Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation designed to help small business owners by exempting them from paying licensing fees for music copyrights relating to radios and televisions used in their establishments. This bill is common-sense approach which would level the playing field for business owners who currently are faced with having to pay huge fees for the incidental broadcast of music played in their business. The issue of licensing fees for copywritten music is extremely complex. No one disputes the right of performers to be properly compensated for their music or compositions. However, the current law regarding music licensing causes confusion and hardship for many business owners in my State and across the country. Every year, thousands of business owners are charged fees by the performing rights societies for the television and radio programming they present in their establishments. Unfortunately, many times these fees are charged in a confusing or ambiguous manner, without any oversight or controls. I have heard for folks across Wyoming and the Nation who have experienced trouble with the music licensing organizations. Often the fees charged by the organizations for playing radios or televisions vary greatly from year to year. In addition, businesses are often threatened with legal action or harassed for doing something they did not realize was against the law. The legislation I am introducing today would exempt these small business operators from being charged fees for playing radios and televisions in their establishments. The bill is designed to address a unique problem these folks are experiencing. It clarifies the law so these individuals can operate their businesses without fear of costly litigation. It is also important to note this bill only deals with performances which are incidental to the main purpose of the establishment. Records, tapes jukeboxes or video recordings are not covered by my bill. Finally, this legislation would also require the performing rights societies to offer radio broadcasters a per programming period license to perform nondramatic musical works in the repertoire of the performing rights society. Currently, many specialty radio broadcasters such as religious and classical stations are forced to purchase a blanket license for radio broadcasts although they only play a small portion of the repertoire of the performing rights society. My bill would solve this problem and allow these broadcasters to pay for the copywritten music that is actually played, rather than a broad blanket fee which is unnecessary. Mr. President, the bottom line is this legislation is designed to help small business owners solve a very difficult and confusing problem. This bill will help clarify the law and make it understandable for everyone across the Nation. The time has come to address this confusing issue and solve this problem for thousands of folks across the country.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today as Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to express my great disappointment that the Senate was unable last week to complete work on S. 908, the State Department Authorization bill. Perhaps ``unable'' is not quite accurate, Mr. President; ``prevented'' is closer to the truth. We were prevented from voting on the bill--in fact, prevented even from reaching more than a handful of the ninety or so amendments to it--by the obstinacy of the Democrat minority in the Senate. I strongly believe that S. 908 is more than just a simple authorization bill; it is a litmus test for our willingness to change, our willingness to heed the mandate we received last November to save money, cut bureaucracy, and make government more responsive to both the taxpayer and the times. S. 908 was the first authorization measure this Congress to reach the floor within required budget targets. Moreover, the bill proposed to reduce dramatically bureaucratic overlap and duplication of effort among several agencies by bringing those agencies and much of their personnel under one roof in the State Department. This reorganization of our foreign policy apparatus, a reorganization supported by five former Secretaries of State, would save over $3.66 billion over four years. But despite the savings, despite the streamlining, despite the benefits to the exercise of our foreign policy, the forces arrayed against the bill joined to form an unholy alliance with one objective: stop the legislation. I think this fact was most clearly illustrated by this statement from an A.I.D. internal memo brought to light while the bill was still in its formulative stage: The strategy is ``delay, postpone, obfuscate, derail''--if we derail, we can kill the merger. . . . Official word is we don't care if there is a State authorization this year. From the very beginning, despite repeated invitations from the Chairman, the administration refused to even meet to discuss the bill or participate in the drafting of it. There was no compromise, no constructive criticism, no alternatives--nothing. Instead, they stonewalled, obstructed, thwarted and delayed. Secretary Christopher, who had earlier championed a plan extremely similar to that envisioned by S. 908, was muzzled by the White House and suddenly opposed the idea. The only active interest they evinced was to engage in a distortion campaign. They claimed that folding the agencies into State would mean agency programs would be run by State employees with no experience in the fields, while failing to mention the fact that the bill also provided for the large-scale transfer of agency staff to ensure continuity. They labelled supporters of the cost-savings provisions in the bill ``isolationists,'' overlooking the fact that we've asked every other department and agency to tighten its belt. They contacted countless private groups that benefit directly (and monetarily) from AID programs and forecasted doom and gloom in an effort to generate lobbying against the bill. They said the President had an alternative plan far superior to the bill, but never produced one--the first time in my memory that the White House had failed to do so. It became clear that, like much of what this administration says, it is only paying lip service to his pledges to ``reinvent government.'' When it became clear that the bill was destined to leave the committee and go to the floor, the focus of the administration's efforts shifted to make sure that the Senators in the minority toed the administration line. Two attempts to invoke cloture--not to stop debate but to limit it to a manageable 30 hours--failed along strictly party lines. Only the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Pell, indicated that getting a final vote, either up or down, was more important than obstructionism. Dozens of amendments materialized, many aimed at nothing less than delay. Mr. President, I am amazed at how quickly the Democrats have forgotten their own words; how quick they are not to practice what they preach. For example, there was this statement in the last Congress from Senator Harkin, who voted against cloture on S. 908: Well, it was obvious that after chewing up about 7 or 10 days of the August break that the Republicans simply were just going to talk it [the bill being debated] to death. They were going to offer amendments, talk on and on, and drag the whole process out and never reach any real, meaningful votes on [the] bill . . . the Republicans say no . . . [w]e will not take the keys that we hold to gridlock and unlock that padlock and open the door. . . . Madam President, I have served in the Congress now for 20 years. I have seen a lot of fights in the House and in the Senate, some pretty tough ones; I have seen some pretty tough debates and pretty tough issues. . .. But in my 20 years in this Congress I have never seen anything like exists today. This attitude of gridlock, of stopping everything . . . that we have to stop things because perhaps the only way to take over is to tear it down. . . . No, I have never seen anything like this in 20 years; the sort of the mean spiritedness, the antagonisms, the inability to give either side their proper due and to let legislation move. There is nothing wrong with people to want to amend and change, everyone should [[Page S 11891]] have their viewpoint and they should be heard. When it gets to the point where people just adamantly block everything, then surely this Senate and this Congress has become something that our forefathers never envisioned. . . . But this is not what our forefathers envisioned. They envisioned a legislative body that, yes, would debate and discuss and amend, but would do something and get something through. We now have a situation where the minority side will not permit that to happen. 140 Congressional Record S-13262. There was this from Senator Lautenburg, who also voted against cloture on S. 908: In my view, Mr. President, the answer is simple: the Republican leadership simply did not want the Congress, as an institution, to demonstrate that it can do the business of the people. . . . In the past, I have encountered steady opposition by Republican Senators who stalled for months any serious consideration of the bill and asked for extremist changes that would destroy its reforms. . . . And unfortunately, in the Senate where the rules and filibusters give the minority the ability to paralyze, we can see very clearly the handwriting on the wall if we ask for a vote on [the bill]. 140 Congressional Record S-14221. From Senator Boxer, another opponent of cloture on S. 908, we heard: Madam President, I am very disappointed that a large majority of my Republican colleagues have decided that, outside of routine business, they really do not want to continue the work of this Congress. They want to stall and run the legislative clock down. They would rather talk on and on, even all through the night if that is necessary, to kill legislation that I believe is important to the American people. Madam President, the filibuster has a new best friend: The Republican Party. They embrace the filibuster. They love the filibuster. . . . [W]e Democrats underst[and] that you [have] to get things done no matter which party [is] in control. We [do] not stop legislation. . . . We did not come here to filibuster, we came here to work. We have a can-do spirit in this country . . . not a no-can-do yak-yak-yak through the night, stop the progress attitude. . . . We are supposed to do the work for the people; the operative word is ``work.'' 140 Congressional Record S-13400. Finally, Mr. President, we heard this from Senator Biden, another opponent of cloture on S. 908: I also find it fascinating to listen and hear about what gridlock is. Let us talk about what gridlock is--my definition of gridlock. My definition of gridlock is when you have a clear majority of the elected representatives of the American people who work in the U.S. Congress--Democrat and Republican, House and Senate--when a clear, undisputed majority want to do something and a minority repeatedly comes along and says we are not going to even let you vote on whether or not we are going to do that--that seems to me to be gridlock, or obstruction. . . . Now, that is gridlock. I am not taking issue with anybody's views on the floor. I am not taking issue with their views, if they believe them as a matter of principle and that is the only reason. There are a lot of crazy ideas that are reflected in the American public and the American psyche and the U.S. Senate. I have been the father of some of those crazy ideas. So, I respect that. . . . But the American people do not understand, nor should they have to understand, the technicalities--such as with the legal system and the complexities of the operation of the fifth amendment and the fourth amendment and the second amendment and the first amendment. They look at it and say, ``Wait a minute now, this is right and this is wrong. Why are we doing this?'' One of the things the American people, I think, also understand and view the same way is their Government. We all in this body know any Senator is within his rights to engage in a filibuster, to use the parliamentary rules to his or her advantage to keep a majority from prevailing--and there is an underlying, solid rationale for that having been put in the Senate rules. Notwithstanding that, I think the American people have had to wonder a little bit: Why is it that when repeatedly, time after time after time, an overwhelming majority of Members of both Houses of the U.S. Congress say they want to do something, our Republican friends stand up and say no. The party of no. Maybe the Senator is correct, that the American people do not like the [bill]. I did not like it. So maybe I am with the American people. But I did not think the alternative was if I did not like that, we were not going to cooperate and not going to deal with the . . . problem in America. I thought that is what we were supposed to do. We disagree, we negotiate, we debate, we compromise and we act, when there is a majority that wishes to do that. The truth, Madam President, is that the record is inescapable on what has happened to this Congress and this Senate because of filibusters, obstructionism, and gridlock. And I know that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have raised this issue in caucuses and are nervous about the potential of this strategy because that is what it is--a conscious . . . strategy to benefit their party at the expense of the people. It is a strategy to forsake America just to impact the elections so that one political party can win; not so that America can win. . . . 140 Congressional Record S-14627. Apparently my Democrat colleagues have very short and selective memories. The Senator from Iowa took us to task for offering countless nongermane amendments in an effort to slow bills down. Perhaps he would like to enquire of the senior Senator from Massachusetts why he took to the floor last week to offer an amendment on the minimum wage to S. 908--hardly a foreign policy issue. The Senator from California castigated us for preferring to talk on and on, into the night if necessary, to kill important legislation. Perhaps she would ask her colleagues why after two days of floor consideration on S. 908 we were unable to produce anything more than several pages of Democrat rhetoric in the Congressional Record. The Senator from Delaware noted a conscious plan on our part to block all major legislation in order to benefit our party. Well. Mr. President, I wonder if that Senator would not agree that his party's stalling to death of S. 908, the Defense Authorization bill, Regulatory Reform--among others--demonstrates a similarly conscious plan? The Senator from Delaware noted that in the entire 103rd Congress, there were 72 cloture motions filed and 41 recorded cloture votes, which he characterized as ``a proud, record- breaking amount of obstructionism.'' Well, in just the first 7 months of this Congress--7 month, Mr. President--we have had 32 cloture motions and 16 recorded cloture votes. I wonder what synonym for ``obstructionism'' the Senator from Delaware would choose to describe that tragic record. Mr. President, Chairman Helms has promised to bring the bill back to the floor in the near future. I hope that our Democrat friends will take that opportunity to prove me wrong, call an end to their unconstructive blockade, and get down to doing the business the American people sent us here to do.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. I am sorry we had this confusion. As I said, we went through that yesterday. I will be brief, but I did want to use this opportunity to rise to support the leadership's bill. I support it, at least partially, because I think it has the best chance for success in the Congress, that it has the best chance to be the vehicle for doing something about change, something that I think we need to do. We have a monumental, historic opportunity now to overhaul a program that has been in place for a very long time, one that by almost any measure has not succeeded in producing the results that most of us want. It is not perfect, of course. None is perfect. On the other hand, they can be changed and should indeed be changed when we find that portions of it are not perfect. The point of welfare, of course, is to put in place a program that provides the opportunity to assist people who need help and to assist folks to get back into the workplace. And that, it seems to me, has to be the measure. If that, indeed, is the measure, we have not succeeded. And there are those on the floor who simply want to continue to put more money into the program. But I suggest to you that there is little reason to expect change if we continue to do the same thing. So we do have a great opportunity. I want to compliment the Senator from New York and the chairman of the committee for the intense effort that has gone into this. I think there has been a rational and reasonable debate. There will continue to be. There will be substantial differences of view, both philosophically and practically, as to how we go about this. But I hope we do keep before us the notion that there is a goal and a purpose that most of us can share; and that is to be compassionate, to be helpful, to help those who need help, but not to make it a career opportunity. I was frankly surprised yesterday when the Senator from New York, in his numbers, showed that the median time on welfare was nearly 13 years. That is not the purpose of this program, and we need to do something about that. I believe strongly--and there will be disagreement about this--that the States are the best laboratory to do something. The States are the best place to devise programs and to deliver services that meet the needs of that particular State. My State of Wyoming has different kinds of needs than does New York State or Pennsylvania. And we need to have the flexibility to be able to do that. There are those who will say, ``Oh, no, the States don't have the compassion to do that. The States won't do this job.'' I do not agree with that. I do not think there is any evidence at all to show that there is more compassion in Washington, that there are better ideas in Washington than there are in the States. I believe strongly in moving government closer to the people who are governed. And I have great confidence there. Mr. President, there are a number of issues. Of course, one of them will be the block grants and how much authority we give to the States. Let me just check in on the side of giving them as much authority as we can, making it as available to the States to put together several programs and then administer them as they believe it is best. I think there will be discussion about work opportunities. Let me tell you that we have had a program of work opportunities in our State, started by the last Governor, a Democrat as a matter of fact, but it has been limited to relatively few counties because we cannot get a waiver to go forward with it. It has worked. Wyoming wants to do that. We want to help people to be trained and to be able to work. It requires 35 hours of work a week. It is a good program. We have worked with the Smart Card Program in terms of food stamps that we cannot get a waiver to move it on. And it does work. It helps with fraud and abuse. So, Mr. President, in general I think that is one of the issues here. We ought to give the States as much authority to do what they want to do. The question, of course, of limiting payments to unwed mothers is one that will also be of great conflict here. I have to tell you that I do not favor that idea. But I do favor giving States the opportunity to do what they think is best. I do favor the notion that we ought to get away from cash payments and provide an opportunity for young unwed mothers to either stay at home or stay in a supervised living arrangement where they can go on and be trained and be useful members of society. I think we all agree with that. So, I am not going to take a great deal of time, but I again want to say [[Page S 11825]] that I think this is one of the issues that is really a pivotal issue in whether or not this Congress lives up to the expectations that people put on us this year. I know it is not a simple issue, but I do know that we ought to find and resolve it and come to closure. We ought not to find ourselves in the position of continuing to extend and avoid a decision by having endless amendments. Now, I suppose some will say, well, this is a deliberative body. There ought to be no limit. I have a little trouble with that. We ought to really seek to come to closure and seek to find some solutions. And there are some that we can find. And they are not partisan. Not all of the right answers are on this side of the aisle. They are not all on the other side. But I can tell you one of the answers that is not acceptable, and that is to continue to do what we have been doing and expect there will be changes simply because we say, well, we are going to just put some more money into it. It does not work. We have had plenty of experience on that. So I think we did receive a message. I think we are serious about breaking the cycle of welfare. I think we are serious about continuing to provide help to people who need it and serious about helping people to get off of that cycle so they can get into the system. I think we are serious about reducing the role of the central Government and strengthening the role of State governments. And the votes we cast in the next few days will give us some answers to these questions. So, again, Mr. President, I want to congratulate our leaders on the floor on this. They have done an excellent job, and continue to do so. And it is not easy. All I urge is that we do come to some closure, we make some decisions, and move forward in the area that we think is best. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. I would like to do that.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if I may say this, we went through this yesterday when I was presiding. We decided we would go back and forth. Is that still the arrangement?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Strengthening of Medicare Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the strengthening of Medicare, to continue some of our dialog this morning about this important issue. As my friend from Tennessee said, those of us who came to the Senate this year I think have been particularly interested in dealing with those questions that require change. I think we all came with a renewed idea of the feeling of voters because we were elected in this last election, a feeling of voters that there does need to be a change; that there does need to be an honest evaluation of programs; that we do need to react to the needs of programs, to change them when they need to be changed, and not simply seek to apply some sort of political remedy that makes everybody feel good. So we have found ourselves dealing with some pretty tough issues and intend to continue. So I rise in support of strengthening Medicare, of course. I think most everybody at this point understands that there has to be change. Everybody I know of wants to strengthen the Medicare Program. Everybody I know of thinks that there is value in this program, thinks it is a program that needs to be maintained, one that needs to continue to be available, not only for the 37 million people who currently participate but, frankly, it means a lot to some of us who do not yet participate, yet who have mothers, as in my case, who do participate, and I feel very good about that. She feels good about it as well. She feels confident that there will be care for her as she grows older. So it is not a question of whether we want the program or whether we like the program. We do. The question is, How do we preserve it? The question is, Do we respond to the facts that are readily available, most graphically portrayed in the trustees' report, that you have to do something or the program goes broke? That is fairly clear. Or I suppose you can seek to use it as sort of a political tool and then spin it into a protectionist sort of thing and try to use it in 1996. I hope that is not the case. In fact, Mr. President, that causes me to reflect just a moment on something that bothers me quite a little bit, in that this issue has become something of a victim of that tendency to spin and merchandise issues for their political value rather than really being willing to deal with them as the facts dictate. That is not something unique to the Democrats or unique to the Republicans or, indeed, unique to groups that are outside of the parties that deal in political issues. Frankly, it troubles me a great deal. If we are, as we are, a Government of the people and by the people and for the people, then the people who are going to ultimately make the decisions need to make those decisions based on facts. It is almost an irony that the technology of information has changed so much that we have more information available to us, more quickly, wherever we live. In Wapiti, WY, where I come from, people can see when Yeltsin gets up on the tape 10 minutes after it happens. Imagine this compared to 50 years ago or 100 years ago when issues and facts and Government only came to people after months of communications. So it is an irony to me that we now have for each of us as voters the best opportunity to know facts and to know them quickly. However, we are faced with this notion of a continuing growth in the idea of spinning issues so that the facts are not there. It is legitimate to have a different view as to how you solve problems. It is legitimate to have great debates. It is legitimate to say I wish to go this way and you want to go that way, but they ought to be based on facts. In this instance, the facts are before us. The facts are put forth by a bipartisan group, not only bipartisan but made up a majority of this administration's Cabinet. So there are facts there. I do not know what there is new to say except to reiterate the 30th birthday of Medicare. Two weeks ago, the Democrats flocked to Independence, MO, to celebrate, as they should, a successful program, but there were two words missing. One was bankruptcy and the other was 2002 which the facts tell us should be what we are really concerned about in making the changes necessary to strengthen Medicare. My colleague from Tennessee mentioned 37 million people by whom the program is beloved. It is also beloved by many others who feel confident that their mothers and fathers are going to be taken care of. Unfortunately, the program has major financial concerns and the administration has chosen to ignore them. The administration has chosen to attack those who want to strengthen the program by making some changes. The fact is there are two choices that will be available if we do not do something. One is we will have to eliminate the coverage for hospital services and home care and the other is raise taxes by $711 billion. Neither option is acceptable. Seniors cannot afford to go without health care and no one suggests that they should. Indeed, we are here to strengthen it. The payroll tax needed to make the part A hospital insurance trust fund permanently sound would be an increase of over 3 percent on top of the 2.9 percent that is now paid. This would more than double the withholding. It means the payroll tax for a worker earning $45,000 would be increased by $1,584, nearly $1,600 a year. One of the interesting notions is the attempt to tie the tax reduction proposal to the changes being proposed in Medicare, but it really does not fit there at all. Part A of this program, which provides coverage for hospital, home health care, and skilled nursing facility services, is financed by Social Security payroll taxes, not by general [[Page S 11719]] funds. And for the first time next year, we will be digging into the reserves to pay for that. So those are the options that are before us. While it has already been described, we need to make a change that reduces the annual rate of growth from 10 percent to roughly 7 or 6.5 percent. This will allow spending to increase from $4,800 to over $6,700 per individual. That takes into account the growing number of individuals. We also must change from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution program. Older people come in all kinds of financial conditions. They want to make choices with regard to the type of coverage they want and should be able to do that. We had hearings last year in the House, specifically in the Committee on Government Operations which I was a member of, on fraud and abuse. The witnesses testified that fraud represented 10 percent of overall costs in terms of the amount of money that is spent on health care. That is almost $90 billion. Clearly, we must do something about fraud and abuse. Another change that must be made is to encourage all of us, and the elderly in particular, to look at their bills to see if double-billing or over-billing exists. Taxpayers should no longer tolerate the response, ``What do you care? You don't have to pay for it anyway.'' I ran into this in a nursing home in Cheyenne, WY, where the materials that were sent there just happened to be a mechanical thing that cost about three times what it ought to cost them. The answer was, ``It doesn't matter because you don't have to pay for it.'' I disagree because it does matter. So, Mr. President, I am pleased Medicare is high on our agenda. I am pleased we are focusing on a problem that needs to be fixed. I am pleased that we are trying to strengthen the program so it may continue to exist and provide benefits not just on the 30th anniversary, but the 40th, and the 50th. That is our goal. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, ironically, I use this time to rise to suggest that it has been a little disappointing as to how we use our time, as a matter of fact, and I have been somewhat surprised at the lack of direction that we have had and that we continue to have in this body in terms of moving forward. It seems to me that clearly was the message we heard in 1994, the message that we always hear as trustees of the people for whom we are here to do some things. And I am disappointed to see what I consider a change of attitude and a change of direction, where rather than to move aggressively forward to solve some issues and questions, we seem instead to be sliding our feet. The opposition party--it has become that, in fact, an opposition party--should have some ideas and some suggestions and some directions instead of simply saying, ``No, no, we are not going to do anything,'' and that is troublesome to me. I understand that. I understand that is the technique. I understand that is the system. But I do not think it is the right thing to do. It seems to me that we do clearly have issues we have to confront. They are here. We have to find solutions to them. The idea that we cannot seem to resolve them is very disappointing to me. It seems that each time we start with some sort of a problem we must address, why, we rise and say, ``I am for a balanced budget but,'' and never come to a resolution.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator. I will not take time. I guess this is sort of an illustration of the frustration that I have, that I am willing to share. We went on and on and talked an hour about something yesterday, and we all sat and listened, we all sat and waited, we all sat for the whole evening, and we never came to any solution. I have to tell you that is pretty darned frustrating in terms of time management and resource management and measuring results. I am not going to intrude in this. I think we should move forward, and I simply come to the floor to share some frustration. As a matter of fact, everyone with ``Yes, I am for regulatory reform,'' comes from that side, but we never get it done. We always have ``but, but we don't want to do it.'' So the philosophy has become, ``Let's don't do it; let's stop it; let's not have authorization for DOD, let's not have authorization for foreign affairs. Let's just say no. Let's threaten to veto everything that comes up.'' I do not think that is a positive way to move, and I simply asked for some time to say it, and now I will stop. But I feel strongly about it. I think that we as trustees of people have some responsibility to make some effort to move. You may not like the result. That is what the system is about. That is why we vote to decide, not to stall, not to filibuster, not to amend to death, not to talk an hour on every topic. I guess I used to be a little frustrated with the rules in the House. I have come to think that was not a bad idea--some limit on the endless discussion and no resolution. I appreciate the Senator's indulgence, and I simply share a little frustration in terms of us being a little more product oriented in terms of getting some things done in this place. Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Five minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank my colleague and the chairman of the subcommittee that is handling this bill. Let me say as background, it seems to me that this country relies on having a civil service legally buffered from political struggles. I think that is terribly important. Our Government is organized to have two levels, a political and a civil service career level. Dedicated career employees implement the law, while those designated as political work with or against Congress to establish the law. It is a fine line that must be maintained. The Clinton administration has apparently blatantly crossed that line and put career civil service employees in the position of violating one of the oldest lobbying laws on the books, that has sought for years to protect against the very thing. Let me cite it again, section 303 of the 1995 Interior Appropriations Act: No part of any appropriation contained in this act shall be available for any activity or the publication or distribution of literature that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal on which congressional action is not complete. The protection, of course, is for both the employees and the public. The Interior Department has asked employees in their jobs to lobby against the public range management action, violating both the antitrust and the antilobbying action and the interior act. We want to look into this from both standpoints--the standpoint of protecting career employees as well as the standpoint of obeying the law and not having a bureaucracy campaigning on issues that are unfair. As chairman of the Committee on Oversight Investigations, at the request of our chairman of the full committee, I have sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Babbitt, and have asked him to cooperate in a reasonable investigation. We have not yet determined whether there would be a hearing. If there are reasons to do that, we are prepared to have a hearing on this issue. Mr. President, I think it is one that, obviously, is important in this issue, but it is important in a broader sense than that. That is, that we do have a separation, and we should protect career employees from being directed to get into the political activity of determining the decisions and the political issues here. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter that has been sent to the Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman of the committee for the opportunity to comment on this bill. I rise to place my full support behind Chairman Helms and the efforts to overhaul and streamline the Department of State. These bills are very complicated, of course, and throughout the duration of this debate and discussion it will be hard to track. Let me read just a couple of paragraphs from a letter the chairman sent to me that I think is fairly succinct. Six weeks ago, with the support of every Republican Member, the Foreign Relations Committee passed S. 908, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act. This legislation is the first authorization measure to reach the Senate floor within budget targets, fulfilling the mandate the American people gave us last November. This bill is a promise kept: Money is saved, bureaucracy eliminated, and the ability of our Nation to conduct foreign policy enhanced. This reorganization of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus saves $3.66 billion over four years. A similar measure has already passed the House. Three agencies, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Agency for International Development, and the United States Information Agency are abolished and their functions are rolled into the Department of State. The core functions of these agencies are not lost. Despite propagandizing to the contrary, independent broadcasting is protected; arms control and non-proliferation will be strengthened; and the assistance programs which support national interests will be liberated from a convoluted AID bureaucracy. This consolidation plan has been endorsed by five former U.S. Secretaries of State. . . . And as Henry Kissinger recently said, if given a truth serum, Secretary Christopher would endorse it too. That summarizes, it seems to me, what it is we are seeking to do here. The chairman has spoken at length, and the Senator from Maine in her excellent commentary spoke about the need for important legislation, so I will not cover that same territory. The changes proposed in S. 908 are long overdue. What I will address, however, is the way in which AID and this administration has handled itself in the face of the chairman's efforts. From the beginning, instead of cooperating in a constructive effort to work with the Congress in cutting waste, overlapping responsibilities, and outmoded and outdated programs, the administration has chosen to ignore and stonewall. The word has gone out to the bureaucrats and to the Democrat Members of Congress that this is the party line. A memo that was quoted earlier indicated that the strategy is to ``delay, postpone, obfuscate, derail. If we derail, we can kill the merger,'' it says. ``Official word is we don't care if there is a State authorization bill this year.'' As a result, it has been strongly rumored that we will face a flurry of amendments to this bill as we have seen in other bills in a veiled attempt to filibuster. So much for the administration's dedication to reinventing Government. Requests for meetings have gone unanswered, as have requests for information. Instead of working with Congress, AID has gone out of its way to preserve itself by spreading confusion and panic among organizations with which it does business, by distorting the purpose and the probable impact of S. 908. Many of these practices I believe come close to pressing the breaking of the law. For instance, I am aware of AID staffers who have contacted several private groups and urged them to lobby for the defeat of S. 908. My office has received almost weekly information packets from AID including xeroxed copies of articles and editorials in opposition to the merger--omitting, of course, those that are in favor. I find it highly improper that AID is spending taxpayer dollars in supplies and employee time lobbying us for their own continuation. Mr. President, S. 908 is supported by five former Secretaries of State and, until overruled by the White House, Secretary Christopher. It is an idea whose time has come. Its time is here. At a time when we do not have enough money to take care of our own citizens' fundamental needs and are consequently forced to rethink the funding levels in our domestic budget, to argue that we cannot make similar difficult cuts in the structure of foreign policy is both disingenuous and unrealistic. So again, Mr. President, I rise in support of this proposal. I think it is one of the things that the voters said to us in 1994. They said we need to make some changes in the way the Federal Government operates; that the Government is too big, it spends too much, and that we should find better ways to deliver services; that we should find more efficient ways to use tax dollars. Mr. President, this is one of those ways, and I urge support for this legislation. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we had arranged, prior to this morning, for the freshman focus to have some time during morning business. Now we have that opportunity. I would like to take that time that was allocated. As you know, there are some unique insights that are brought to this body by people who are elected, those who have just come through an election who, I think, are perhaps more attuned and more aware of what the electorate, at least in our view, was talking about. So the purpose of our freshman focus has been to bring that sort of insight to this body. And, frankly, I think we are a little more impatient. We would like to see things move a little faster than the ``blinding speed'' we have encountered over the past 6 months. We want to talk a little about fundamental change. The issue that will come before us soon, hopefully, will be that of welfare reform--one of the fundamental changes that obviously needs to be made. I think it is fair to say that, for whatever reason, over the last 25 to 30 years, there has not been a willingness on the part of the Congress to really take a look at fundamental change, to take a look at programs to see, in fact, if they are effective in terms of carrying out the purpose of the statutes; whether or not they are efficient in terms of providing results for the dollars that have been spent; or whether the delivery system has worked well; whether or not there is an opportunity to bring programs, Government, and decisions closer to people by involving the States. Rather, we have had this growth of Federal Government without much consideration of alternatives. We will soon be entering into the year 2000, a new century. We need to ask ourselves what kind of a government do we want to pass on to our kids and grandkids with respect to spending and with respect to the budget? We will be considering, in the next 2 months, an increase in the debt of $5 trillion. We will be asking ourselves what are the priorities? What should the Federal Government be doing with what is inevitably a finite amount of money? We will have entitlements to the extent that, in 5 years, we will have nothing to spend except in the entitlement programs. I do not think we want to find ourselves there. So we have an opportunity now to look at some fundamental change. We have done that, I think. I must say that my observation is generally that the folks on the other side of the aisle have resisted almost everything that has come up here. Always there is this idea that, yes, we are for it, whether it be unfunded mandates, line-item veto, or balanced budget. But when we get into it, we find that there is an effort to maintain the status quo. That is frustrating. I think it is frustrating for us, and I clearly believe it is frustrating for the voters in this last election. It seems to me that one of the measurements of good Government is whether there is a response--if there is a response to public outcry for change. And I think there has been. So we find ourselves now, I think, with the opportunity to take a look at welfare, to look at a program that everyone agrees is useful, and that we should help people who need help to get back into work and back into the private sector. But let me share just one frustration. We seem to be engaged in a little bit of a game here of perception. Each time we talk about how do we do something better, the argument goes on back to whether you are going to do it or not. You know, we talk about Medicare. There is not a soul that I know of in here who does not want to continue and strengthen Medicare. The choice is not doing away with Medicare or not funding Medicare. The choice is how do you do it? The same is true with welfare. Nobody wants to do away with the opportunity to help people who need it, but we need to find a way to do it in such a way that there are incentives to move off of the program and get back into the private sector, where there are restrictions and limits to the cost, and to develop programs that have some flexibility. Certainly, our needs in Wyoming are different from those of my friend from Pennsylvania. That is what we are seeking to do. So, Mr. President, we have strong feelings about it--I suppose no stronger than anyone else--simply because we are freshmen. But maybe we do feel a little of the frustration a little more easily. Maybe we grow impatient a little more easily, and sort of suffer from the movement here. In any event, I think we have great opportunities. One of the Senators who has done more work in this, I think, than most anyone I know and is very knowledgeable, is the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am glad to see him here on the floor. Welfare Reform

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I introduce the New York Convention Compliance Act of 1995, a bill designed to protect the investments of U.S. companies overseas. The New York convention refers to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral [[Page S 10828]] Awards, a multilateral international treaty drafted in New York in 1958 which the United States joined in 1970. Binding arbitration clauses are frequently used in international business contracts to provide prompt and inexpensive dispute resolution. Signatories to the convention commit themselves to enforcing judgments of foreign arbitration panels in their domestic courts. Failure to enforce an arbitration judgment, unless based on one of the defenses specified under the convention, in my opinion raises an obligation on the part of the offending signatory to satisfy the debt at issue. Arbitration clauses such as those governed by the convention are especially important in countries without a tradition of adhering to the rule of law. There, if a conflict arises triggering arbitration a neutral third-country forum provides for a resolution free from the possible xenophobic biases of local courts and the vagaries of an unresponsive judiciary. One case in particular of which I am aware illustrates why adherence to the convention is so important to stable international trade. On June 4, 1988, Ross Engineering Co. of Florida, entered into an agreement with the Shanghai Far East Aero-technology Import & Export Co. [SFAIC] pursuant to which the latter was to manufacture industrial batteries for Ross' subsidiary Revpower with machinery, equipment, raw materials and engineering expertise supplied by Revpower. Some time afterwards, SFAIC breached two provisions of the agreement and effective January 1990 Revpower notified SFAIC that it was cancelling the agreement. Revpower then entered into negotiations with SFAIC to try to resolve the dispute, with no success. Having exhausted its attempts to salvage the agreement, Revpower filed an arbitration claim against SFAIC with the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce as provided in the agreement. Despite foot-dragging and dilatory tactics on the part of SFAIC, on July 13, 1993, a unanimous arbitral panel ruled in Revpower's favor and granted it an award of US $6.6 million plus interest from 1991. SFAIC has refused to honor the award, however, despite its binding agreement to do so. Attempts to satisfy the judgment in the Shanghai Intermediate People's Court have proved similarly futile, the Court refusing to abide by its own regulations and take up the case. Attempts by Secretary Brown, Secretary Christopher, the USTR, myself, Senator Connie Mack, and countless others to try to get the Chinese to live up to their obligations under the convention have proved similarly fruitless. When asked directly by our Ambassador to China whether China would honor it, Minister Wu Yi replied flatly, ``No.'' While relatively small in the scheme of the full United States-Sino trade relationship, Revpower's award--which has now grown to almost $9 million--means a great deal to that company and its investors. More importantly, perhaps, I believe that it means a great deal more for the large number of other American and foreign firms that do business in China. Most, if not all, of those companies have arbitration clauses in their contracts with the Chinese identical to the one that Revpower had. If, as Revpower's experience suggests, foreign companies cannot rely on these clauses to resolve disputes effectively and equitably, then they and a stable business environment are all at risk. I have heard this concern voiced by a growing number of United States businessmen, and not just in relation to China but in several other countries not presently members of the WTO. Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and thereby recognize the close relationship between a country's respect for the rule of law and international treaty obligations and the prospects for its successful participation in the fledgling WTO. Yet while on one hand these countries fail to honor the convention, on the other they clamor for accession to the World Trade Organization [WTO]. But Mr. President, how can they be relied upon to uphold the responsibilities incumbent on members if they have shown themselves unwilling to live up to the terms of the convention? WTO members have a profound and direct interest in ensuring that fellow members fulfill their voluntarily-assumed obligations under both the convention and GATT. Arbitration clauses such as those contemplated by the convention are one of the pillars of international commerce and trade. Its observance should be one of the minimum requirements for any nation seekins to become a full and equal partner in the international trade regime. This bill would provide, therefore, that before the United States will support membership for a particular country in the WTO, the President must certify that the petitioning country is living up to its obligations under the convention.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I would like to call my colleagues' attention today to three important milestones in our relationship with the people of Korea which we will commemorate this week: The 45th anniversary of the end of the Korean war, the dedication of the Korean War Veterans Memorial, and the state visit of the Republic of Korea's first democratically elected President in 32 years, Kim Young-sam. Forty-five years ago this June, the North Korean military--with the backing of Chinese troops and funding and materiel from the former Soviet Union--surged south across the 38th parallel in a headlong rush towards the Korea Strait. More than 33,000 Americans lost their lives, and over 103,000 were wounded, pushing back the surge of communism and making at least the southern half of the peninsula safe for democracy. It was a tremendous loss of lives and resources, but as is inscribed on the new Korean Veterans War Memorial: ``Freedom Is Not Free.'' Today, some 45 million Koreans live free and prosperous as a result of the dedication and sacrifice of our valient fighting men.. In my mind, there is no clearer or more illustrative example in the world of the stark differences between communism and democracy than North and South Korea. South Korea is a powerful and vibrant player on the world stage. South Korea has the 11th largest economy in the world, with a growth last year of around 8 percent. Just after the war, yearly per capita income in Korea was around $82; today it is just over $10,000. Perhaps more importantly from our point of view, the ROK has grown to be our eighth largest trading partner, and our fourth largest market for agricultural products. Unlike most countries in Asia, South Korea actually runs a trade deficit, not a surplus, with the United States. On the political front, despite the ever-present threat from the North and an occasional step backward, the ROK has steadily marched toward true democracy. After decades of military rule, President Kim represents the first civilian elected government since 1962, and the country recently concluded the first round of local elections since 1960. All these developments are due solely to the hard work, sacrifice, and dedication of the South Korean people. In contrast Mr. President, North Korea, the ``Showcase of Communism'' is a morally and economically bankrupt dictatorship teetering on the brink of implosion. Where South Korea is governed by elected leaders, the North is ruled from beyond the grave by the lingering personality cult of a leader who died over 1 year ago. While filling the airwaves with announcements of the triumph of the Communist juche ideal in leading their economy into self-sufficiency, the North is forced to import vast quantities of rice from the South and Japan to stave off widespread famine--requiring that the rice be shipped in unmarked bags aboard ships that do not fly their foreign flags from the stern so as to hide the truth from its own people. Instead of taking a responsible place in the brotherhood of nations, the North continually allies itself with the forces of subversion and terrorism. Rather than diplomacy it prefers violence; who can forget the North's assassination attack on the Presidential Residence is Seoul in 1962, its murder of much of the South Korean Cabinet in a 1983 bombing attack in Burma, its destruction of a civilian airliner with all aboard in 1987, or the countless tunnels the North has dug under the DMZ to prepare the way for an invasion of the South. Mr. President, the difference is like day and night, and it is a difference that thousands and thousands of South Korean and United States soldiers fought and died to protect more than 40 years ago. This is why I believe that it is so important to commemorate the 45 years of alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea. President Kim's visit here this week gives us a chance to honor those who fought and died in Korea, to celebrate the historic partnership they forged, and to recognize the ROK's tremendous achievements and growth as a democracy since 1950. It also affords us the opportunity to honor President Kim himself. President Kim is dedicated to the ideals we fought to protect; in 1993, he received the W. Averell Harriman Democracy Award and the 1994 Martin Luther King, Jr. Nonviolent Peace Prize in recognition of his work. The ROK has made tremendous progress over the past 45 years and has accelerated its pace under the leadership of President Kim. But there are still some areas in which it needs to take concrete and important steps before it can be considered to have arrived at true democracy: for example increasing media freedom, and phasing out of some of the draconian legal vestiges of military rule such as the Labor Dispute Adjustment Act, the Trade Union Act, and the National Security. Nevertheless, I know without a doubt the Republic of Korea will arrive. It will take hard work and dedication, but no more than that which the Korean people have already shown themselves capable. Mr. President, the challenges we face in the future--the changes in the world economy, the continued threat of an unstable North Korea-- will require the same cooperative spirit we have shared over the last 45 years. And I am sure that this week, as we dedicate the Korean War Veterans Memorial, there will be born a renewed sense of friendship and alliance between us and the ROK that will stand us both in good stead into the 21st century.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this last Monday I chaired a hearing of the full Foreign Relations Committee to consider ambassadorial nominations for four countries within the jurisdiction of my Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs: Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. I was impressed by all of them, and am sure they--as well as the Ambassador-designate to APEC--will be confirmed by the full Senate soon. In speaking privately with all the nominees, however, there was one issue I brought up with both the Ambassador- designate to Thailand and the Ambassador-designate to Cambodia that they were unable to address to my satisfaction and which I believe should be brought to the attention of my colleagues: the links between the Thai military and the Khmer Rouge and their involvement in the illegal timber trade across the Thai-Cambodia border. Cambodia shares a lengthy and relatively uninhabited border with Thailand. The entire region is heavily forested; formerly, 76 percent of Cambodia's 176,520 square kilometers of land area was covered by forest. That amount, however, has declined dramatically over the last 15 years due to the increased commercial harvesting of timber. According to some sources, tree cover has been reduced by almost half since 1989. The loss has been especially dramatic in western Cambodia, where a handful of foreign firms are responsible for a majority of the deforestation. These companies purchase concessions from the Cambodian Government, and theoretically make payments to the government based on the amount of cubic meters of timber felled. The timber is then exported over the Thai border, either by boat or overland on dirt roads built expressly for that purpose by the companies, where they are collected at places called rest areas before being sent further on into Thailand. According to both Thai and Cambodian regulations, the logger/exporter must secure a certificate of origin from the Cambodian Government, a permit from the Thai embassy in Cambodia, and permission from the Thai Interior Ministry to import the logs into Thailand. There is one more party, however, that plays a major role in the logging: the Khmer Rouge [KR]. Led by the infamous Pol Pot, the KR controlled the government of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. During that time, it was directly responsible for the genocide of more than one million Cambodians in the ``Killing Fields.'' Since the 1991 U.N. peace agreement established a democratic government in Cambodia, the KR has been relegated to the role of a rebel guerilla force. Although the government has made some inroads in combatting the KR, including implementing a somewhat successful amnesty program, the KR remains a strong force in the western khet of Batdambang, Pursat, Banteay Meanchey and Siem Reap. Despite the campaign being mounted against them, though, they still receive a steady flow of food, military supplies, and currency sufficient to pay their 10,000 to 20,000 man militia; and therein lies the connection to the timber trade and the Thai military. Over the past several years, the press has consistently reported that the Thai military has been providing assistance and support to the Khmer Rouge. The links between the two are longstanding. Beginning in 1979, Thailand acted as a funnel for Chinese-supplied arms being transshipped to the KR--apparently in return for an end to Chinese support for rebel Thai Communists in northern Thailand. Since then, the evidence suggests that the Thai have regularly supplied the KR with logistical support and materiel. In return for this support, Thai business interests and certain government sectors have benefitted from access to timber and gem resources within that part of Cambodia along the Thai border controlled by the KR. Their interest is sizable; in 1993, the U.S. Embassy in Thailand estimated that Thai logging companies had some $40 million invested in timber concessions in KR- held areas. It is from the sale of these resources that the KR acquires funds sufficient to continue its reign of terror in Cambodia. The process is actually quite simple. Foreign companies interested in harvesting timber in western Cambodia purchase official lumber concessions from the government in Phnom Penh. Having dealt with the de jure government, however, the companies must then deal with the de facto government in western Cambodia: the KR. The companies pay the KR for the right of safe passage into KR-held territory, to fell the timber, and to transport it out to Thailand safely. The present going rate of payment to the KR per cubic meter is between 875 and 1,000 baht, or between $35 and $40. It is estimated that the weekly income to the KR from timber carried across just two of the many border points is around $270,000, with total monthly income to the KR estimated at between $10 and $20 million. Once felled and placed on the back of trucks, the logs are driven across the Thai border. That crossing, however, is not without its costs. The Thai military--the Marines, actually--controls a 4-mile wide strip along the Thai side of the border, and in order to negotiate it the logging trucks must pass through guarded checkpoints where, it appears, payments in the form of tolls or bribes are made to Thai concerns. The Thai have consistently, albeit often disingenuously, denied any ties to the KR or to the timber trade. Each round of denials, however, is soon followed by press reports and concrete evidence to the contrary. For example, in 1994 Thailand officially closed its border with Cambodia partly as a result of the murder of more than 20 Thai timber workers by the KR and partly as a result of international criticism. In a press statement made shortly thereafter, Maj. Gen. Niphon Parayanit, the Thai commander in the region, stated flatly that the border was closed, that the military had severed all links with the KR, and that ``there [was] no large-scale cross-border trade going on.'' The official denials have continued to this day, including one of the more recent by Prime Minister Chuan noted in the May 26 edition of the Bangkok Post. Despite these denials though, and despite a Cambodian ban on logging, credible eyewitness reports from members of the London-based group Global Witness fully confirm, in my opinion, that the trucks are still rolling across the Thai border. If--as the Thai military alleges--it is not involved in the timber trade either directly or by turning a blind eye to the shipments, I can think of no other explanation than that the military personnel in the border zone are completely incompetent. One of the more heavily travelled timber roads in the border zone, one that according to my information is in daily use even as I speak, is within sight of one of the Thai Marine camps. Nor can the central Thai Government claim ignorance; Global Witness recently brought to light a current timber import permit signed by the Thai Interior Minister. Mr. President, continued Thai support for the KR--in this or any manner--concerns me greatly for several reasons. First and foremost, the financial support the trade affords to the KR continues to allow it to survive thereby seriously endangering the growth and continued vitality of the nascent Cambodian democracy. That system is having enough trouble getting off the ground and running smoothly without having to deal with the KR insurgency. Secondly, Thailand's actions run counter to its obligations under the 1991 Peace Accord and serve to undermine it. Finally, the clandestine nature of the timber extraction has removed it from the control of the Cambodian central government. It is subsequently free to continue without regard to any regulations aimed at limiting the amount of timber taken, preventing serious ecological damage, ensuring sustained growth, or protecting the lives and livelihoods of the local populace. I have made my concerns about this issue clear to both of our Ambassadors-designate and to the State Department. I hope that this statement will make my concerns equally clear to the Thai Government. If a significant effort not made as promised by the Thai Government to fully investigate and then stem the cross-border trade and their dealings with the KR, then I would find myself placed in the position of calling on our government to abide by that provision of Public Law 103-306 requiring that the President shall ``terminate assistance to any country or organization that he determines is cooperating, tactically or strategically, with the Khmer Rouge in their military operations.'' In closing, Mr. President, let me note that I greatly value the close relationship between us and the government and people of Thailand. However warm or important that relationship, though, we cannot allow it to obscure or interfere with what is our equally important dedication to the principles of democracy taking root in Cambodia. I, and I hope my colleagues, will be watching developments closely.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 1031 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would transfer the lands managed by the BLM in the various States to State control. This bill is not a new one. We have had it in last year. But it is a commonsense approach that supports the goal of good government, supports the goal of bringing government closer to the people, and a necessary reform in the way that public lands are managed. Currently, the BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, manages nearly 270 million acres of land in the United States, most of it, of course, in the West. Wyoming, for example--nearly 50 percent of Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government, much of it managed by the BLM. In some other States, it is more--86 percent in Nevada. So when half of your State is managed by the Federal Government, it has a great deal to do with your future. It has a great deal to do with the economy and growth, because these are multiple use lands. Let me make a point originally that is very important to this bill. We are talking about Bureau of Land Management lands. We are not talking about Forest Service. We are not talking about wilderness. We are not talking about parks--lands that are set aside with particular purpose, lands that had a particular character. BLM lands are residual lands that were left when the homesteaders came in the West and took the land that is along the river and took the winter feed and took the best land. That land that was left was managed by the Federal Government. Indeed, in the early acts that had to do with managing that land, it said ``manage it pending disposal.'' The notion was never to maintain them. So we are talking about a fundamental change and that is sort of what we are doing in this Congress, looking at some fundamental changes in the way we operate Government. It moves Government closer to the people, and that is what it is all about. It helps to reduce the size and cost of the Federal Government and transfers this function to the State as we are talking about transferring others. It would have to do with the budget. It would, indeed, save money for the budget of the United States. There will be less money going to the Department of Interior. That is just the way it is. So the priorities will have to be established. We heard a lot about not being able to finance national parks, and that is actually going to be the case. So what it does is set some priorities as to where that money ought to be. There is a fairness doctrine here. The States east of the Missouri River do not have half of their lands belong to the Federal Government. So there is a fairness question. Why should the State not have these lands? There is a question of States rights. Many maintain the Constitution does not provide the authority for the Federal Government to maintain those lands that have no specific use. I do not argue that. Others say we ought to get control by having the counties do zoning. They do that some in Arizona. That is an idea. I say, let us move them back to the States and let the States manage them as public lands. These will be multiple use lands, for hunting, for fishing, for grazing, for mineral development. If you have ever seen a map of the West, you will see a strange ownership pattern. There are lands spread around over the whole State. One of the most unusual is the checkerboard, what we call the checkerboard, that runs all the way through Wyoming and through much of the West, when every other section was given to the railroads early on, 20 miles on either side of the railroad. So those checkerboards still belong to the Federal Government with deeded lands in between. These are low production lands. These are not national parks. These are very low rainfall, low moisture content areas, so they are very unproductive. It takes a great deal of land to support one cow-calf unit. Along with the House--there will be an identical bill in the House that will be introduced to transfer these lands to the State. Actually, in order to have time to accommodate that, in order to do something with the budgeting, that would be a 10-year period before they would be transferred. But we almost constantly have a conflict between the States, between the users --whatever they are, whether they are commodity users or recreational users--and the Federal land managers. And these folks do a good job. I have no quarrel with the managers. I just think, as many [[Page S 9914]] others do, the closer you are, with Government, to the people who are governed, the more likely it is to be a successful effort. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It will help reduce the Federal budget. It will certainly increase individual States rights. It will keep the BLM lands in public lands so they are available for access for everyone. Finally, and perhaps most important of all, it provides fairness and equity for Western States, each of whom would have the option. The time has come for the Federal Government to release the stranglehold on the Western States and let us manage our own affairs. I join my colleagues in the effort to reform the way public lands are managed.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning the leader time has been reserved, and there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 10:45. At 10:45, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 343, the regulatory reform bill. Rollcall votes can be expected throughout today's session of the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the 25 minutes has been reserved for Members of the freshman focus group, as we continue our effort to seek to focus some of the issues as they appear to those of us who are new to the Senate this year, who recently completed an election, who, I think, in some instances have a unique view of what we are doing or seeking to do here in the U.S. Senate. So I would like to take a few minutes. I will be joined by other Members. Mr. President, I would like to talk just a little bit this morning about process. I admit to not knowing the rules of this place like some do. I seek to know them. I think I do understand that there is a difference between the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House and that they were designed to be different. This is a deliberative body. The rules are different, which provide for additional discussion and debate, and I understand that, and I think that is proper, certainly. But, you know, we did not come here to procrastinate. We did not come here to extend debate for the purpose of extending debate. We came here for the purpose of thoroughly examining the issues that are before us, looking at the alternatives, and seeking, then, I think, to find some solutions. And that is what voting is all about. If you do not have enough votes, you lose. If you have enough votes, you win. And you go on to something else. Mr. President, it seems to me it has become routine in this session of the Congress to extend, to amend, and to debate and, frankly, to stall. We have seen a great deal of that. Whether it is unfunded mandates, whether it is line-item veto, whether it is balanced budget amendment, whether it is telecommunications, whether it is product liability, we find this interminable number of amendments, many of which have already been done. Yesterday was a good example. We had extended debate over an issue that had already, I think in almost anyone's mind, been resolved. But we went on. We now will have had 4 days of debate. This is an important issue. But everyone rises in the beginning and says: I want regulatory reform, but--but--but we want to do it in the right way. The right way is a pretty subjective kind of thing. What is right to you is not necessarily right to me. So I guess I am expressing a certain amount of frustration, in that it seems to me we have accomplished a considerable amount in the Senate, but we have an awful lot before us. We have an opportunity in August to be home in our districts to talk to people about the direction this country ought to take, to talk to people about specific items. Frankly, that time in August is being constricted. I think it is almost certain we will not be available to go [[Page S 9828]] home as early as we thought we would. We have a lot of things to do. We have not even gotten to the budget--which, by the way, I think we ought to do every 2 years instead of 1. But, nevertheless, that is another issue. So we have a great deal to do, a great many things. Welfare reform-- we have not even talked about that. The items that have been very high on the agenda of the American people we have not gotten to. So I guess I am expressing my frustration about the system. I urge my colleagues to take some self-analysis. Certainly, everyone is entitled to talk. Everyone is entitled to have an amendment. Everyone is entitled to have a view. But they are not entitled to stall the progress. They are not entitled to say we want more amendments, and when the time comes for amendments there are none to be talked about. The elections we had--every election, but more particularly the last election--was about change. It was about doing something; about making things different than they are. Almost everybody agrees to that. Everybody stands up and says we are for change, and then resists change. I understand there is a philosophical difference, and properly there can be. There are those who do not want to change. I understand that. There are those who support the status quo, and I understand that. I do not object to that. I do not object to disagreement. I do not object to argument. But I do object to the fact that we never come to a decision, and that is what it should be all about. I think there is a message: The status quo is not good enough. That is clear. No one says there should not be regulations. Of course, there should be regulations. Of course, it should not be changed to where we do not have clean air and clean water, and that is not the purpose of this. Of course, we ought not to do things that threaten health. Clearly this does not do that. This bill is a procedural bill that takes into account some processes in arriving at the implementation of regulations. That is what it is about. We have said specifically it is a supplement. It does not supersede the issues. But that does not seem to be good enough. We continue to rehash and go over that. I am expressing a little frustration, Mr. President. In any event, we do need meaningful change. There is no question but what we are overregulated. There is no question but what the process of giving a grazing lease in Wyoming--that now requires a NEPA environmental impact study as if it were a national environmental change. It is a renewal of a 50-year-old process that has been going on. Those are the kinds of things that we need to change. The law provides for multiple use of the land. But you cannot get on the land because the regulation, as it is implemented, is so costly that doing archaeological surveys and those kinds of things we are looking for is not a process that allows regulations to be implemented in a common- sense kind of a way. Mr. President, I hope we can move forward. I hope we can move forward on this issue. Frankly, it affects everyone. We think it affects us in the West a little more where 50 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. So that anything you do in the Federal Government, if it has to do with recreation or has to do with hunting or has to do with grazing or has to do with mineral production, has to go through this extensive regulatory process. That needs to be changed. I do not think there is a soul who would say, ``Oh, no. It does not need to be changed.'' Take a look at what we have done in 3 days. We say it needs to be changed. But there are 32 amendments or so sitting out there, many of which have already been dealt with which have nothing to do with creating a strong bill but have more to do with simply moving back the time when we make decisions. So, Mr. President, I hope we do move forward. I hope we can deal with issues as they are before us and come to some closure, come to some resolution. That is why we are here. That is why we came here. We are trustees. We are trustees for the voters, we are trustees for the citizens, and they are the beneficiaries. They should expect something from us. That is our opportunity. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 343, and appreciate the comments of my friend from Oklahoma who talked a lot about the details that are very important here, the reason for this bill. We have talked about it now for a good long time, as almost is always the case here. Nearly everything has been said, I suppose, in terms of the detail, in terms of the bill. But I would like to talk just a little bit about the fact that it is so important for us to deal with this question of regulation, overregulation. Clearly, at least in my constituency in Wyoming, the notion of regulation and the overregulation, and the cost of regulation and the interference of regulation, is the item most often mentioned by constituents that I talk to. There is no question, of course, that we need regulation. There will continue to be regulation. And, indeed, there should be regulation. Obviously that is one of the functions of government. The question is not whether we have regulation or not. And I wish to comment a little, one of our associates this afternoon rose and indicated that in his view the idea of having some kind of cost-benefit analysis meant that we would no longer have clean water, that we would no longer have clean air. I disagree with that thoroughly. I do not even think that is the issue. The issue of regulation, the issue of laws, the issue of having a clean environment, a safe workplace is not the issue. Too often we get off on that notion that somehow this bill will do away with regulation. Not so at all. We had an amendment today that said it would be a supplement to the laws and the statutes that exist and the regulations that exist. It is designed to work in process. It deals with the process of the things that are taken into account as the regulations are developed and as the regulations are applied. So the notion that somehow the good things that have come about as a result of regulation--and, indeed, there have been and our friend cited the idea that we have a cleaner environment in many areas, that we have better water than we have had in years. That is true. That is not the issue. We are not talking about doing away with those regulations. So I think, Mr. President, we really ought to examine what we are doing here, and the fact is we are looking for a way to apply regulations with more common sense. We are looking for a way to apply regulations with less cost. We are looking for a way to accomplish what regulations are designed to accomplish more efficiently. That is what it is all about. I understand that there are different views. I understand that there are those who do not choose to take issues like cost-benefit ratios into account. There are those, of course, as has been the case in almost all the issues we have undertaken this year, who prefer the status quo. But I suggest to you, if there was anything that was loudly spoken in November of 1994 it was that the Federal Government is too big, it costs too much, and there is too much regulation in our lives, intrusive in our lives, that it has to do with economy, it has to do with cost. We already mentioned cost. Some say it ranges from $400 billion a year, more than all of the personal income tax combined, and I believe that is the case. But we need to concentrate on what we are seeking to do, and we are seeking to make regulation a more efficient, a more useful tool. There is a notion from time to time that those who seek the status quo are more compassionate, are more caring than those who want change. I suggest that is not the slightest bit in keeping with the flavor of this bill; that, indeed, we are seeking to find a way to do it better. So, Mr. President, the 1994 elections were about change. The American people, I think, are demanding a change, demanding a regulatory system that works for us as citizens and not against us. I think there is a message that the status quo is not good enough. For the first time in many years, frankly, the first time in years I observed Congress, certainly in the 6 years I was in the House, we have not really taken a look at the programs that are there. If programs seemed not to be effective, if they were not accomplishing much, what did we do? We put more money into it or increased the bureaucracy. We did not really take a look at ways to improve the outcome, to improve the effect to see if, indeed, there is a better way to do it. So we need meaningful and enforceable regulatory reform. There has been a great deal of misinformation about this bill, some of it on [[Page S 9705]] purpose, some of it just as a matter of not fully understanding. Most of it you see on TV and talk shows, that it does not have the regulatory protection. Not true, not true. Clean water, clean air, and safe food are not negotiable. That is not the issue. This bill specifically exempts potential emergency situations from cost-benefit, and it will strengthen sound regulations by allocating the resources more wisely. I cannot imagine anything that makes more sense, that makes more common sense than as a regulation is developed that you take a look at what you are seeking to do, how you do it, what it will cost, and what the benefits will be and seek the alternatives that are there. That is what it is all about. It also provides an opportunity for this body, for the Congress to take a look at regulations as they are prepared by the agencies. We did this in our Wyoming Legislature. It was a routine: The statutes were passed, the agencies developed regulations to carry them out, and there was an oversight function before those regulations were put into place to see if, indeed, they carried out the spirit of the statute, to see if, indeed, they were doing what they were designed to do. Unfortunately, there, too, we did not have a real analysis of the cost- benefit ratio, and I think that is terribly important. So we talk about compassion, and sometimes those who want to leave things as they are accuse those who want change of not caring. It seems to me that when overregulation puts someone out of work, that is not very compassionate. When we put a lid on the growth of the economy, that is not very compassionate. When we take people's property without proper remuneration, that is not very compassionate. So we are designed here to do some of those things. It seems to me we have particular interest in the West where 50 percent of our State, for example, is managed and owned by the Federal Government. So we find ourselves in nearly everything we do, whether it be recreation, whether it be grazing, whether it be mining and oil, with a great deal of regulation that comes with Federal ownership. Much of it is not simply oriented in business. We talked a lot about business because I suppose, on balance, they are the largest recipients of overregulation. Let me tell you, the small towns are also very much affected. We had several instances recently in the town of Buffalo, WY, where they are seeking to develop a water system, in one instance, on forest lands. So they have to deal with the Forest Service to begin with, and then they have to deal with the EPA, and then they have to deal with the Corps of Engineers and finally are turned down entirely and have to start over--millions of dollars of costs to a small town. It has nothing to do with whether they are going to have a clean water supply. It has to do with whether or not there can be a cost- benefit ratio of what is going on, whether there is a risk assessment, and that is what this is designed to do. So, Mr. President, our effort here, I think, is a laudable one. I am excited about it. I think we can finally do some things that have needed to be done for a very long time and, I think, do them in a sensible way and preserve the reason for regulation, preserve the environment, preserve the water quality, and do it in a way that is more effective, more cost-effective, more user friendly than in the past. I rise in strong support of this bill and, frankly, hope we can move to a speedy, successful conclusion.