Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have talked largely about balancing the budget. There are a number of other fundamental items involved in what we are doing now, including Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and it includes doing something about tax reform. I think those are equally important. At this time, I yield to my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. THOMAS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield myself such time as I usefully use. Mr. President, I congratulate my friend from Tennessee, who has certainly been a leader in the Medicare-Medicaid propositions that have come forward. He has been a leader partially because of his experience as a physician, but also having a very strong commitment to move forward in the changes that need to be made in order to strengthen and preserve these programs so that they will be useful. So I congratulate my friend.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been talking now for some time and will continue to talk, certainly through this month. I hope much of the bill will be completed within the next month so it will come to a closure that will be useful to the American people. I am confident that it will. In the meantime, I think it is important that we continue to talk about what it is we are seeking to do, that we continue to foster an understanding in the country of what the issues are that we are talking about. I have expressed before and again say that I am very concerned that in this democracy, in this country, this Government of the people and by the people and for the people, that we need to have facts upon which each of us can make the decisions that we need to make as citizens and as voters and as leaders in our communities there. There are differences of view. That is legitimate. There will continue to be differences of view. There are extreme differences of view among some of the Members in this place. But the decisions that are made, regardless of that point of view, have to be made on facts. We all have a right to our own opinion, but we do not have a right to our own facts. I am concerned about it. I am concerned about it. When I go home to Wyoming, people talk about what they perceive, what they have heard in the media, what they have heard from opinion analysts and things of that kind that are not necessarily so. So I hope that for the most part we can talk about the facts. I received a letter, as a matter of fact, from a lady in Afton, WY, whom I know, who has been very involved in public issues and has been active as a silver-haired legislator. She expressed her concern about some of the decisions that are being made and are being proposed. But I thought the interesting part was that she expressed her particular concern about the future and about her grandchildren and the things that would affect them. She talked about the fact that things are not going well, in her judgment, in the country. And, indeed, they are not where we would like them to be. I thought it was interesting that she resisted the idea of change. Basically that is what we are talking about here a lot. People will stand up, one after another, decry the situation we are in, talk about the future, talk about kids, talk about taxes, and then resist change, as if things were going to change by continuing to do what we have been doing. It seems to me that is a fairly simple concept. We have not balanced the budget for 26 years. We have got to do something different if we believe, as I do, that we need to balance the budget. I think most people know something of the condition that we are in, some of the conditions that we need to change. One of them is to balance the budget. Let me read from this column, the Parade magazine column. This author uses this example: Let's suppose you have an income of $125,760 that comes not from work but from the contributions of all your friends and relatives who work. You're not satisfied with what $125,760 can buy this year, so you prepare yourself a budget of $146,060 and charge the $20,300 difference to your credit card, on which you're already carrying an unpaid balance of $472,548 . . . on which you pay interest daily. Multiplied by 10 million times, that's what our government did in the fiscal year of 1994. That is what we have been doing, putting it on the credit card for these young people who will pay for it. We maxed out the credit card. We will be working in the next month to have to raise the debt limit to $5 trillion. So balancing the budget, most everybody [[Page S 16569]] understands, is something that has to be done. Medicare and Medicaid. Clearly if you think Medicare is something you would like to have in the future, if you think health care for the elderly is something that we should maintain and strengthen, then you have to change. The trustees say you have to change. It cannot continue to go on the way it is. Welfare. Most everyone who has watched welfare at all would agree, first of all, with the concept that we ought to have programs that help people who need help, but that they should be designed to help people help themselves to go back into the workplace. That has not worked. There are more people in poverty than there were when Lyndon Johnson was here and started this whole system. Yet each year in the interim, as things did not go well, the solution was to put more money into the same program and expect different results, which of course, does not happen. Reduction of taxes allowing people to spend more of their own money, is that not a concept? And we are seeking to do that. So that is what we need to do. Unfortunately, we need to come together on these principles. We need to come together to move forward in an area that will accomplish these things. And guess what? Guess what? We do not have any leadership from the White House. These are the things that the President has said he is for--balancing the budget, saving Medicare, reforming Medicaid. He wrote a letter when he was Governor in 1989 asking that some of the mandates be removed so that the States would have more flexibility. That is what we are trying to do. The President in his campaign was the one that was going to change welfare as we know it. These are the things that everyone will stand up and agree we need to change. And all we find is resistance and denial, that, ``No, we can't do that. No. That is too fast. That is too much. That isn't the right way.'' So we end up in something of a gridlock, a gridlock that I think we will overcome, a gridlock that we will overcome and still maintain the principles that are involved in making these things succeed. Let me talk just a minute about what happens if we do not do something. If we do not do something about balancing the budget, the deficit will top $460 billion by the year 2005. Now, that is a projection of the Congressional Budget Office. The deficit will be $288 billion in the year 2000 and upward of $462 billion in 2005 if we do not do something different than we have been doing. The national debt now stands at about $18,000 for each of us. It is a debt of $18,000 per capita. The servicing on the interest of that debt--not the servicing on the debt, not the reduction of the principal--the interest cost each American $800 in 1994. Today's newborn child, who is born today, owes $187,000 over his or her lifetime just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is what happens if we do not do something. If we do not do something, six programs will absorb 75 percent of the Federal budget: 22 percent for defense, 18 percent for net interest, 15 percent for Medicare, 11 percent for Medicaid, 6 percent for retirement programs; that is 75 percent of all Federal revenues will go in those areas unless we make some changes. With respect to the Medicare tax, we pay now, what, 2.9 percent payroll tax? If we do not slow the program from 10.5 percent down to 6 percent a year in growth, it will require an 8 percent payroll tax instead of 2.9 percent by the year 2030. So we need to make some changes. On the other side, what happens if we do? As a result of balancing the budget in 2002, a 2-percentage-point reduction in interest rates on a typical 10-year student loan for a 4-year private college would save American students 8,800 bucks. If we could get that 2-percent reduction in interest rates as is predicted, on a 30-year mortgage on an $80,000 home, it would save the American home buyer $107 each month, or $38,000 over the life of the mortgage. So not only do we have some very destructive kinds of things that will happen if we do not make some changes, there are some very, very positive things that will happen. So, Mr. President, I hope that President Clinton will reconsider his position and join in a useful dialog in terms of coming to some agreement and seek to deliver on some of the promises he made in 1992. I invite the President to drop the rhetoric and come to the table in good faith. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas. I think it is extremely important that we walk through this bill; it is a large bill; it covers lots of things; but to talk about how it will affect each of us as citizens of this country. And so I congratulate the Senator on doing that. Let me just observe that one of the principal things we are doing is thinking about young people, is talking about what kind of shape we want this country to be in when we go into a new century. We have maxed out on our credit card. We charged it to the young people who are coming, and it is time we do something about that. I now yield our time remaining to the Senator from Washington State.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The time was to be from 10:30 to noon for the majority leader.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think the time until 12 o'clock is set aside for discussion on this side of the aisle, to talk a little bit about what we have been doing over the last couple weeks, to talk about some of the heavy lifting going on--balancing the budget, strengthening Medicare, reforming welfare, and doing something to reduce the tax burden on middle-class Americans. We want to talk a little about moving to the negotiation table, so that what is being done here can be done to affect the American public. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Minnesota. Those of us on this side of the aisle are excited about the opportunities that are here. We are excited that we have worked for 8 or 9 months now toward this time, toward the time to have actually passed the kinds of changes that we bring with us from the election last year. These are the freshmen and sophomores. These are the Senators who are relatively new to this body and are really wound up about what we are able to do here and want to keep moving. So I am delighted they are here. I yield now 10 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I rise to join my friend from Idaho to talk a little bit about what is happening. It is an appropriate day. I was in Wyoming this weekend and saw some of the ads that were clothed in masks and costumes, seeking to portray something that I think is not inherent in what we are doing here. It concerns me a great deal, not only because it represents a different point of view, but, more importantly, it represents a distorted approach to developing public policy. If, indeed, in this country we believe that public policy should be developed by all of us participating, then those of us who participate--and that is all of us in this country--should have some facts upon which to base that public policy. So I want to talk a little bit about what I think the White House has been doing for some time and what our friends on the other side of the aisle have been doing, which has increased over this weekend, and that is to really distort what it is we are seeking to do. Those who oppose a balanced budget have been using this mask-and- costume approach to characterize this reconciliation bill that passed last week. Instead of having leadership to deal with what the issues are, there has been this use of words and, I believe, distortion, to scare people into what the impacts of this will be. This has been a marketing scheme that has been going on for some time, that has been devised, I guess, by various kinds of groups in the country, to find those words that have impact and to cause people to be frightened into thinking that a balanced budget will throw this country into turmoil, that saving and strengthening Medicare will result in turning out the elderly without health care, that reforming welfare will throw the poor into the street without support, and that allowing middle-class Americans to retain some of their own money will be a disaster. Mr. President, I am concerned about how we govern ourselves, and that is what this country is all about. That is what democracy is about. That is why people in Greybull, WY, can participate, as well as people in New York City, in governance. In order to do that, there has to be a basis of facts. There are differences and different views, and that is perfectly legitimate. That is what it is all about. There were young people in my office last week who said: I do not understand why there is this controversy going on, or why this debate is going on. Why do we not just do what is good for America? If we all agreed on what is good for America, there would be no debate. I suggested to them that if they went back to their senior class in Cheyenne and raised these questions, there would not be unanimity there. There are different views, and they come into play here. There are those who have quite a liberal, populist philosophy that more government is better and more taxes is better. I respect that. I do not agree with it, nor do I think the voters agreed with it in the last election. That is what it is all about. Rather than having a campaign of fear, mistrust, and misunderstanding, we need to have a campaign of facts and then decide on it. What is the purpose of what we did? It is certainly to respond to voters--that is what government is about--to balance the budget, which is the responsible thing to do; to reform welfare, and that is the responsible thing to do. Mr. President, I hope that we do begin to talk about the facts and that we do, from both the White House and from our friends on the other side of the aisle, have a clear debate of which way to go, but do it based on the facts and based on different views, based on leadership, direction, and based on what I think the voters have told us in the past. Mr. President, I yield back my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to join with the Senator from New Hampshire in expressing my profound disappointment with the way the Clinton administration is managing--or more correctly, mismanaging--our bilateral relationship with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. My colleagues know that I was not supportive of the President's decision to normalize relations with Hanoi. This opposition was not based on my dislike of that country's Communist dictatorship, or even its brutal repression of its own people--although in this administration's view these two bases seem sufficient to continue to deny recognition to Cuba and North Korea. Rather, I did not believe that we should reward Vietnam with the normalization of relations when, in my opinion and the opinion of many of the Members of this body, Hanoi has not been sufficiently forthcoming with information about our country's missing and dead servicemen in Vietnam and Laos. I will not rehash the normalization issue; the President made that decision and it serves little purpose to argue about a fait accompli. However, one of the issues that brings Senator Smith and I to the floor today are the increasing signs that this administration's has decided to explore expanding our bilateral relationship to the economic benefit of the Vietnamese Government while completely disregarding the lack of Vietnamese progress on both the POW/MIA and human rights fronts. Representatives from the State Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative were scheduled to come to the Hill this week to brief our staffs on the administration's decision to move toward expanding economic relations with Vietnam. Apparently, interagency discussions have been ongoing to the topic of extending loans and assistance to the Vietnamese through the Import-Export Bank, the Trade Development Agency, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. This at a time when POW/MIA issues remain unresolved, the Clinton administration is in flagrant violation of a law requiring the submission to the Congress of a report about the POW/MIA issue, and two American citizens remain jailed in Vietnamese prisons for advocating democracy in that country. The Senator from New Hampshire has already spoken forcefully to the POW/MIA issue, so I will limit my remarks to the second and third topics. Mr. President, the Clinton Administration continues to fail to live up to its legal obligations with respect to the POW/MIA issue. For example, section 1034 of the act of October 5, 1994, Public Law No. 103-337, 108 Stat. 2840, requires the Secretary of Defense to provide the Congress with a complete list of missing or unaccounted for United States military personnel about whom it is possible that Vietnamese and Laotian officials could produce information or remains. The statute mandated that the report be submitted to us by November 17, 1994. When the DOD requested an extension of the deadline to February 17, 1995, we did not object. We did not object when the DOD supplied us with a sadly incomplete interim report. But Mr. President, almost 9 months after that date--and almost a year after it was due to be submitted--we have still not received that complete report required by the statute. While I acknowledge that the President has wide latitude in the conduct of foreign policy, that latitude does not extend whether his administration abides by the legal requirements of Federal statutes. I and several other Senators wrote the President this summer requesting that the Defense Department comply with the law; we are still awaiting a response. Congress requested the list in order to determine for ourselves whether Vietnam was providing the United States with the fullest possible accounting of our POW/MIA's. Each day that passes without it, I believe, sends us the signal that the administration is indifferent to both our concerns and our role. As the chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over Vietnam, I can assure the President that as each day passes without our receipt of the report, the likelihood that any ambassadorial nominee or funding request for that country will be indefinately held in my subcommittee increases commensurately. Second, I am very concerned with the seeming disparity with which the Clinton administration has chosen to treat Vietnam's jailing of two American citizens--Tran Quang Liem and Nguyen Tan Tri--versus its reaction to China's arrest of Harry Wu. I spoke at length on the floor on September 5 about Vietnam's atrocious human rights record in general, and the case of these two Americans in particular. In August, a Vietnamese court sentenced Tran and Nguyen who were accused of being counter-revolutionaries and acting to overthrow the people's administration. The two were part of a group trying to organize a 1 day conference in Ho Chi Minh City to discuss human rights and democracy in Vietnam. Radio Hanoi Voice of Vietnam, in somewhat characteristic Communist rhetoric, described their ``crimes'' as follows: Taking advantage of our party's renovation policy, they used the pretext of democracy and human rights to distort the truth of history, smear the Vietnamese communist party and state, instigate bad elements at home, and contact hostile forces abroad feverishly oppose our state in an attempt to set up a people-betraying and nation-harming regime. . . . Their activities posed a particular danger to society and was detrimental to national security. They were sentenced to terms of 4 and 7 years respectively. When human rights activist and American citizen Harry Wu was arrested in the People's Republic of China this summer, the Clinton administration appropriately raised a huge diplomatic outcy. When Wu was jailed, public calls for his immediate release came from the highest levels of the administration. It was made clear that Mrs. Clinton would not attend the U.N. Women's Conference in Beijing if he was still being held, and that other high-level contacts would be disrupted. In essence, the signal went out that business as usual would be suspended until his release. Well Mr. President, where is a similar outcry about the fate of these two Vietnamese-Americans? The only statement I have seen from the State Department so far was one announcing that they had raised this case with the Vietnamese a number of times, here and in Hanoi. The information available to me and other Members of the Senate, however, indicated that the issue was only being raised at the consular level. It was for that reason that Senator Grams introduced, and I cosponsored, Senate Resolution 174 calling on the Secretary of State to pursue their release as a matter of the highest priority and requesting that he keep the Foreign Relations Committee informed regarding their status. Senate Resolution 174 passed unanimously on September 19, yet since that time the administration gives the appearance of moving ahead with business as usual. I have seen no public statements by the Secretary regarding the case, and as the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction I have not seen any reports on its status. While I have become aware that there have been some behind-the-scenes moves to secure their release, it is no thanks to the State Department that that information came to my attention. During his campaign for President, then-candidate Clinton lambasted President Bush's relations with China--not dissimilar, I must note, from those Clinton himself has since adopted--and accused him of coddling dictators. Well, Mr. President, with movement toward increased economic aid in spite of the treatment of our citizens, in spite of Vietnam's horrendous human rights record, one might be tempted to ask who's doing the coddling now? I have no strong objection to the eventual institution of full diplomatic and economic relations with the people of Vietnam. But to move toward that goal while we have these important issues outstanding is, I believe, an affront to the memories of our missing and killed American servicemen, their families, and the families of the two jailed Americans.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, would it not be interesting to be some kind of out-of-touch observer and walk out and listen to the last day or so, the conversation. It is not a debate. It is posturing conversation. I just walked in and listened. It would be pretty hard to follow. It would be pretty hard to try and establish from listening here what the goals were and what the purpose was, particularly from our friends on the other side of the aisle. I think you have to conclude certainly we are not all coming from the same base of facts. I think you have to conclude that in some cases there is not even any clearly defined goals that are being pursued on that side of the aisle. I think you would have to conclude there is quite a different philosophy--a philosophy of maintaining the status quo, of attacking the proposals without any particular plan, to continue the growth of Government and the size of spending. That would have to be the goal that you would assume from the conversation. You would be confused when you hear constantly time after time this idea that you are reducing Medicare so that we can increase tax cuts. The fact of the matter is that part A of Medicare is financed by withholding from wages. It goes into a trust fund. You have two choices when it is growing at 10.5 percent. You can either do something about the cost and reduce that rate of growth or you can add more to the withholding. I do not hear that proposition being done. Those are the choices. It has nothing to do with taxes. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget. If the balanced budget was not in the picture, you would be talking about how do you take care of part A in Medicare. You do not hear that. That is a fact. That is a fact. You can probably balance the budget it we stop using all the charts that we have out here, for one thing. We do have a plan. The Republicans do have a plan. The plan is to balance the budget instead of more debt. A responsible thing we need to do for our kids as we go into another century, we have a plan to have some middle-class tax cuts instead of increasing--the largest increase we ever had--like last year. I hope we get on into this earned-income tax credit, this 50 percent of people's taxes going up. That is just not the case. You might be reducing some of the payments that have been going under earned-income taxes--it is not increasing taxes. We know that. We ought to be talking about Medicare solvency. That is what our purpose is. We ought to be talking about jobs and opportunity, instead of welfare dependency. That is what we are talking about here, making some changes that have not been made for years. My friends start by saying yes, we need changes, and then resist them. That has become the pattern here. Let me tell you just a little bit about Medicaid in Wyoming. Republicans surely have taken a historic approach to it. In Wyoming, spending will rise on Medicaid from $110 million in 1996 to $168 million in the year 2002. That is not really a cut, is it? On an individual basis, the average Federal grant for each person in poverty will grow from $2,188 to $3,263, hardly a cut. Certainly we need more flexibility. We have heard from some of the former Governors. We heard, of course, from the Governors in the States who say give us more flexibility and we can take these dollars and more effectively run the program. The Governors have asked for more flexibility. The Republican bill mandates benefits for low-income pregnant women, children up to 12, elderly and disabled as defined by the State--those are mandates that are there that, indeed, some of the Governors are objecting to. Medicaid, as the Senator from Tennessee indicated, has exploded in terms of its growth rate; an annual rate of 19.1 percent between 1989 and 1994. You cannot sustain that kind of growth. So you need to look for ways to deliver the system, to deal with the core problems and that is helping to reduce the costs by giving more flexibility to States to shape their programs. The program in Wyoming for the delivery of Medicaid needs to be quite different than the program in West Virginia or Massachusetts, and we need the flexibility to do that. So, Mr. President, we have talked about the benefits. States will meet a minimum spending level of Medicaid. For low-income pregnant women, children up to 12, elderly and disabled as defined by the State, States will be required to spend at least 85 percent of the amount they spend in 1995. They will be allowed to put together programs like AFDC and Food Stamps if they choose, to put together a package of benefits. Regarding nursing home standards, the committee responded to the Governors' requests by granting them authority to write standards under Federal guidelines. States must establish and maintain standards for quality care, which must be promulgated through their State legislatures--people, I suppose, who have no caring for the elderly. I do not believe that. Most of you have served in State legislatures. Do not tell me the States do not care. I cannot believe what I hear from time to time about that. So, we do need to make changes if we want to continue to have a program that delivers services. That is what it is all about. I think we ought to take a little look at the long-term goals and the breadth of the goals that are in this bill. They have to do with balancing the budget. They have to do with job opportunities. They have to do with dealing with some of the problems which have brought us to where we are. I really wish we could talk just a little bit more about the facts. For instance, this tax business that we hear every time someone stands up. Tell me a little bit about part A of Medicare and how that gives a tax offset. I would like to know more about that.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am honored to serve as a member of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR]. In this era of ``new federalism,'' the government must create a partnership with state and local governments that is based on balanced, decentralized decision making. These governments have been the laboratories for change for the last 20 years. A streamlined and more flexible intergovernmental system will offer significant opportunities for state and local governments to develop more innovative and cost effective methods of delivering programs and services. State and local governments are now ready to rise to the challenges of this new era in history--the Information Age--where experimentation and local control are needed. For example, as this Congress moves to balance the budget and restore fiscal responsibility and accountability at the federal level, it cannot do so on the backs of state and local governments. My involvement in drafting Public Law 104-4, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Law, was an effort to relieve this burden. As a former Wyoming state legislator, I am well aware of the hardships the federal government places on states and localities. I look forward to working with the other members of the ACIR in implementing the unfunded mandates reform law and sharing with my Senate colleagues the effects of federal policy making on state and local governments. Together, we can usher in a new era of government and restore federalism as the founding fathers intended over 200 years ago.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have moved away again a little bit and have gone into posturing this afternoon, I guess not unusually. There has been a good deal of misinformation floating around this budget and its effect on rural areas with respect to health care. Contrary to what we have heard, there are several provisions designed to recruit providers and to ensure that 24-hour emergency care is available, which we have not had in my State, even though the Senator from Montana has had some in his. It is interesting, also, that several of the provisions talked about here my friends on the other side of the aisle supported last year when they were in the Clinton health care plan--reducing the updates for inpatient hospital services, section 4101. The Republican plan does not apply 2 percent reductions to all hospitals like the Clinton health care plan did. Rather, it receives the 1 percent reduction. The copayment for health care services--this is a fee we have heard a great deal about--somehow it was not as devastating last year when it was in Clinton health care plan, section 4134. But, happily, there are a number of provisions that are most helpful. One is the limited services hospitals. Frankly, there are going to be a continuing number of these in rural areas. With hospitals that are built relatively close together, you simply cannot support the hospital as a coservice hospital because there is not enough utilization. And we have had some experience with this. Under this bill, they can be reorganized and downsized into emergency rooms, or stabilizing facilities, and be reimbursed by HCFA--that is a very important change--so that you will have the facility in the town that cannot afford to have a full-blown hospital. Medicare-dependent hospitals. The Clinton 1993 budget let this program expire, but the Republican plan reinstates it. The purpose is to assist high Medicare patient loads in Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, and other Midwest States. But it also has the extension of the sole community hospital. The Republican plan plans to extend these special payments to hospitals that have 50 beds or less and are 35 miles or more away from the nearest hospital. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and other Rocky Mountain States receive the most money. Medicare HMO payments. It intends to put these on an equal footing and to put some parity in these payments. These HMO payments in Medicare were based on the fee-for-service history. In one instance, in Bronx County in New York, the payment was $678 a month as opposed to South Dakota where it was $177. We need to find some equity in that. This program does that. Medicare bonus payments, payments to primary care physicians to help hold primary care providers in rural areas, a 10- to 20-percent increase there if they practice in health care professional shortage areas. These are the things that are in this bill to help rural health areas. Specifically, we have been working on it for several years with our rural health caucus, both in the House and in the Senate. Telemedicine grants. We are going to find that we can save a great deal of money and provide better services by using telemedicine. There are some grants here that allow for that to be developed as well as to develop systems within rural States to deliver services. So, Mr. President, contrary to what we have been hearing for the last few minutes, there are some substantial rural health additions to assist in delivering rural health services. I urge the defeat of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I come to change the tone a little bit. I have been sitting here for 5 hours and have heard nothing but negative, depressing kind of things. I am excited about the opportunities that we have. I am excited about the opportunities that we will have to do something that the people who have been complaining here have not done for 30 years. We will have a chance to balance the budget. We have not done it for 26 years. We will have a chance to do something about welfare. We have not done it for all these years. We will save Medicare. We have not had a plan to do that. We will leave a little more money in the pockets of Americans. Now, that is not a bad idea. That is a pretty positive kind of a thing, it seems to me. Frankly, I get a little weary of the same folks that have been here, who have brought us where we are, that we need changes, and they resist changes, and expect something different to happen by doing the same thing. I do not understand that. That is what we have heard all afternoon. Do not change anything. Things are not good, but do not change them. Someone mentioned the difficulty in rural States. I come from a rural State. As a matter of fact, there are a number of things here that I think will be greatly strengthened, including the health program in rural areas. There are several specific things here that I want to mention. One is limited service hospitals. We have, over time, developed hospitals. We were encouraged over the years--properly--to develop full service hospitals in small towns. Quite a few of them sometimes were just 20 miles apart. In Wyoming, we had a hospital with 4 percent occupancy. It cannot exist at that. So it has to fail. So we will change in this bill the qualifications of a hospital so that you can have a limited service hospital, still be reimbursed by HCFA, the Federal Government for stabilizing facilities, for emergency facilities, so you can move to the next hospital. It would be a great asset. You need something in a town but you will not be able to have a full service hospital. That will be done here. Medicare dependent hospitals--the 1993 budget let this program expire. We are going to reinstate that. The purpose is to assist facilities in high Medicare patient loads to continue. The extension of the sole community hospital status, hospitals that have less than 50 beds, 35 miles away from the nearest hospital, will continue. This is good stuff for rural America. It levels HMO payments in Medicare. There is a great disparity now. We settled that on the basis of fee-for-service as it existed. In Bronx County, New York, $678 can be paid per month for HMO's and Medicare; Fall River County, South Dakota, on the other hand, gets $177. We will fix that. That is good for rural America. Medicare bonus payments to physicians will be increased from 10 percent to 20 percent. We talk about bringing service providers into the rural area. This will do that. Telemedicine grants--we have a great opportunity to increase services with telemedicine grants in rural communities. I understand the marketing device, of being opposed--there are some very positive things here, starting with the fact if you do not do something, it fails. Second, you can preserve it for 2 years or you can preserve it for longer than that, and we are going for the long haul. There are positive things here. One of them is the help for rural areas, like my State of Wyoming. I am very pleased we are looking forward, in these next 2 days, to do some positive things. I hope we begin to talk about the benefits that can accrue, benefits that will accrue, rather than seeking to worship the depressing scenario we have been going through for the last couple of hours. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I want to talk a little bit about the business that we are approaching this week. It seems to me it is the most important opportunity that we have had in 25 years, and the Senator and the previous speakers talked about the reasons why we cannot make these changes and the reasons why this is wrong and the reasons why it has to be some other way. The real test is that we have been talking that way for 25 years, and the results speak for themselves. We find all kinds of reasons why we cannot balance the budget. So what has the result been? A $5 trillion debt. It has resulted in the interest on the debt being the largest single line item in the budget. But we have been talking that same talk for 25 years: Cannot do it. I wish to talk a little bit about why we should do it and why we have the greatest opportunity we have had in a very long time to do the same, to complete at least four things that I think most of us, particularly most of us that are new here, apparently came here to do, and it is the first time there has been a chance to do that, and I wish to talk about the benefits of doing it. They are four changes that need to be made and four changes that can be made in the next couple of weeks, fundamental changes, not messing around the edges, not talking about change but never doing it. All of us have watched this Government for a long time. Most of us have watched this Congress talk about it; we want change. The fact is, it has not changed. The fact is, the debt has continued to grow. So we have a chance to make some fundamental changes, to not only turn around the arithmetic but to turn around the morality and the fiscal responsibility of making this Government sound within. Maybe more importantly than that, shaping the Government in the way that you would like to [[Page S 15558]] see it be shaped when we go into a new century, that you would like to see it be shaped when you turn it over to your kids or your grandkids. Do we want a Government that is $5 trillion, $6 trillion, $7 trillion in debt? I do not think so. Despite all of the rhetoric, despite all the talk every year, the same thing has gone on, and I guess that is how you really measure it--by results, not by talk, not by whether it is CBO or whether it is OMB, but what are the results. And the results are that the debt has gone up each year. So we have a chance to make fundamental change, fundamental change in at least four areas. One of them is to balance the budget, a change you would not think we would even need to make, a change to make income and outgo the same. Can you imagine that? That is the way it has to be with families, the way it has to be with businesses. But we have not done that. We have spent more than we have taken in, and we put it on the credit card. Someone asked recently in a letter to a column called Ask Marilyn, and they talked about the problem with a credit card. Let me quote from it. Let's suppose you have an income of $125,760 that comes not from work but from the contributions of all your friends and relatives who work. You're not satisfied with what $125,760 can buy this year, so you prepare for yourself a budget of $146,060 and charge the $20,300 difference to your credit card, on which you're already carrying an unpaid balance of $452,248--boosting that to $472,548, on which you pay interest daily. Multiply that little scenario by 10 million, and you have the national budget. The second thing we can do is strengthen and save Medicare. We can do that. We can do that. Reform welfare, we can pass that here. We can reform welfare for the very first time. We can reduce the burden to taxpayers. Now, why is this the right thing to do? It is because that is what we said we would do when we came. That is what we told voters we would do when we came. That was in the contract for America. The President said he was going to do those four things when he ran. But he did not do it. So, that is what we need to do. These are key issues and these are attainable goals. There is great opposition to change always, mostly from people who have put the programs that are now in place in place, from people who talk about the failure of the present program and use as an example what is wrong now and the reason why we cannot change based on programs that are already in place and have been put in place by the folks that are opposing change. That is where we are. So, we need to make changes if we expect some different results. But guess what? Folks want to continue to do the same thing and anticipate that the results will be different. It will never happen. What are good things to be gained? Of course, we balance the budget. We will do something about that interest that is going on. The largest line item can go to something else, can be used for tax deductions, can be used for many things, put more money into the private sector because it will not take it out of the private sector to fulfill this. It would change the interest rates, reduce the interest rates. But maybe most of all it shows some responsibility in fiscal responsibility in terms of our future and the future of our kids. Welfare: We need to change the pattern of welfare. Everybody believes we ought to have welfare programs to help the people who need help, but then to help them back in, help them back in to the private economy. We need to move it to the States. The States are the laboratories that develop effective distribution systems. Medicare: We all want Medicare to continue to serve the elderly. It will not unless we make changes. There is no question that you have to make a change; there is some question, I suppose, how you do it. But it will go broke if we do not do something. We need to have choices. Why should not the elderly have choices? We have been able to contain some, the increased costs in health care costs--not in Medicare, not in Medicaid. It continues to go up at 10 percent. We can do that. Tax reductions: We ought to leave more money into the pockets of families. We ought to leave more money in businesses to be reinvested in jobs for the economy. We have a chance to do these things and a chance to do them in the next 2 or 3 weeks. Mr. President, I hope that my associates will take that opportunity and cause that to happen. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I would have looked at my watch sooner.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise also to talk about the budget because I think the budget is what is on our minds now, and properly so. I rise because we have come to a defining time when we will decide. And I am very interested in the colloquy that has gone on here. I congratulate my friend from Pennsylvania for raising this question about the President's budget. This is what we ought to be considering. Let me say to my friend from North Dakota that the gentleman is not for a balanced budget in any time. We are not going to get a balanced budget if we follow that pattern because there is none there. We are following the pattern that has been followed. Furthermore, I think it is unfair to say this money is being used. I do not know of any trust fund of any kind or any annuity which the proceeds are not invested. In this case, they are invested in the U.S. securities. And the reason they are invested is because the law requires that. They are not stuffed in the mattress somewhere. And from an accounting standpoint, they do belong to that trust fund. And the Senator knows that, of course. But I want to talk a little bit about the President's budget.

Mr. THOMAS. I certainly would not want to stop this exciting debate. Anyway, we do need to talk about where we are going. Now, there has been a great deal of activity in the administration going about the country saying, ``We have a balanced budget. We balance the budget in 10 years.'' And so that, then, in our minds is measured against the Republican proposal to have a balanced budget and do so in 7 years. But there is a substantial difference between the two. One is that the Republican budget does indeed balance in 7 years, as certified by CBO. The President's budget, what he has talked about for a 10-year balance, does not balance at the end of 10 years. So that is really the issue. And probably we will become involved in great detail about it. But you really start with the question, Are we committed to the notion that we need to balance the budget? We have not been committed for 25 years to do that. As a matter of fact, we have heard this same debate for 25 years, the same excuses for 25 years, the same idea that we cannot do it for 25 years. In the meantime, the debt has increased to $5 trillion. In the meantime, the interest paid on that debt will become the largest single-line item in the budget, larger than defense. So we do not really have now a choice. We can talk about the idea of Social Security being off-budget. I happen to favor that. The fact is that it is not. The fact is that it has not been. And the fact is that the folks on that side of the aisle would not balance the budget if it is on, let alone if it is off. It would make it much more difficult. The President promised a 5-year balanced budget as a candidate. That did not happen. Instead, we had the largest tax increase in history in the 1993 budget. The original budget by the administration this year was brought to the floor, defeated 99 to 0. So the administration sent down a new budget. It uses OMB numbers, not CBO numbers which the President told us a year ago, 2 years ago, that these are the numbers we all ought to use. We all ought to be on a level field. And I agree with that. CBO's are the numbers. So the budget does not balance. There are a number of other problems. The proposition backloads cuts. The cuts come in after the year 2000. Eighty-five percent of the cuts come in in the next century. That is not a very tough approach to budgeting. It leaves the tough work for later, increases the deficit by 31 percent during this 10-year period. Well, the Republican budget eliminates it. It adds $2 trillion to the debt. So that is the comparison that we make. We really need to come down to dealing with the fundamental changes that have to be made and that, indeed, will be voted on in the next 2 or 3 weeks. Protecting Medicare--we have to make some changes. There is a trust fund there. The trust fund will go broke in the year 2002. The trustees say so. You have to make some changes if you want some different results. Reform welfare--we need to do that. We needed to do it for a very long time. We have the opportunity to do it. Balance the budget--perhaps the most important. We have an opportunity to do that. There is legitimate debate about how you do it, legitimate debate about the cuts you make or the reductions you make in growth. But there is not really a legitimate debate about whether or not you financially and morally are responsible to balance the budget of the United States. The real question is, what kind of a Government do we pass on to our kids? What kind of a financial situation and Government do we hand on as the new century comes on us? And those are the decisions we will answer in the next 2 weeks. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Of course.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I come to the floor to inform my colleagues that at noon today the administration will announce that the United States, the United Kingdom, and France will sign the three protocols to the South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone Treaty [SPNFZ], known as the Treaty of Rarotonga. I wholeheartedly welcome that decision. The SPNFZ, which took effect in 1986, is signed by Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Tuvalu, the Cook Islands, and the Solomon Islands. The treaty includes three protocols which are open to signature by nuclear countries outside the region. Protocol I prohibits any nuclear power with territories in the zone from manufacturing, stationing, or testing any nuclear device within those territories. Protocol II commits the protocol signatory not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any treaty signatory. Finally, Protocol III commits each protocol signatory not to test a nuclear explosive device anywhere in the zone. While no nuclear power has adhered to Protocol I, both Russia and the People's Republic of China have adhered to Protocols II and III. The SPNFZ is modeled after the Latin American Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty, the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which includes two protocols open to signature by the nuclear powers. While the United States is a signatory to both the Tlatelolco protocols, we have not signed the similar Rarotonga protocols. The reason appears to have been the tendency of the western nuclear powers to be hesitant to sign on unilaterally. Although both we and the British appeared to be amenable to signing, because of French interests we refrained from doing so. The continued obstinacy of the French, coupled with their decision to go ahead with France's announced nuclear tests in the South Pacific, caused me great concern for several reasons. First, I believed that a resumption of testing would result in the disintegration of the current testing moratorium and a renewal of underground testing by other states. Moratoria are like truces--they are only good as long as all the parties to them observe their provisions. Second, it called into question France's commitment to the extension of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT]. In May, the world's five announced nuclear powers persuaded the rest of the world to extend indefinitely the NPT. To win that consensus, the five promised to sign a comprehensive test ban treaty [CTBT] by the end of 1996. I believed strongly that the resumption of French testing, only 4 months after France signed the agreement, called into serious question its commitment to the CTBT and threatened to undermine international efforts to curb proliferation. Finally, the decision was vehemently opposed by most, if not all, of the countries in the region. As a result of these concerns, on August 10 the distinguished ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, and I wrote President Clinton asking him . . . to give serious consideration to an early decision to seek Senate advice and consent to ratification of the protocols to the Treaty. The timetable of such action would be consistent with the achievement of a complete ban in 1996. It would send a clear signal to the French that, while we commend their decision to join in a compete test ban next year, they should accede now to the overwhelming sentiment of the peoples of the South Pacific that there should be no further testing of any nuclear explosive devices in the region. Moreover, it would send an unequivocal message to regional nations that we support them in their desire to make their zone nuclear-free. Finally, it is important to give substance to the commitments we gave the regional nations when they supported the U.S. this spring in the effort in New York to secure the permanent extension of the [NPT]. The announcement today is an important step toward achieving a ban by the end of 1996. While I would like to think that our letter had something to do with the decision--and here I would like to commend the distinguished senior Senator from Rhode Island for his efforts in that regard--I must realistically credit the Government of France with making the agreement possible. France was the only country testing nuclear weapons in the zone, and had maintained that they would not join the protocols until the entry into force of the CTBT. Their decision to join us in signing the protocols represents in my mind a major step forward in our drive towards 1996. I would hope that the parties would move quickly to sign the protocols, and pledge to respect them pending each country's ratification process. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, when we have an arrangement to speak for 10 minutes, it seems to me that is what we should do. I want to talk a little bit about the opportunity and the time that we now have to come to a decision. We have been talking this whole year about budgets, about balanced budgets. We started out in the beginning of the year with a vote on balanced budgets, which lost by one vote. We have worked the whole year long, and now we are down to the place where it begins to count. We are down to where we are going to make a decision as to what we do. Mr. President, I listened to my colleague on the other side, and I have heard that speech for 25 years. For 25 years, we have not balanced the budget in this place. Every year we have the same litany of reasons why we cannot do that. For the first time in that period of time, we have a dedication to doing it. For the first time, we have a pattern to do that. We can balance the budget. The real question is, is it reasonable, is it morally and fiscally responsible to go for 25 years without balancing the amount of money you take in with the amount of money you take out? How long could you do that in your family or in your business? We are beginning to have the same repercussions that you would have there--the repercussion being that we have a $5 trillion debt, and we will have to vote on that this month, or early next month; that the interest on that debt will now amount to probably the largest single-line item in the budget. So we hear, year after year, the same litany of reasons why we cannot do this, basically, frankly, from the same people who have been here for 25 years. I do not mean to be critical. It is a tough decision. But people sent us here, this year particularly, to deal with that issue. It is time to do that. We hear the talk about the Reagan years, when we reduced taxes and the promise that it would increase the economy. It did in fact increase the economy markedly. The problem was, we did not reduce or hold down spending. The constitutional responsibility for doing that lies right here in this Congress. Right here. It is our responsibility to do that. We hear about capital gains tax cuts. These are tax cuts that provide an opportunity for investment to create jobs, that give us a prosperous economy and give us a chance for people to work and take care of their families. That is what that is about. The earned income tax credit. That will continue to grow. It has been the fastest growing program in the entire budget. It started out, I believe, at about $1.5 billion. It has gone to $25 billion in less than 10 years and is scheduled to go to $32 billion. That is a cut? Give me a break. It is not a cut. It is also one of the programs that has been most filled with inconsistencies, and indeed fraud in many cases, payments going to people that did not qualify for them. So, Mr. President, it is really time that we take a little look at what we are doing here. If we do not balance the budget, what happens? If we do not do something about Medicare, what happens? Medicare in the trust fund, in part A, goes broke in 2002. That is the way it is. So we have to do something about it. A child born today owes $187,000 in interest on the Federal debt. That is where we are. That is why we have to do something about it. By the year 2015, all of our spending will be on entitlements and the national debt interest. All of our tax revenues will be taken for that reason. [[Page S 15332]] So what do we need to do? Obviously, we need to balance the budget. We need to preserve, protect and strengthen Medicare. We need to reform welfare. And we need to--to the extent that we can do it after the budget is balanced--reduce the taxes on American families so they can spend more of their own money. In this proposition, the tax cutting comes after the balanced budget is certified. That is the system. That is the plan that we have here. The benefits include lower interest rates for businesses, for families, and less expensive homes, cars, and student loans. The Senator talked about education. Student loans will be at a lower interest rate. There will be a higher standard of living. Some estimate there will be as many as 6 million more jobs. So we have to do this. The best opportunity that we have had will be before us in the next 2 weeks. That is what the voters said to us last November. That is their expectation. That is our expectation--those of us, particularly, who have just come this year. We came with the commitment to fundamentally change the direction in which we are going. We came with a commitment to change the things the Senator was talking about--deficits for 25 years. The administration does not have a budget that will give us a balanced budget. The first budget was defeated 99-0. The second was not voted on. By CBO's own estimates, at the end of 10 years, it will still have a $200 billion deficit. So we can talk about the same things we have talked about forever. We can talk about all the reasons why this cannot be done. We can make excuses. But the real question is, is it fiscally and morally responsible to move toward a balanced budget in 7 years? If the answer is yes, then the opportunity arises before us in this next 2-week period. Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will take advantage of this opportunity and that, for the first time in a very long time, we will have changed the course of irresponsible spending and moved into a time of a responsible balanced budget. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I object. We were set up for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me first congratulate the Senator from New Mexico. This is a tough job. This is the toughest job in the Congress. Everyone likes the programs that we have. Everyone is involved in the programs. So you have to make some really tough decisions. It has not been done for 25 years. So I certainly congratulate the Senator, the Budget Committee, and the Finance Committee. They are doing tough work. So we say, why are we doing this? It is very tough. What is the benefit? Let me tell you that I think there are substantial benefits. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is any question whether we have to do it. One, if we are to be responsible, fiscally, morally, in terms of paying for what we ask for, you have to balance the budget. We have gone for a very long time, and we have known it, all of us, as citizens but we have not cared too much. But now we are at a time when, for example, interest on the national debt soon will become the largest single line item in the budget: $260 billion interest; not debt service, not a reduction, interest. That is one reason we do it. If you have a philosophy about government, should Government continue to grow and become larger, better Government, it has to do with balancing the budget. If we do not ask ourselves, are we willing to pay for the services that we ask for or are we going to put them on the credit card, as we have done for a very long time, then we will continue to have larger and larger Government. One of the benefits, I think, is to leave more money in the pockets of American families to spend as they chose to invest and create jobs. Of course, I mentioned the interest. We will, next month, I suspect, be asked to vote on raising the debt limit to $5 trillion--whatever that is--$5 trillion because that is where we have gotten ourselves over a period of time. These young people, like these pages here, have, I think, $180,000 debt each they will inherit because we have not balanced the budget. So that is what it is all about. It is not really a question of whether we do it, we must do it to be morally, fiscally responsible. So we are doing the business this week. This is a defining moment, I believe, in a very long time. This is my first year in the Senate that I have been here. But I have been here for several years, 5 years, in the House. We have not had a moment of that kind since I have been here. But more importantly, we have not had a moment of that kind for many years, a defining moment when we decide to make some fundamental changes in Government. It is not just the budget. The budget is reflective of it. The budget is the key to doing it. But much more will be changed besides simply balancing the budget. I do not think there is any question but what voters asked for change. I do not think there is any question, as you go out to your constituency and talk in town meetings, about where we are going. Everyone knows we have to do something different. Almost everyone knows that you cannot keep doing the same thing and expect different results. So we have before us this week and next week and will have before us next month the defining moment. We will have before us a budget that will bring us into balance in 7 years, the first time for a very long time. So I would like to talk a little bit about the process we go through to do that, as opposed to the detail, and it will be difficult. I would like to talk a little bit about philosophy, because it is quite obvious that there are two points of view. There is nothing wrong with that. There are, clearly, at least two points of views. There are many views, of course, and they center on the role of the Federal Government in America today. That is the reason we [[Page S 15265]] have debate, that is the reason we have two parties, that is the reason we vote, to get a sense of direction as to how we want to go. Some, including the President, and many of the more liberal Members on the other side, support more spending. That is a legitimate point of view, to spend more in the Federal Government, have more programs, have larger Government. I do not happen to agree with that. My view is that we strengthen this country by having more personal responsibility, by having fewer programs that work better, that are efficient, that, in the case of welfare, are designed to help people who need help, but to help them back into a position to help themselves, not as a permanent establishment. We have had 40 years where we just generally added to the social programs. If they did not work quite right, we put some more money in them. Now we have an opportunity to examine some of these programs, to see, indeed, that they are accomplishing the purposes for which they were established; to see, indeed, if they are efficient in terms of delivering the services that we pay for; to consider if there is a better way to do it. This is, after all, a Union of States, and the basic governing unit are the States. They come together in the federation, and the more things, in my view, that the States can do, being closer to the people, the more likely they are to be effective. So there is a different point of view about that. The President promised a 5-year balanced budget as a candidate 3 years ago. Of course, that has not happened. What did happen, however, was the largest tax increase in the history of this country that still left us with a deficit. Voters rejected the proposal last year, of course, for the Government takeover of health care. So where are we now? We have to have a budget that really means something. The President's first budget this year was rejected 99 to zip in this place. The budget that followed was touted as a balanced budget, but CBO indicated that it will be $200 billion over at the end of the 10-year period and would never balance. There has to be a little pain in balancing, and it has to be real cuts. It is tough. It is where we are. We have to really come to the snubbing post and say are we going to commit ourselves to doing it and the time is now. I hope that we get some support and cooperation from the White House and the other side of the aisle. I do not suggest everyone is going to agree. There are, obviously, lots of points of disagreement in how you do this, but the point is that we have to do it. We have to save Medicare. If you like Medicare, if you want to have a health care program for the elderly, you have to change it. You cannot let it continue to grow at 10 percent a year, unless you want to double the contribution that is made to Social Security for part A. That is a fact. I am a little concerned that as we move toward these decisions in the public arena, making public policy, that we are moving more and more toward sort of merchandising, towards the idea of using fright tactics instead of facts. I picked up something in the Denver paper the other day on my way back. The Denver paper is not exactly a conservative bulletin, but it asserted the allegation under the Clean Water Act that we are going to dump arsenic in the water supply. Of course we are not going to dump arsenic in the water supply. Those are the kind of things that are being talked about as distortions, and they do not really come to the question of what we do to have a responsible Government, to be able to finance the kinds of programs that really are meaningful over time. So, Mr. President, I say, again, that we are approaching and involved in, and it is a treat for you and me and my associate from Minnesota in our first year here to be a part of the first time to have a real opportunity to balance the budget, and we have that. I certainly hope our associates in the Senate will cause that to happen. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me first allay any fears that I intend to speak for 60 minutes. But I do have some colleagues who will join in using this opportunity to talk about where we are going in the next several weeks. Of course, what we do in the next several weeks is relatively less important than the impact on where we are going in the next century. It is my belief and the belief of many of us that we have the opportunity during this time to make a great deal of difference, and much of it has to do with the budget. It has to do with our ability to be responsible in spending and what we do. I would like, if the Senator from New Mexico is ready, to yield to have some basic comments with respect to the budget and where we are going with the budget. So if I might, Mr. President, I will yield to my colleague from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee.