that China has not honored its commitments to clean up production of pirated CDs in more than 29 factories throughout [southeast] China. Under the agreement, China was to have completed investigations of all factories by July 1, 1995, and to have taken measures to discipline, fine, or punish factories that violate Chinese laws and regulations. To our great dismay, China has instead reregistered--that is, given a clean bill of health to--all but one of the CD factories. Factories . . . have shifted their focus from . . . music CDs to higher value-added CD- ROMs. The seizure of exports of pirated CD-ROMs . . . in particular have risen by one hundred percent. . .. The potential economic damage to the US software industry is enormous. . . . A single CD-ROM produced in China and acquired in Hong Kong by the Business Software Alliance recently contained Lotus' Supersuite (retails for $3,300), Autodsk's AutoCad (retails for $4,250), and Novell's New Ware (retails for $2,485) along with 100 other computer programs. The disk sold in Hong Kong's notorious Golden Shopping Arcade for $6.75. She went on to note that Chinese compliance in the printing of SID codes had not been effectively implemented, China's Customs Service had not yet aggressively pursued infringers, and Chinese promises to open market access to United States firms were not being kept. Industry spokesmen expressed similar views, although they were markedly less enthused about those areas in which Ms. Barshefsky claimed China had cooperated. At a joint Senate-House hearing just this last March, we learned that the situation has been reported to have remained largely the same. A review of many of the major provisions of the agreement show why the USTR is so concerned. For example, the agreement calls for the Chinese to investigate all CD production lines to ensure that titles being produced there are legitimate. While the Chinese have assigned investigators to some factories to ensure title verification procedures are being followed and SID codes--a way to identify what factory a particular CD came from--are being used. Yet according to the USTR, SID codes are still not generally utilized and title verifications are being almost uniformly ignored. In addition, the agreement calls for the revocation of business permits for factories involved in continuing illegal production. Yet of the some 37 plants known to be operating illegally, only from 4 to 7-- depending on your source--have been closed. This leaves roughly 30 plants in operation with an annual production capability of from 150 to 200,000,000 units. Given that the PRC's domestic market demand for legitimate products is only around 7,000,000 units, Mr. President, you can see that leaves quite a large gap. The agreement requires the Chinese Government to establish a copyright verification system that would prevent the manufacture and export of CD's without being cleared by the Chinese Government and representatives of affected copyright owners. While such a system has been formally established on paper, in practice U.S. copyright holders have received only 5 requests for title verification in the past 18 months--yet experts estimate that over 60 million illicit CD's have been produced since the February agreement. The agreement called for the abolition of quotas and other restrictions on the importation into the People's Republic of China of audio products. However, there has been no change in that system. Chinese officials alternately by denying the existence of a quota system or suggesting that now is not the time to amend such a system. Similarly, the agreement called for permitting US companies to enter into joint ventures for the production and reproduction of audio products. The Chinese side now claims that--contrary to the understanding of United States copyright holders in 1995--this provision means that they may participate in joint ventures for manufacturing products and not to original production. In response to the allegations from the USTR and industry Zhang Yuejiao, Director General of the Treaty and Law Department of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation [MOFTEC], recently told China Daily: Some overseas people have criticized China for not living up to its promises on [IPR] protection. Such attacks are totally groundless. A lengthier statement from Chen Jian, a spokesman at the Chinese Foreign Ministry, appeared in a recent edition of Beijing Review: Protecting intellectual property rights is one of China's basic state policies. Since adopting the reform and opening policies, China has made tremendous efforts in the areas of legislation, jurisdiction and law enforcement concerning the protection of intellectual property rights. China has also instituted a legal system for [IPR]. Over the past year, China has adopted a series of measures to intensify law enforcement activities, including a major crackdown on piracy. We have achieved marked results in investigating and regulating the audio-visual and publishing markets, as well as in investigating and handling cases involving violations of [IPR] by factories and individuals. Any criticism of China for inadequately combatting piracy is groundless. I should point out that IPR violations are an international phenomenon existing in many countries, including the United States. We are willing to exchange experiences and enhance cooperation with other countries concerning IPR protection, the United States included. Frequent threats of sanctions will not only harm bilateral cooperation in IPR protection, but also Sino-US economic and trade ties. We are opposed to such practices. A more recent trend in Chinese statements on the issue has sort of taken the tone that ``the best defense is a good offense.'' In the past few months, the Chinese official media have engaged in a media blitz to counter assertions that the PRC is falling short of their obligations; the cover of the April 22 Beijing Review carries a picture of the deputy mayor of Chengdu, Wu Pingguo, holding up a pirated copy of ``Windows '95'' under the heading ``No Piracy.'' The Chinese Government has begun to answer allegations of its failures with countercharges that the United States has failed to live up to portions of the agreement by failing to provide promised technical and financial assistance. In one of my meetings during my trip to the People's Republic of China over the April recess, one of the officials with whom I met even went so far as to say to me that while China was actually living up to its side of the agreement 100 percent, American companies were now engaged in wholesale piracy of Chinese IPR in the United States. Now, Mr. President, I will be the first to acknowledge that, as the USTR has pointed out, the Chinese have made significant strides in implementing some portions of the agreement. Fifteen years ago the concept of intellectual property was a foreign one to the Chinese. In a Confucian-based system, knowledge was felt to belong to everyone; the Chinese even have a saying: ``You cannot steal a book.'' This tradition, coupled with communism-based ideals that everyone works for the benefit of his or her fellow citizens, are clearly antithetical to the concept of IPR. Yet as a result of the agreement, the Chinese have moved to put in place laws and enforcement systems to deal with the problem. They have embarked on a campaign of educating citizens about IPR, and have conducted a series of raids of retail outlets selling illicit products. I applaud their efforts on this front. But Mr. President, we have a clear agreement with the People's Republic of China. And it is equally clear, regardless of their efforts and despite their protestations to the contrary, that the People's Republic of China is not fully living up to its obligations under that agreement. I'm sorry, but they are not. They say they are, but to paraphrase a saying of which Beijing is inordinately fond of castigating us with, ``Actions speak louder than words.'' The main problem is that while it is commendable that the government is going after retailers, it continues to overlook the source of the products. The excuse often heard is that China is a big country and the central government cannot know at all times which factories are producing illegal goods and where they are. Well, if those factories were producing pamphlets calling for the overthrow of the Communist government in Beijing, you could be quite sure that they would be shut down in a heartbeat. Moreover, it is not as though the factories involved in CD and related IPR production in China are mysterious hidden entities, Mr. President; even I have a list of them: Zhuhai Hua Sheng Magnetic Tape Factory, Dakengmei, Wanzai, Zhuhai; Zhuhai GLM Laser Master Matrix Mfg. Co., Zhuhai; Shen Fei Laser & Optical System Co., Bagua Xi Lu, Shenzhen; Zhong Qiao Laser Co., Bonded Industrial Area, Shatoujiao, Shenzhen; Guangzhou Yong Tong Audio-Visual Prod. Co., No. 14, Shiguang Lu, Shiqiao, Punyu, Guangzhou; Cai Ling Audio-visual Prod. Co., No. 17, Lingyuan Xi Lu, Guangzhou, Guangdong; Foshan Jinzhu Laser Digital Storage Disk Co., Block 10, No. 44, Xinfeng Lu, Foshan, Guangdong; Foshan Jinsheng Electronic Co., 3/F Jinchan Building, Zhangcha Lu, Kou, Foshan; Foshan Xiandi Electronic Audio-Video Industrial Co., Dunhou Gongye Daidao, Foshan; Foshan City Nanhai Mingzhu Audio-Video Co., Jun Bridge, Foping Gonglu, Tongshang Lu, Foshan; Chaoyang City Jinfa Laser Disk Technology Co., Tongshan Daidao, Chaoyang; Zhongshan Yisheng Laser Disk Manufacturing Co., Chanjiang Administrative Zone, Zhongshan, Guangdong; Zhongqing Guosheng Laser Technology Co., Duancheng Industry Estate, Duanzhou Yilu, Zhongqing, Guangdong; Maoming Jiahe (Shuitong) Electronic City Co., No. 1, Jiahe Lu, Shuitong Economic Dev. Zone, Maoming, Guangdong; Xinhua Paiei Photoelectricity Co., Gaoxin Tech. Dev. Zone, Hunagkong, Xinhui, Guangdong; Zibo Yongbao Laser Audio-Video Co., Gaoxin Tech. & Industry Development Zone, Zibo, Shantong; Chengdou Lianyi Huaxing Audio-Video Production Co., 3/F Huaneng Group, Chengdou, Plant at: Air Harbour, Gaoxin Lu, Chengdou; Hainan Anmei Laser Production Co., Yuejin Nan Lu, Digan, Hainan; Shanghai Lianhe Laser Disk Co., No. 811, Hengshan Lu, Shanghai; Suzhou Baodie Laser Electronic Co., Songling Town Industrial Development Zone, Wujiang, Jiangsu; Nanjing Dali Laser Audio-Video Co., Danchang Town (Pukou), Nanjing, Jiangsu; Hangzhou Huadie Photoelectricity Co., Liuxiaying Kou, Hangzhou, Zhejiang; Tianjin Tianbao Electronics Co., Wuqing Development Zone, New Technology & Industry Park, Tianjin; Heifei Wanyan Electronics Co., No. 127, Shushan Lu, Hefei; Beijing Leshi Record Co., No. 1, Zhenwu Si Santiao, Fuxingmen Wai Jie, Xi Xheng Qu, Beijing. Mr. President, at the time of reaching agreement the Chinese Government knew--or should have known--what it was and was not capable of in regards to IPR regulation and enforcement. And with that knowledge, it went ahead and legally committed itself to a comprehensive course of action--not to fulfill the terms partially, or as it felt like it, or selectively, but a comprehensive plan. The Foreign Ministry has stated that ``protection of IPR is a highly complex undertaking that cannot be completely resolved in a short time.'' Well, Mr. President, if such is the case, then the People's Republic of China [PRC] shouldn't have agreed to do so. I am a firm believer that once a country signs an agreement it should adhere to it. Apparently, in theory, so are the Chinese; they constantly berate us, and other countries, accusing us of failing to live up to our agreements. Yet it is abundantly clear that the Chinese side has not fully lived up to the agreement. Now, Mr. President, that leaves us, as the aggrieved party, with few options. First, we could ignore their breach and continue to allow the PRC to flout the agreement. This would, though, have unfortunate repercussions. It would demonstrate to the PRC, indeed to all of Asia, that there is no price to pay for ignoring or otherwise failing to implement agreements with the United States. I am quite sure that that is not the kind of message we want to be sending. Another choice would be to work quietly with the Chinese to resolve those disagreements which remain outstanding to avoid having to rely on other more public avenues to getting them to comply. Well, Mr. President, we have tried that route with no success. Assistant USTR Lee Sands has been to China several times since last year to try to work things out; Acting-USTR Barshefsky has been to Beijing several times with the same goal. Jason Berman, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, has been to China; representatives of the movie and computer software industries have been to China--all to no avail. So, Mr. President, we find ourselves faced with the only remaining way to impress upon the Chinese the seriousness of the problem, our disappointment at their failure to adhere to the agreement, and the extent of the monetary loss we suffer: economic sanctions. This is not a course of action which I relish, Mr. President; unilateral sanctions are rarely an effective instrument of foreign or trade policy. They have unavoidable consequences for the domestic economy; besides effecting domestic industries which rely on imported goods from China, they can also impact other businesses. To illustrate, the Chinese have countered to suggestions of trade sanctions with a thinly-veiled threat to United States business interests in China: Should the US side go ahead with taking sanctions against China, US commercial interests would in the end be seriously harmed and that would amount to the US imposing counter- sanctions against itself. We have seen this before. Last year when sanctions were pending the Chinese awarded several contracts which were considered safely in the pockets of United States corporations to European competitors; the signal was clear. Premier Li Peng recently travelled to France where he signed several significant trade deals--most notably with Airbus-- pointedly aimed at reminding us that we are not their only trade source. The Chinese are quick to say that we should not resort to the imposition of sanctions, that we should discuss the issue ``on the basis of equality.'' Well, Mr. President, there is no equality in their version of equality. Does equality exist when one party flouts an agreement to the detriment of the other? I think not. So, Mr. President, I reluctantly, yet fully, support the USTR on this issue. I urge the President to follow the USTR's recommendations, and to do so soon. I realize that there are some in the administration who are hesitant to press this issue for fear of rocking the boat--the same reason for the administration's emasculated response to the Chinese sales of ring magnets and the like to Pakistan--but failure to act will only embolden the Chinese and will only serve to add fuel to the fire of what already promises to be a raucous MFN debate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 1714 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I might take 3 minutes for the introduction of a bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill called the Freedom From Government Competition Act, a bill that will create jobs and commercial opportunities for small businesses. I am joined in this effort by my friend and associate from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, as well as Senator Kyl and Senator Craig. I urge, of course, other Senators to join this effort. It has been the Federal Government's policy for a good long time to contract out services. We have not always enforced it, however. The purpose of this bill is to put some teeth in the policy; we ought to put into the private sector all those things that could be better done there, as opposed to having them done within the Federal Government. This bill establishes a process in which the Office of Management and Budget will identify Government functions that are commercial in nature and recommend a plan to contract out those activities to the private sector over a 5-year period. It is similar to H.R. 28 in the House, introduced by Congressman Duncan from Tennessee. It has bipartisan support of over 40 Members in the House and it is similar, interestingly enough, to a bill that was introduced by Senator Rudman in the 1980's here in the Senate. Significant portions of this idea were a part of the 1996 defense authorization bill, which had to do with procurement and moving some of these kinds of things into the private sector. This bill simply takes that concept and expands it further to other Federal Government operations. Government competition with the private sector, as we all know, is a big problem. Often bureaucracy wastes too much time and money on goods and services that could better be delivered by the private sector. Most of us, I think, agree with the notion we ought to limit those functions of the Government to things that can only be performed by the Government and put into the private sector the other functions. That, basically, is the purpose of my bill. It is also wrong, it seems to me, that the Government competes with the private sector. There ought to be competition, but the competition ought to exist within the private sector. For example, surveying and mapmaking can be done in the private sector. Indeed it should be. Training, education, janitorial services, laboratory services are all functions that can be performed by private industry. I proposed a similar bill when I served in our legislature in the State of Wyoming, urging and in fact setting up a process to contract out many services. This idea has been a major concern for some time. It was one of the top issues of the most recent White House Conference on Small Business, as you can imagine. State and local governments have had success, in some areas, privatizing. Massachusetts Governor Weld said, ``It's not an issue of public versus private. It's an issue of monopoly versus competition.'' I agree. The Department of Defense has had considerable success in contracting out some functions. The armed services are saving $1.5 billion a year, a 31 percent reduction, from outsourcing. So it is time for us to not only talk about it but to do it. This bill basically says to the Office of Management and Budget, come back to the Congress with a plan that makes this happen. It will create jobs, help small businesses and save billions of dollars. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to take a look at this bill and join me in this idea of moving those nongovernmental functions that are performed by the Government into the private sector. Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk and ask it be appropriately referred.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will pass H.R. 1743, a bill to reauthorize the Water Resource Research Act, as amended by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. This is a small, but vitally important piece of legislation that gained unanimous support in the House of Representatives, as well as the Environment and Public Works Committee here in the Senate. I want to thank Senator Kempthorne and Senator Reid, along with Chairman Chafee and Senator Baucus for working with me to ensure the swift passage of this legislation. Their hard work, and that of their staffs, is greatly appreciated. H.R. 1743 extends the authorization for the water resources research institutes program through the year 2000. The water resources research institutes program is a vital Federal/State water research, education and information transfer partnership. This program supports a network of institutes at the land grant colleges in each of the 50 States, 3 trust territories and the District of Columbia. These institutes are the primary link between the academic community, the water-related personnel of the Federal and State government, and the private sector. The institutes provide a mechanism to promote State, regional and national coordination of water resources research and training, as well as information transfer. This is a very productive program. In fiscal year 1995, the Federal appropriation for the water institutes--under $5 million--leveraged approximately $65 million from State, private and other sources to support the institutes research and training activities. Federal regulations and programs designed to solve water problems have their primary impact at the State and local level. State and local governments are in a far better position to tailor solutions to local water problems than the Federal Government. Programs such as the water resources research institutes are an efficient and effective way for the Federal Government to assist States to conduct research and solve problems in the water resources field. In administering the State water resources research institute program, the Interior Department and the Geological Survey distribute funds equally among all the institutes. The State institutes then award research funds through a competitive, peer review process. Institutes have advisory panels comprised of local, State, and Federal water officials, representatives from water user groups and other interested parties, which develop yearly research priorities for their States and review the allocation of funds among various competing projects. This is the true strength of this program. Individual State institutes are able to focus grants on research that addresses the most pressing water problems in that State. There have been efforts made to strengthen the competition for funding between the individual water institutes. I have serious concerns about that. We must fund this program at a level that allows us to maintain the network of institutes in every State. In addition, we must preserve the role of the advisory panels in each State, continuing to allow each State to determine the research agenda for themselves. I would hope the Department of Interior would not impose new restrictions on State water resources research programs in the future. In addition to the core program, I am pleased the bill before us contains an authorization for a second program focused on regional issues. I amended the House bill to include this important program, which will allow the institutes to conduct research of regional, interstate issues. Increasingly the water issues we're asking States to deal with are of a regional, interjurisdictional nature. The bill as amended in committee reauthorizes the section 104(g) program to support this needed interdisciplinary research and analysis necessary for assessing regional and interstate water resource problems. Finally, Mr. President, this bill takes a realistic look at future funding. This bill funds the institute programs at a level more in line with historical appropriations, reducing the current authorization by more than 40 percent below the current authorized level. This is a good bill, a good program, and I'm pleased the Senate is moving ahead with passage today. I'm hopeful the House will agree to our changes quickly and we can get this bill signed into law without delay. Thanks again to the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee for working with me on this legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator. I thank him for his effort to bring this issue to the floor. It is an issue certainly that all of us who were elected in 1994 had a great interest in because that is what people were talking about. Frankly, had it not been for the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator from Missouri and the leader, we would not be here talking about it. I rise in strong support of Senate Joint Resolution 21 as a cosponsor of the bill and a long-time advocate of responding to the voice of voters and the voice of the people. I am pleased that the Senate will finally go on record on this important issue. Obviously, there are different points of view about it. We have heard a number of things just in the last few minutes. Let me comment on some of them. One of them is the idea of amending. That certainly, if I ever heard a political response, is one. The Senator from California would not vote for this under any circumstances. So the idea that it cannot be amended to be retroactive is simply an obstruction to what we are trying to do. Limiting dollars. We have talked about that a lot. I think it is a great idea. The only trouble is it does not work. How are you going to do that? Reporting is the best issue. Talk about limiting dollars that can be spent by candidates, we are looking this year at the AFL-CIO spending $35 million, which would not count because they are not in the campaign. You have heard a little bit about the idea of people having the chance to make their own choice. It makes some sense. They are going to have a chance to make a choice. This is a constitutional amendment. The Congress does not pass this; it simply submits it to the States. The people will have an opportunity to express their feeling on it. This comes up from time to time. I hear it at home, ``Well, you know, if the folks in that district want someone to continue to serve, they should be able to.'' I thought about that some. I was in the House before I came here. One of the very good Members of the House just 2 years ago had been in the House since before Pearl Harbor. I simply want to make the point that that person, who had a congressional district, as I did, had 10 times as much thrust in the Congress as I did because of the seniority. So the people from every other congressional district had no input into that. But the folks in that district are never going to change because here is a guy who has more authority than anybody else in the Congress. Of course, he is going to continue to be there. That is kind of what we are up against, it seems to me. In 1992, 77 percent of the Wyoming voters supported term limits, and 70 to 80 percent of Americans support term limits. I think it is important to note that the majority and the freshmen who came in last year support term limits, people who were elected last year when the voters were saying, ``Yes, we're for term limits.'' I think it is important that we consider not just the term limits, but what has to be done to make some institutional change in the Congress. If you do not like the way things have been done for 40 years, if you want to see some fundamental change, then it is difficult to imagine that there is going to be change if we continue to do things the same way. That is what term limits is about. It is about the end of career politicians in Congress. I happen to think that is a good idea. I happen to think that is what the drafters of the Constitution had in mind, to return to the Founders' vision, to the extent possible, of citizen legislators. I was impressed this morning by someone's observation that one of the necessary things to represent your constituents in this Congress is to have had some experience in the private sector, to have had some experience in the real world. I think that is terribly important. We need fundamental change that has some impact on reducing the size of Government. I think it is pretty evident that the longer you are here, the less likely you are to be enthusiastic about reducing the size of the Government. Someone mentioned this morning, and I think it is exactly right, when people first come here they seem to have objective questions. They seem to have ideas. How can we do this better? How can we change? After being here for a very long time, you are advocates for the status quo, sort of defensive about what has been going on. We do not need more of that. I am very much in favor of term limits. I think that it is important. There is, indeed, a considerable turnover. I think the point was made this morning that 51 percent of the Senate has been here less than two terms. That is true. The same thing is true in the House. The difficulty is that you live in the seniority system, and the other 50 percent has been here a very long time. They are the ones, of course, that have all the leadership positions, so change does not come about. That is what we are talking about. Madam President, I am delighted that we are here. I suggest to my associates here in the Senate that it is time to come to the snubbing post. We have talked about it. It is time to support what we think people have said to us or not. It is time to support change that brings about fundamental change here--smaller Government, less expensive Government, less restrictive Government. That is what we are voting on today--changing the direction that will take us into the next century. I urge support.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I recently returned from a trip to the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan over the April recess in my capacity as chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs. While I would like at some time to share my observations of that trip with my colleagues, some confusion has arisen in the Asian press over a remark I made on that trip which I feel I need to correct sooner rather than later. On April 3, I was privileged to have an hour-long meeting with Chinese President Jiang Zemin at Zhongnanhai in Beijing. A central focus of our discussion was the tense situation in the Taiwan Straits and strained relations between the PRC and Taiwan. When the conversation turned toward what President Jiang perceived to be the then-current situation and prospects for a return to a more stable cross-strait relationship, he replied paraphrasing a Chinese saying to illustrate his position. The President said, ``When the wind blows through the pavilion, it means the rains will come,'' or, in Chinese, ``Shan yu yu lai feng man lou di xing shi si hu yi jing guo qu le.'' After a brief pause, he then added, ``But in this case, I think the rain is over.'' I took this to be an encouraging sign that, perhaps with the conclusion of Taiwan's presidential election and the PRC's somewhat worrisome military exercises in the Strait, the situation might be calming down and the two sides might be ready to resume cross- strait contacts through the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait and the Straits Exchange Foundation, the two semi official bodies set up to handle that relationship. After visiting other cities in China and then Hong Kong, I spent a day in Taipei, Taiwan, on the way back to the United States. There I met with Foreign Minister Chen and President Lee Teng-hui, both of whom I told of my conversation with President Jiang, and Jiang's statement about the ``rain being over.'' They found the statement to be encouraging, just as I had. In meetings with the Taiwan press during my stay, I made it clear that I was not delivering a message from the government of the PRC to the Government of Taiwan; I had simply relayed the particulars of my conversation with President Jiang to Chen and Lee. This is where the confusion arose. One of the Taipei newspapers, on hearing that President Jiang had said ``the rain is over'' incorrectly assumed that he had cited another Chinese saying: ``the rain is over and the sun is shinning''--in Chinese ``yu guo tian qing.'' The Taiwan press sometimes tends to shoot first and ask questions later, and other papers were soon picking up the inaccurate statement. As a result, by the next day papers island- wide were reporting that Jiang had made statements that were much more rosy than what was actually said. Not only were the newspaper reports inaccurate, but they missed the entire gist of Jiang's statement. By referring to the saying ``the rain is over * * *'' but leaving off the part of the saying ``* * * the sky is blue,'' President Jiang was making the specific point that while the storm had passed things were still far from ``sunny.'' Anyway, Mr. President, soon other newspapers in Asia were repeating the inaccurate Taiwanese reports. As a result, the Chinese Government, through two newspapers in Hong Kong known to be directed by Beijing-- Ming Pao and Wen Wei Po--began to publish articles denying--correctly of course--that Jiang had made the statement attributed to him by me as reported by Taiwan's press. I became aware of the confusion when I returned to Washington last week, and issued a press release to several Asian papers in an effort to correct the inaccuracies. Although many papers ran articles correctly reflecting the actual comments made by President Jiang, the confusion still persists. So, Mr. President, I come to the floor today to publicly set the record straight once and for all in the hopes of removing the last vestiges of confusion. I did not travel to Taipei to deliver a specific message from the PRC to Taiwan; I simply reported to the Taiwan Government the details of my conversation with President Jiang. In that conversation, President Jiang said, ``When the wind blows through the pavilion, it means the rains will come. But in this case, I think the rains are over''--no more, no less. I hope this will lay the issue to rest.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate our colleague bringing us to the floor to talk today about the environment. Certainly, this is Earth Day, and we ought to talk about it. We just have one Earth and one planet. There is more and more of us and we have the same amount of space. Clearly, we will have to pick up after ourselves. I suspect there is no one in this body, and indeed, very few anywhere, who would not agree with that. There are differing views of the best way to do it, of course, to provide a healthy environment. There are questions of who should do it. Should it be left entirely to the central Government, to the Federal Government? Should we take advantage of the State and local expertise? Should there be incentives for the private sector to perform? Those are the kinds of questions that I think we need to be asking. There should be questions about the balance between use and the economy and the environment, and how we have jobs and how we protect the environment at the same time. There is reason to disagree on those kinds of things. There is a question of whether or not there should be congressional oversight of the statutes of laws that have been passed. Many of them--indeed most of them--passed 20 years ago. Or whether or not there should be opposition to every effort to restructure some of these laws and, indeed, to sort of demonize every effort as if it is going to be gutted or rolled back when, in fact, the effort is to take a look at a bill that has been in place for 20 years and see if there are better ways to do it, to see if it could be done more efficiently. That is what it is about. I am sorry there has been this sort of politicizing of this issue in this Congress. I think it is appropriate that we use Earth Day not just to look at the past environmental successes but to look to the future as well. The successes have been numerous, to say the least. You would not know it by the kind of ``Chicken Little'' rhetoric that comes from, I think, environmental extremists who would rather scare folks than deal with the facts. I hope we can stick with the facts. We do not do enough of that here. There is too much overstatement about ``gutting'' and ``rolling back'' when that is really not what is happening. Look how far we have come since Earth Day in 1970. Our rivers, lakes and streams are vastly improved. The Potomac is a good example. It was a wasteland 20 years ago, and now families fish there on the weekends. I suppose we all come from a little different life experience. I grew up in Wapiti, WY, which I am sure you all have heard of. It is just a post office and a school halfway between Yellowstone Park and Cody. It is called by some the ``most scenic 50 miles in the world.'' And it could be. In fact, we had the last place next to the forest, and all around us were wilderness areas. I do not think there is anybody who has a stronger feeling or a caring for the environment than I do coming from there. On the other hand, you may have come from a city where there was excessive pollution, and that is your experience. But now our air is cleaner, according to EPA. Particulate matter emissions have been reduced 60 percent. VOC's have been reduced 25 percent. Carbon monoxide has been reduced 40 percent. Lead emissions have been reduced by 96 percent. All emissions have been reduced by a third. That is great. Wildlife populations are increasing, such as the bald eagle, white- tailed deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and wild turkey. Simply put, the environment is cleaner now than at any time in the last 50 years. Americans are living longer and healthier because of that. We can be very proud of that. Both Democrats and Republicans have been a big part of this success during the 26 years since the first Earth Day. For 18 of those years, there was a Republican President in the White House. So we can all share in this movement forward on a nonpartisan issue. However, despite all that we have done, we still have some things to address, certainly. Unfortunately, we are now trying to solve 21st century environmental problems with laws designed a quarter of a century ago. One of the areas in which I happen to be involved is endangered species. I do not know of anybody that does not want to protect endangered species. Certainly, I do, and everybody I know on our committee wants to do that. It has been up for reauthorization now for 3 years. It has not been reauthorized. It is not doing as well as it might be. It is not doing as well because we need to do something about peer review for science. I went to a hearing out west, and we had scientists from both sides of the issue, from lumber people to environmentalist scientists, and you would never know they were talking about the same thing. If you want science to be the basis, we need to change that. We need peer review. We need to set priorities. There is a finite amount of money, so which of these endangered species do we put our money into. Are they all equally valuable? I do not know. We have to do something to encourage private landowners to be more interested in endangered species. Now, frankly, in my State, if someone discovers an endangered species on their ranch or property, they are hesitant to know about it, because it might mean you cannot use your property for anything else. We need to find a way so that private owners can say, ``Let us work on that.'' So we have to update these things. That is what we are seeking to do. But this year, unfortunately, every time we take a look at how we might change it and make it more effective and efficient, then we are confronted with this ``we are going to save you'' idea. Frankly, the administration has led that. Regarding everything that has happened, the President is going to ``save you'' from those crazies in the Congress. We have to start using some facts and we have to start really dealing with what the issues are. And I hope that this Earth Day will cause us to help do that. I think we can utilize the vast expertise local people have. All of these efforts will help us. I think there has to be, obviously, some balance. There are different kinds of environmental places, of course--parks and wilderness and forests--and many of those things should be set aside for single use. But the vast majority of Federal lands should be managed for multiple use. I am thinking about the West, particularly, because that is where I am from. Those are multiple use lands and we can find a balance between jobs, the economy, and protecting the environment; I am confident of that. It does not have to be one or the other. That is what we are seeking to do. Superfund legislation. I am, frankly, disappointed. It is designed, of course, to clean up sites that have hazardous waste. We have spent billions of dollars, mostly that comes from a tax, to do that job. Do you know what most of it has gone for? Litigation. Lawyers and courtrooms. That is where the money has gone. A great deal of it comes from insurance policies for people involved. Someone said that nearly 90 percent of that money has gone to legal activities, not cleaning up the sites. That is what we really need to do. So there has been a status quo opposition almost at every turn. I hope we get by that. I think there has been some deliberate misleading of people. This idea of somehow we are going to poison the children is silly. I am just as interested in my children as Carol Browner is or as Vice President Gore is. So we ought not to be talking about that. Some of that stuff is downright misleading. The idea that one political party cares more about the environment than the other is laughable. We all live here together. We need to make some changes. I hope we can upgrade the Superfund in the next few months and that we can do something about the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We are ready to do that. We need to get the bogeyman out of the closet and quit talking about the sky is falling and take a real factual approach to making these things work better. We, indeed, can do that. So, Mr. President, thanks to the efforts of lots of folks in this country, thanks to the efforts of people who care about the environment, the sky is not falling, it is in pretty good shape. We need to take care of it. We have some responsibility. Every citizen has some responsibility and we can do that. I am glad it is Earth Day. I look forward to this country being in even better shape next Earth Day, and all of us need to contribute to do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. While I would agree that our Trade Representative Mickey Kantor has done an impressive job, not only in negotiations with Japan but with other countries as well, most notably China, but I would also agree with the vast majority of economic analysts who believe that most of the improving climate for American cars in Japan is due to natural market forces. For example, over the last year or so the yen has grown stronger compared with the dollar, making American goods cheaper in Japan. Matsushita Noriyuki, a senior economic analyst at the Nikko Research Centre, attributes increased sales of U.S. cars in his country primarily to the fact that the price of those cars has decreased. In addition, Matsushita points to major changes made by American car manufacturers to accommodate Japanese tastes and habits--such as increased attention to quality, right-hand steering wheels, and smaller model sizes--as a major factor in increased sales. More importantly, trade agreements struck before Mr. Clinton took office--under Republican administrations--are finally bearing fruit. Mr. President, since 1992 we've grown used to a Clinton foreign policy that is an oxymoron, to a foreign policy that is reactive rather than proactive. We've grown used to a wide credibility gap between what Governor Clinton said as a candidate and what his actions are as President--I've spoken before on this floor about the irony of a President who accused George Bush of coddling China now doing more coddling of that country than President Bush could ever have been accused of. We've grown used to President Clinton coopting as his own such Republican initiatives as the line-item veto, budget cutting, and calls for an end to the era of big government. I guess that now, as the November elections approach, it should come as no surprise that we can now also look forward to President Clinton's rhetoric far outpacing his performance in the foreign policy arena and for him to increasingly take credit for the hard work of others.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I come to the floor today to discuss briefly an issue that causes me some concern. I see from press reports and statements released by the White House that during his recent visit to Japan, President Clinton touted his successes vis-a-vis trade with Japan, claiming that his administration has steered that trade relationship in the most positive direction in years. These statements follow others President Clinton made last week stating that recent increases in automobile and automotive parts exported to Japan are the result of an auto trade agreement his administration signed with Japan last August. Now, you'd think that after two recent articles in the Journal of Commerce and the Washington Post--entitled respectively ``More Auto Exports to Japan: Who Gets the Credit?'' and ``Clinton Claims on Auto Trade Disputed''--the President would have thought twice about taking credit for something that's going on anyway. Since the articles speak for themselves, I would ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I yield.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank my colleague. Before I sit down, I do want to compliment the Senator from Kansas. This is the product of a great deal of work and great deal of leadership and something that we do need to do. I want to say, however, in closing, that I think we have made some real progress in the last couple years in the industry, in the private sector. And even though I think there are some problems that we will have to deal with as we go about it, managed care has been helpful, managed care has done something to control prices. I think more and more people are becoming aware of their responsibility with regard to payments. I think it is true that third- party payers have been part of the problem of costs. We can work that out. So in any event, I rise in support of the basic bill. It guarantees coverage of the type of insurance particularly important today, and I compliment the Senator for it. I yield the floor. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kassebaum bill. I suppose most of us today and on through the night will be saying much the same thing. We have not all said it yet, so we will have to keep doing it. But this is a bill that is very important to us, and we ought to comment on it. It provides, I think, long-awaited reforms. We have all worked on health care for a very long time. I have had a particular interest in rural health care in that the delivery systems in rural States are necessarily quite different than they are in other States. This is an incremental move, and I am for that. The portability is important so that people are not afraid to change jobs. Certainly, not prohibiting preexisting conditions and allowing small businesses to form purchasing cooperatives are terribly important. So these are practical and affordable reforms that we need--really relief from trying to change the whole system. I think Congress will meet this challenge. The Health Insurance Reform Act helps each and every American, more than any other bill that has passed this year. Wyoming ranchers and farmers and owners of small businesses and folks in the mineral industry will no longer be excluded from care they deserve. S. 1028 is compassionate, and I challenge President Clinton to sign this bill for the sake of all Americans. There has been a major shift in the debate, of course, over the last couple of years. It is historical when you look at how far we have come since we initially discussed health care reform. No longer are we considering the Clinton approach to a Government-run system. That was rejected by Americans, and I think properly so. Instead, we are going to move incrementally into some commonsense reforms. There will be some changes, and there have been some changes suggested by the managers, moving closer to the House proposal, in terms of high-risk pools. In 1991, my State of Wyoming responded to the health care concerns of individuals with serious illnesses establishing a State insurance pool, a high-risk pool allowing States to continue these measures, rather than be forced to enact other individual insurance reforms. I think this is very helpful to rural States like Wyoming. Moving incrementally does not mean keeping every worthwhile proposal off the table, however. I think we should promote solutions that expand health care choices and, most of all, in the final analysis, do something about cost. When you talk about health care, what do you usually end up talking about? Cost. Availability, of course, then cost. I happen to favor medical savings accounts. I think this gives the kind of discipline to health care costs that individuals give when they are responsible for making some of the decisions. Self-employed deductibility is fair and equitable, and we should have done it long, long ago. Eighty percent of that is good. Administrative simplification, of course. And I believe when we talk about costs, we ought to concern ourselves with malpractice reform. I do not think there is any question but what there are substantial costs there. Mr. President, I have been dismayed that the President is threatening to veto health insurance reform over some of these provisions. I believe the veto flies in the face of what the American people want. As part of the changes that have occurred in Washington last fall, I am committed to bringing quality health care to rural America, some equity to rural America, and that is why I have an amendment to offer that corrects the formula used to set payments for rates under managed care plans that participate under Medicare. We will see increasing numbers of managed care plans, and more and more people in Medicare going into them. The formula is not fair, the formula is not equitable, and we need to make some adjustments. To give an example, the payments made in rural areas of South Dakota are $177 a month. Payments for similar services in New York are $678 a month based on historical utilization. That needs to be changed. That is unfair. When we have a program like Medicare that is treated somewhat uniformly, that is a 367-percent gap, and we can change that, and I think we should. The longer these disparities exist, the longer rural seniors will be left with less health care choices. So I am in support of this bill. I think it could be stronger. I hope it is. But I am supporting it. I think we should have this bill. Access to health insurance is, of course, a little comforting for those who need it.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank my friend from Georgia for organizing an effort to talk about something that we especially are aware of on tax day, on April 15, but certainly should be talked about every day. Unfortunately, I think not many of us often recognize the fact that nearly 40 percent of our revenue, of our income to our families, is taken in taxes. It has been talked about here today, that we work more than 3 hours a day out of our 8-hour day simply to pay taxes. Although I am quite sure that will not become the tax system, some believe--and perhaps there is merit in it--if we had this sales tax, we would be more aware of the level of payment that we make, where now much of it is withheld. We talk about our wages after taxes, and so it sort of disappears and fades off. So I think it is appropriate that we talk about it today. It seems to me that there are at least two important areas that need to be talked about. One, of course, is money--dollars. What does it mean to us and our family income? We probably ought to ask the question, of course, who should spend it? We work to support our families. Who should spend that money that we earn? Obviously, we would expect to be taxed if we want public activities to continue. Then we ask ourselves, how much is enough? How much should go? Is 40 percent too much? It seems to me that perhaps it is. Then, of course, there is a direct relationship between taxes and the amount of Government we have. It seems to me that is a principle we ought to talk about. Many of us believe--and I am one of those--we ought to have a limited Government at the Federal level, that we ought to, as it describes in the Constitution, do those things that are described in the Constitution and leave to the States and to the people those other activities. Taxes have a great deal to do with that. There is a relationship between the size of Government and spending. Of course, if we are responsible at all and we want to do this spending, then we should pay for it. That is where taxes come in. Unfortunately, we have not done that very well. We have wanted to do the spending, but we put it on the credit card for our kids. We need to change that, and we are in the process, hopefully, of doing it. The real measurement is not what Government can do for people but the kind of environment that can be set that allows people to do for themselves. So when we talk about taxes, we are also talking about the size of Government that we envision. I think we should talk about where we are now. As Paul Harvey says, ``What is the rest of the story?'' We are beginning to hear a lot about how ``the deficit is down, the economy is up, and we are saving taxes,'' and so on. The fact is that Washington has never spent more on the Federal bureaucracy than we are and have under this administration. The fact is that we are spending less on defense, and that may be right or wrong. But it means we are spending more, then, in the nondefense areas, these programs that simply continue to grow. America's tax burden, State, Federal, and local combined, has never been higher than it is under this administration. It has never been higher as a percentage of GDP. Americans will pay more than one-half trillion dollars more in taxes as a result of the President's tax increase of last year. So despite what we hear and what we heard in the State of the Union Address on January 23, part of which said, ``We know big Government does not have all the answers''--I am quoting the President--``We know there is not a program for every problem, and we know we have to work to give Americans a smaller, less bureaucratic Government in Washington, and we have to give the American people one that lives within its means.'' He said, ``The era of big Government is over.'' Yet, we have the largest expenditure for Government that we have ever had under this administration. So, Mr. President, this is tax day. It has already been noted that the typical family spends more than 38 percent of its income on taxes-- more than it spends for food, clothing, and shelter combined. It has been mentioned that more than 3 hours of our 8-hour day is spent to produce taxes. It is also mentioned, I think importantly, that there are more than 100,000 employees at IRS, which is more than at the FBI, DEA, and Immigration Service combined. There is something wrong with that, when you take a look at the billions of dollars that are spent simply to prepare the forms that we have to use. It is also interesting, in terms of spending, that for every dollar in new taxes, the Government spends $1.59. The rest of it goes on the credit card. So what we have had, of course, is what we might call ``the Clinton crunch.'' The President has promised a tax cut and delivered a tax increase, which is very difficult on small business, and it holds down the creation of new jobs. It is difficult for senior citizens on fixed incomes. There was a tax increase for everyone, among them a gas tax, which hits my State of Wyoming very hard. The new budget contains $60 billion in new taxes. So we have not moved toward the end of big Government. On the other hand, I think that in this session of Congress the majority party has made a real effort to do that. We passed tax cuts last year, a $500 per child tax credit, marriage penalty, capital gains tax, expanded IRA's, adopted tax credits, student loan interest deduction--all, of course, which was vetoed. Today the tax limitation amendment will be considered in the House. I happen to think it is a good idea. It is like saying we do not need to amend the Constitution. It is the same thing I heard when we were talking about a balanced budget amendment. Everybody stood up, and before they began to talk, they said, ``I want to balance the budget, but we do not need an amendment to do that.'' Maybe we ought to remind them that it has been 25 years since we balanced the budget. And 43 States have that amendment. In my State, the legislature cannot spend more than it takes in. I think, similarly, we need that same kind of amendment on spending. There is no reason why, if spending is important, you cannot generate more support than 50 percent to do that. So, Mr. President, I think it is an issue we ought to talk about every day, and it is appropriate on tax day. Keep in mind, it is not only dollars. It is also how much Government do you want? I think that is a question that each of us, as citizens, ought to ask ourselves. Unfortunately, we do not have the kind of cost-benefit measurement in the Federal Government that we do at home. If the school district thinks they need a new school building or a sign, they say, ``Here is what it costs and here is what you have to pay,'' and you make a decision as to whether it is worth it. That is not what happens on the Federal level. We send in an amount of money, and we do not even know what it is really being spent for. We do not make any real decisions in terms of those programs that are funded. I am persuaded that we can have a much leaner Government and still provide for the things that most of us believe are necessary for the Government to perform. Remember, the measure of good Government is not what the Government can do for the people, but the kind of environment it sets so that we can do for ourselves. That is what the tax system, tax amendments, and being concerned about taxes is all about. I thank my friend from Georgia for organizing the time to talk about this important issue. I look forward to our doing something about it as a followup. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are now well into this year, the second year of this congressional session, preparing to go on a recess, to go back to our districts, do our business. So it is sort of interesting to reflect a bit on where we are and I guess more importantly where we go. It seems to me that this has been an extraordinary year, a year in which for the first time in 30 years, there has been a great effort to bring about a fundamental change in the operation of the Federal Government. Much of it, I think, results from the fact that the 1994 elections, at least to most of us, had a message. The message was, the Federal Government is too large, costs too much, and it is overregulated. And there are consequences, there are consequences to that. Obviously, the consequence of being overregulated, one of them, is to keep a damper on the growth of the economy. It has to do with jobs, it has to do with wages. And we all want to change that. The idea of overspending, of course, has a couple of consequences. One of them is that we enjoy the benefits, we continue to add cost to Government without paying for it, to put it on the credit card--on your credit card. And you will be paying for it. The other is, of course, it takes more and more money from families, money that was earned by families, sent to the Government when more of it could be used by families themselves. What has really happened over the 30 years is we tended to go ahead with the Great Society programs in the social arena. We tended to simply discuss here how much more do we put into the programs that have been there for a very long time. They are not all bad programs. But certainly after a number of years, there needs be to be a real look at whether or not those programs need to be there, whether, those, programs can be done more efficiently, whether, indeed, those programs can be transferred to local governments, closer to those who are governed, whether they need to be discontinued. So I am very pleased, frankly, with this year, even though we have not come to closure on as many things as I hoped we would have. We still have an opportunity in this week. And this week has been a good week for that. Nevertheless, the debate has changed entirely. The debate has changed from one of how much more money do we put into the program, to a real analysis of the program, a real change. Frankly, I guess being a freshman here makes it a little more exciting to help bring about that change, as the Presiding Officer would agree. But it is something that I think most of us want to do, and we intend to continue to do that. I had the good opportunity this last week, Mr. President, as I often do, to go to schools in my district. I went to CY Junior High in Caspar, WY. They asked me to come and talk a little bit about politics and particularly the primary. I am always happy to do that. I am happy to do it for a couple reasons. One is, of course, even though we sort of despair about politics and we call them politicians and all those things, politics is the way we govern ourselves. Politics is the way people in Caspar, WY, in my precinct where I am a precinct chairman, have input into what is done in this country, regardless of the party that they are in. So that is what politics is about. Obviously, I have urged young people to learn about it and become involved in it. The other, of course, is the primary, which is a very interesting aspect of our society, particularly when we generally have two parties, a two-party system. So there is in general a difference between the parties. Indeed, there should be. It is legitimate that there be that. That is what gives people a choice on how they govern themselves. Of course, generally, Republicans have been more conservative, the Republicans have been for less government, the Republicans have been for moving more government to the States. The Democrats, on the other hand, have generally supported more Federal Government and making more of the decisions there. Both of these are legitimate views. I happen to feel rather strongly about my view. I do not insist, however, that it is always correct. But it has been interesting this week, I think, Mr. President, to see how many of the things we have talked about just in the last couple of days would tend to show that that is indeed the case. The farm bill, we talked about the farm bill yesterday. It was a pretty clear choice as to where we go in the future. The choice is basically whether we continue to have a farm program--and I happen to come from a background of agriculture, and I can recall people, when I first got into agriculture in the 1960's, people saying, ``Hey, we have got to get out of this farm program. We have to get so we're producing for the market. We have got to get to doing something where farmers have more choices for themselves.'' We have not done that until now. Now we have an opportunity in this farm bill to move out over a period of adjustment into the marketplace, where we ought to be. It is pretty clear, a pretty clear division. We could see it on the floor yesterday. Health care--we will work today, we will work this week, we have worked for a very long time on health care. There are some very clear definitions there as to whether we want to deal with health care in the private sector, where people can make their choices, where we have IRA's for health care, where we do something about private insurance, or whether we move, as the administration sought to, 2 years ago, to a Government-controlled program. It is pretty clear. I think it is really important that we do understand that there are some philosophical differences here that have impact. I used to debate a Congressman from California, Mr. George Miller, on issues about land and the environment, but we had to make it clear to begin with that we had a great difference of philosophy, because often we were not really arguing about the bill but arguing about philosophy. George Miller would like to have the Government own more land. I tend to say there ought to be a limit, and private ownership ought to be sustained. Jobs and wages--I think all of us are concerned about that. We see two very different approaches taking place. One is to encourage the private sector. The Republicans are saying we should do something about that, do something about capital gains so people are encouraged and given incentives to invest, to create jobs, do something about overregulation; on the other hand, our friends with a little different point of view, different philosophy, say, ``Look, we ought to get the Government involved here and put these corporations in different categories, and if they behave properly with respect to Government regulations, then we give them some sort of preference.'' I guess, Mr. President, what I am saying is, we talked a bit about differences, about choices. Obviously, no one agrees entirely with everything their party is for, but they find the party that most closely represents their point of view. That is what primaries are about. That is what elections are about. People ought to see where they are--the 10th amendment, the idea of involving the States more. Mr. President, I think this has been an exciting year. I look forward to completing more of that fundamental change that has been brought about here. One of the final comments I make, it was interesting that the Chief of Staff of the White House was indicating the other day it is up to the Congress to deliver to the President the kind of bill that he wants. Let me suggest that is not exactly the way it is set up, in my view. Under the Constitution, there are three equal divisions of the Federal Government--judicial, legislative, and executive. Each of them has the authority to make some decisions for themselves, and, indeed, the President has the perfect right to veto, and he should veto. That is his constitutional privilege. To veto does not mean the Congress has to continue to bring everything back until it meets his particular point of view. This is not a unilateral decision. This is a joint decision. My only point is the White House needs to make some accommodations, as well. The way you make that work is after a couple vetoes, you do not send any more, and there is no opportunity for the President to work. I hope we do come together. Certainly, we never will all agree. We do have the responsibility to move forward. We do have the responsibility to make the system work. Mr. President, I hope that we can move on some of those things. We have passed a great number of items in this Congress, all of which have met the same fate at the White House. We will change that. We will have to change that, so that we can move forward and respond to those voters who spoke very clearly in 1994. I yield to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that in that 30 minutes, I be permitted to speak for about 10 minutes, the Senator from Georgia for about 10 minutes, and the Senator from Texas for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to review the socioeconomic impacts of the Department of the Interior's regulatory requirements and planning process. The hearing will take place on Saturday, April 13 at 9 a.m. in Rock Springs, WY. The exact location to be announced at a later date. Those wishing to testify or 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. Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation