[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 115 (Thursday, September 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9907-S9911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONCERNS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is an interesting time, of course, for 
us here. Entering into the last month of this Congress, we are faced, 
of course, with finishing the work that we have begun, and more 
particularly, in closing up the appropriations process so that the 
Government can continue to function with a real determination and, Mr. 
President, to assure that that happens and that we do not get into this 
business of accusing one another of closing down the Government because 
we do not agree on issues. I am very much persuaded we will have a 
continuing resolution so if we do have disagreements that cannot be 
resolved in this time that the Government will continue to go on. If it 
does not, it would be my opinion it would be up to the administration 
to have it shut down.
  As was the case with most of the Senators here, I recently spent a 
month in my home State of Wyoming, having an opportunity to visit with 
people about things that concern them, having an opportunity, perhaps 
more importantly than visiting, to listen to what people believe to be 
the role of the Federal Government, what the people believe to be the 
issues most compelling to them. Of course, everyone has them.
  In my State, where we have relatively little diversity in our 
economy, we have three basic economic areas: One is tourism, one is 
mineral extraction, and one is agriculture. Unfortunately, both 
agriculture and mineral extraction are not in good shape economically 
at the moment, and we are seeking to do something about that.
  So this time I think is useful time for us. People always say, ``Hey, 
you're on vacation.'' Well, it is not vacation. It is a very busy time. 
But it is a useful time and a chance to perhaps stand back a little and 
look at some of the broader problems. And that is so important, 
especially, I think, in this last month when we become so focused on 
every detail, every little appropriations process, where we tend 
sometimes to sort of get away from really the fundamental issues that 
we are here to represent.
  So my comments today will simply represent my point of view. I do not 
allege to speak for anyone else. But I happen to think that one of the 
things that is most important to us as we deal with all issues is to 
have some philosophical guidance, some basic belief that you measure 
all these details against. Failing in that, it seems to me, it is very 
difficult to make decisions that are consistent, to make decisions that 
finally end up doing what you really believe in and what your 
philosophy ought to be.

  One of the conclusions that I have reached, not only on my own 
certainly, but because of what I hear in Wyoming, people having heard 
it of course in the media, is that this administration is basically in 
limbo, that it will be for some time, that we have relatively little, 
if any, leadership coming from the administration. We need to recognize 
that and to move forward with the issues that confront us. We can do 
that. And we need to do that.
  Frankly, we have had relatively little leadership over the last 
several years. This administration, in my judgment, and the judgment of 
others, has been one without any real basic commitment to a point of 
view or to a philosophy or to a direction, but rather driven more by 
polls and what happens to be the political thing at the moment. I 
suppose this is perhaps not a brand new idea, but one that I think is 
very dangerous and one that really does not direct us in the way that 
we ought to be going; that, indeed, instead we have a time of spin, an 
administration that is basically sort of predicated on how you can make 
things seem, whether they are that way or not, or whether, indeed, they 
are predicated on Saturday morning radio talks in which there are 
issues brought forth, and subsequently no real commitment to doing 
something about it, like the State of the Union in which things like 
``Social Security first'' are mentioned, but then nothing is done as a 
followup.
  That is a concern to me, that there is no real commitment and, 
frankly, relatively little real belief or commitment or, indeed, 
character in terms of where we are going.
  I think there are some major areas that need attention and that will 
be continuing to need attention. We need to look into them. One is 
foreign affairs, foreign policy--or a lack of foreign policy. Almost 
daily we see that some country--mostly the rogue countries--is 
challenging the rest of the world, challenging the United States. Why? 
Because they have begun to do this, and there is no real response, 
there is no reason why they shouldn't. Why shouldn't Iraq thumb their 
nose at us in terms of doing the weapons thing that they promised to do 
when obviously they are not going to be required to do that? We have 
not finished our job in Bosnia, Kosovo. Those things are still there.
  We have the Asian currency issue, a difficult issue that impacts us, 
one that, again, we need to make some decisions as to where we are and 
let people know exactly where we are. The idea from the administration 
that we are going to raise that question is not a good enough answer--
the most current one, of course, being North Korea, and which we have 
dealt with for some time, particularly through the KEDO arrangement, 
trying to find a way to cause them to control what they are doing in 
nuclear arms development in return for a substantial contribution on 
the part of the United States and Japan and South Korea to build light-
water reactors to replace that. And yet, they seem basically to say, 
``Well, we appreciate what you are doing, but we are going to go ahead 
and do what we want to do. We are going to go ahead and fire missiles. 
We are going to go ahead and have underground development of nuclear 
weapons, nuclear materials.''
  We cannot do that, in my judgment. And I feel very strongly about it. 
I happen to be chairman of that subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 
Rim. We are going to have another hearing this week. We had one just a 
month ago before we left and talked about the adherence to the KEDO 
agreement. There was certainly a notion that at that time things were 
being done that were not consistent with the plan.

  I think we need to give some real consideration to our military 
preparedness. This is not a peaceful world. One of the best ways to 
ensure as much as we can that it is peaceful is to continue to have a 
strong defense force, a strong military, to be the world's strongest 
military. And we are. However, there is increasing evidence that we are 
not putting enough emphasis into it in terms of support for it, in 
terms of the distribution of our troops all over the world. It is very 
costly. It is very difficult, then, to meet the mission that we have 
given ourselves, and that is to be able to work in two theaters, if 
necessary, at one time. Some doubt that we can do that now. So we, I 
think, have to deal with those kinds of very difficult issues.

[[Page S9908]]

  The matter of taxes is one, as you can imagine, we hear a great deal 
about when we go home--taxes in terms of the amount of taxation that 
citizens pay, the unfairness of taxes in terms of things like marriage 
penalty, the behavior of the IRS, which, of course, we addressed in our 
last session and hopefully will be useful. Perhaps even more important 
is the whole notion of Tax Code reform. You can deal with the IRS, you 
can deal with the management and the administration, certainly, of tax 
collection, but the real bottom line is the Tax Code. If the Tax Code 
is going to be so convoluted and so difficult and so detailed, it 
becomes increasingly difficult to do that.
  Here again, the administration has come forth with no real idea as to 
how to simplify the Tax Code. There is not unanimity among any of us as 
to what it ought to be--whether it ought to be a flat tax, a sales tax, 
or a consumption tax, or simply a simplification of what we have now. 
But we need some leadership to do that and we need something from the 
administration to do that. We need some ideas to do that instead of 
simply getting up and saying Social Security first, and then turning 
off the radio.
  I have a number of other items I would like to share, Mr. President, 
but I want to recognize my friend, the Senator from Kansas, who has 
come to the floor. I yield as much time as he desires for his 
observations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague and my good 
friend from Wyoming for reserving this time and for talking about some 
of the very crucial issues that affect our Nation's citizens, our daily 
lives, our pocketbooks, and, quite frankly, the lack of leadership that 
we see both from the standpoint of the administration and, to be very 
candid, in this Congress as well.
  What I would like to talk about for a few moments is the issue that I 
think is the first obligation of the Federal Government. That is our 
national security, our national defense.
  In beginning my comments, Mr. President, I would like to refer to a 
letter that was sent from the distinguished majority leader, Senator 
Lott, to the President. Senator Lott said this:

       I am very concerned about the growing inability of our 
     country to man the uniformed services. Not only is there 
     difficulty in recruiting, but also in our ability to retain 
     key personnel.

  Senator Lott then went on in several paragraphs to describe the 
problem that we have. Then in the last paragraph he said,

       Mr. President, while I believe that more money needs to be 
     allocated to our National Defense, it needs to be done 
     prudently. We need to get the missions, manning, equipping, 
     and pay and benefits synchronized to enable us to continue 
     with a quality force into the 21st century. I urge you to 
     make this a high priority of your fiscal year 2000 budget 
     request.

  And then in regard to the suggestion by the distinguished chairman of 
the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, there is an 
effort by some of us who have the privilege of serving on the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, and those of us in the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, to take action as of this appropriations cycle. I think that 
certainly would be very wise and it is very needed.
  The President wrote back and pretty much said that he is committed to 
ensuring that we have a strong and ready force and indicates--and I am 
paraphrasing here, and perhaps that is not entirely fair, but the way I 
read the President's letter is that we will stay the course and that we 
have a defense system certainly prepared to meet all of our national 
security interests.
  Mr. President, I don't buy that. I rise today to voice my concern 
with what I think is a very growing and very worrisome problem with our 
military. And that problem exists right now and today and we should 
take immediate action to find answers to that problem. The issue is 
not, it seems to me, do they have enough tanks or fighters or ships or 
small arms. By the way, I do not think they have the adequate funding 
support for the modernization and the procurement of essential systems, 
but I will leave that discussion for a later time. This issue is even 
more fundamental and, I think, just as important; that is, the basic 
care of the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families.

  Now, we have all heard the concern from the leaders of the military--
we have had hearing after hearing--their real growing inability to 
attract and retain the needed skilled personnel, such as pilots and 
mechanics and ship drivers or any number of other very critical skills 
maintained by enlisted and officers of our military. Some say they are 
perplexed at this talent drain and wonder why they cannot stop the 
hemorrhaging.
  Let me recount some other related topics concerning the care of our 
military and perhaps we can start to understand what I call this 
hemorrhaging.
  Following the end of the cold war, the United States started a 
systematic downsizing of our military, consistent with the threat, and 
that made sense. I think everybody agreed with that. However, many 
people have not given much thought to how far we have downsized, just 
how far we have downsized.
  Let me summarize what we have removed from the military: 709,000 
active duty troops--709,000 active duty troops--293,000 reserve troops; 
8 standing Army divisions--8--20 Air Force and Navy wings with 2,000 
combat aircraft; 4 aircraft carriers; 121 Navy ships and submarines.
  With the end of the cold war and with these very dramatic reductions 
in our military, we should be able to take great solace in the fact 
that surely our military commitments and deployments have also taken 
similar reductions. In other words, if you took dramatic reductions in 
regard to the active duty troops, the reserve troops, the Army 
divisions, the Air Force and the Navy wings, 4 aircraft carriers, 121 
Navy ships and submarines, you would think that our commitments and our 
deployments would have been reduced as well. Unfortunately, as also 
many of us understand, just the opposite has occurred. The military 
across the board has experienced a many-fold increase in their 
operational commitments and tempo of their operations. Plainly stated, 
our significantly ``downsized'' military has been asked to deploy much 
more often and for longer periods of time than they ever have in our 
history.
  This increased operational commitment has directly impacted the very 
culture of our military. For example, Mr. President, General Ryan, who 
is the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, has stated that the Air 
Force has shifted from a garrison force to an expeditionary force 
during this period--a dramatic change. The bottom-line impact on our 
people is that they are now away from their families significantly more 
than they were in the past. And, by the way, as we have shifted to an 
all-voluntary military, the number or percentage of married service 
members has also significantly increased--reportedly 63 percent now of 
our military members are married. So, problem No. 1, Mr. President, we 
have significantly increased the workload upon a substantially smaller 
military.
  Since the percentage of service members that are married has grown, 
this increased workload has amplified the negative affect of 
deployments on the morale of our troops and their families. The 
reluctance of families to continue to tolerate these separations really 
contributes to the loss of mid-level personnel, key personnel, mid-
career personnel. Asking our military to deploy and endure hardship in 
their personal lives is not new. Ask any veteran of World War II, 
Korea, or Vietnam about hardship and long separations. But those 
situations were drastically different than the involvements the U.S. 
military is being asked to participate in as of today.
  In each of the major conflicts in the past, the mission and 
importance of the U.S. involvement was clearly articulated by the 
President, by the administration, understood by the American people, 
and certainly understood by our men and women in uniform. Those 
conflicts were founded on the notion that our involvement was in the 
U.S. vital national interests. The men and women of the military 
understood that concept, and they and their families were more willing 
to accept the hardship of military life.
  I am convinced that the missions that our military are now 
participating in today do not meet that fundamental threshold of 
national interest. I am

[[Page S9909]]

also convinced that our military members understand the nature and the 
motivation of their missions. Although they continue to perform 
superbly, they understand that their sacrifice and their family's 
sacrifice today is not for the same noble cause as the defense of the 
American homeland--the very reason many join the military in the first 
place.
  Problem No. 2: With a significantly increased deployment schedule and 
a substantially smaller force, the value and importance of today's 
missions impacts on the willingness of the men and women to join or to 
commit to the military as a career. Without clearly articulated mission 
goals and objectives founded in the fundamentals of the U.S. vital 
national interest, the ability to recruit and retain motivated men and 
women for our military will remain very difficult.
  You only have to look at the deployment of 27,000 men and women in 
uniform in the Gulf, 37,000 in Korea, approximately 10,000 in Bosnia, 
with the expectation of what happens in North Korea and Kosovo as an 
example.
  Certainly, if we are putting our military in a position of increased 
deployments and increased family separation, Mr. President, we must 
have or are doing a better job of adequate pay, health care, and 
retirement system. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring in 
today's military.
  Let me outline the pay issue with one example that is occurring all 
too often in the military today. Picture, if you will, a young 
soldier--in which we have placed a great deal of training and 
responsibility and trust--commanding the world's best tank, M1A2, a $4 
million piece of equipment. At home, this soldier has a wife and three 
children. They live in a mobile home off post, and because of his low 
military income, they are on the WIC Program, the Women, Infant and 
Children Program, which is a form of welfare.
  What has happened to reasonable compensation for men and women that 
are committed to the service of our country? Can't we pay our military 
enough to keep them off of welfare programs or off of food stamp 
programs? We, the Congress, cap the raises that the military can 
receive. The net result of this action is that the military pay 
differential between a comparable job in the civilian market and the 
military has grown from 13 to 15 percent. That gap can go to 20 percent 
in just a few years.
  Problem No. 3: Although the skill level required of the men and women 
of our military does continue to grow, the pay differential between the 
same skilled civilian and the military simply continues to widen.
  The current pay of many of our young military families is so low that 
it is not adequate to keep them off of welfare programs. The prospect 
of continued and frequent long deployments coupled, with the 
opportunity to get better pay on the outside for the same work, 
contributes to the inability to attract and retain the skills needed 
for today's military. This is true for both officer and enlisted 
personnel.
  OK, the pay is not great, but surely the housing has kept up with the 
increased numbers of married military members, and we have provided 
them with adequate housing--not palatial housing, but certainly 
adequate. Wrong again. To illustrate this issue, let me quote from an 
article entitled ``Shoddy Military Housing Need Repair,'' by John 
Diamond, a writer with the Associated Press. He says this:

       ``In reality, we're the biggest slum lords in the 
     country,'' said Michael J. Haze, chief of Fort Carson's 
     housing division. ``I have soldiers every day telling me they 
     live in the projects.''

  In the projects.
  The article went on:

       Behind the bureaucracy, thousands of military families 
     continue to tolerate what the Pentagon acknowledges is 
     shoddy, substandard housing because they cannot or will not 
     pay higher rents for off-base housing.

  I don't want to mislead anybody. Some of the base housing is very 
nice and adequate. But if a serviceman happens to be unlucky enough not 
to be assigned to nice facilities, or a base that has nice facilities, 
their pay will not support quality housing in the private sector.
  Problem No. 4: We ask our military to deploy at a much higher pace 
than ever before, we assign missions that do not meet the national 
interest threshold, we pay them less than they could get for the same 
or similar skills as a civilian, and in many cases, we ask them to live 
in substandard housing. It goes without saying that the culmination of 
these problems really contributes to the dissatisfaction with the 
military as a career and its attractiveness to potential recruits. How 
could anybody assume otherwise?
  Finally, many of the men and women are able to work with and through 
all of these issues with their families and make the military a career. 
Many are still doing that. For many years, the attraction and reward 
for the tough life in the military was the great benefit of retirement. 
The deal was that if you would spend at least 20 years in the service 
of our country, your retirement benefits would be one-half of your base 
pay. And if you elected to spend 30 years, you would receive 75 percent 
of your base pay. That retirement program was a major benefit, a major 
recruiting tool, a major retention draw. Many young men and women have 
said, ``I can stick with this tough life because I know I am doing a 
good job for my country and I know that at least I have half of my pay 
coming to me at the end of 20 years.'' The plan is now that if a 
service member works for 20 years, the benefit is only 40 percent of 
the base pay. It is still 75 percent after 30 years, but the big draw 
has always been the 20 years. This is not popular with the troops. That 
is probably the understatement of my remarks. The fear is that the 
retirement program has been so weakened that, coupled with a myriad of 
other problems that I have described, many service members will leave 
rather than ``tough it out until 20.''
  Problem No. 5: The members of our military are working harder, 
deploying more, receiving less pay than civilians are for the same job, 
living in inadequate housing, and are now seeing a reduction in 
retirement benefits. It is not difficult to understand that with this 
collection of negatives, and all of our commitments all around the 
globe--some may or may not be in our national interest--the military is 
experiencing problems in retention and recruiting.
  I didn't mention health care. I don't have prepared remarks regarding 
health care, but I will come back to the floor and mention that as 
problem No. 6. That is an additional problem--adequate and affordable 
health care that is at least accessible. So, in many cases, that is an 
additional problem.
  Mr. President, these are very serious problems that face the men and 
women of our military. I must admit that they do not have simple or 
inexpensive solutions. I do plan, with the help of many of my 
colleagues, to systematically attack these problems as a member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. I hope that together we can help 
restore the faith of our military members that the American people care 
about the sacrifice they and their families make in the defense of our 
Nation by providing adequate pay, housing and retirement benefits and 
health care. We owe this to these men and women and their families that 
serve our Nation.
  In closing, again, I thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator 
from Wyoming, for the time. I want to come back to the letter sent to 
the President of the United States by the majority leader, Senator 
Lott. Senator Lott said in two or three paragraphs, in brief, what I 
have tried to outline today. Mr. President, we have to do something 
about this. Mr. President, we have to do something now. We have to do 
something with the current appropriations bills. The President has sent 
a letter back to the majority leader saying, in effect, that we do have 
a military that still stands in the breach to protect our individual 
freedoms and national security. And we will talk about it in the next 
budget. That is not good enough. It is not good enough. We need to 
begin the process now.

  I ask the President to reconsider the letter by Senator Lott. I know 
my colleagues will work in a bipartisan fashion to end what is a 
growing scandal in the military in terms of retention of the people who 
we need to maintain our military and maintain our national security.
  I thank my colleague and my good friend from Wyoming for the time. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.

[[Page S9910]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Kansas very much for his 
comments.
  Mr. President, I guess the real issue and the thing that he and I are 
both talking about is the basic, fundamental functions of the Federal 
Government and what priority they should have. Certainly, the defense 
of this country has to be among the--if not the--top priorities. No one 
else can do that. I appreciate very much the comments the Senator has 
made.
  This whole idea of priority setting, this whole idea of the concept 
of the basic belief of what you think the better role of the 
Government, is of course a difficult issue but it is the basis of why 
we are here; it is the basis of elections to decide. People say, ``What 
is your position with respect to the Federal Government?'' There are 
legitimate differences of view. You can see them on this floor. There 
are those who believe sincerely that the Federal Government ought to be 
the predominant activity in government in the whole country. There are 
those who, frankly, have very little confidence in local governments 
and in State governments, and they think the Federal Government ought 
to do all of those things. Obviously, there are roles for the Federal 
Government. In my view, there are quite certainly roles that are better 
done at the local and State level. That is the constant issue with 
which we deal.
  I was talking about some of the things people talked about while I 
was in Wyoming. I mentioned Social Security. I would like to go back to 
that for just a little bit. There has been a great deal of talk about 
the condition of Social Security to the extent that people, many older 
people, are worried about, of course. But maybe even more importantly, 
younger people who are now just entering the workforce are saying, ``I 
am going to be paying into this thing forever, but by the time I am 
ready to retire, there will be nothing there.'' I think it is clear 
that Social Security is strong for 20 years or 25 years, and all those 
who will become eligible for benefits during that time will see them. 
But young people, like these folks sitting here, are the ones who will 
be paying the tab. Unless we do something, we will unlikely have a 
solvent Social Security program.
  We need to move forward. I am pleased that there is a considerable 
amount of talk about it. I hope we do something rather soon. It seems 
to me that if we can do it, the sooner you do it, the less severe the 
changes need to be. If you make rather simple changes, rather 
incremental changes 20 years out, it makes a great deal of difference.
  What are we talking about? Of course, one of them that is already 
underway is to raise the retirement age. Times have changed. People are 
living longer. People are working longer. That is legitimate. There 
will be debate about how far that goes, of course. But, more 
importantly, the notion that seems to be catching on is that some 
percentage of the payments that are made, some of the percentages of 
12-percent payments that are made into Social Security, should be set 
aside into an individual account which is invested in equities, 
invested in something that will earn more interest than the current 
investment which is in Government securities; that that account will 
grow more quickly; that there will be more benefits from the same 
investment. And that is very possible, of course; further, that that 
account would be your account and my account.
  If for some reason or other you happen to pass on before you use all 
of that, that it, indeed, be part of your estate. There would be a 
substantial difference. I don't think many are talking about a full 
privatization of Social Security. That is something that would be a 
pretty big step. But to take 30 percent, for example, 3 or 4 percent 
out of the 12 percent, I believe that is happening. I certainly hope 
so.
  I already mentioned tax reform. Certainly, we will have some debate 
soon about what seems certain to be a budget surplus--a budget surplus 
on which we will have some decisions to make; choices about doing 
something about reducing the debt, a debt on which we pay $280 billion 
a year in interest; do something about reducing tax rates so that the 
people who own the money will be able to keep more of it. I suppose one 
of the considerations will be to spend more. I hope that is not a 
successful consideration. Others are suggesting some of it be put in 
for this Social Security reform and that it be used that way.
  There is nothing wrong with philosophical differences. We just need 
to stand for what we are for. We are for less government, if we are 
having people keep more of their own money. It is pretty clear where 
you stand on that issue.

  I hope the marriage penalty is considered. I saw some numbers the 
other day where two single persons were making roughly $35,000 a year, 
and they pay individually. If they are married, this is about a $1,300 
penalty to the same people earning the same amount of money simply 
because they are married. That needs, of course, to be changed.
  Another one that I heard a lot about and I also feel strongly about 
is the Executive orders that have been issued. There are a good many 
Executive orders, some of which simply are done apparently to replace 
what the Congress should be doing. One on federalism created a great 
deal of concern.
  Basically, the President issued an Executive order that broadened the 
scope of the Federal Government in terms of working with States and 
working with counties, and instead of the good old 10th amendment where 
it says that those things which are specifically laid out in the 
Constitution will be done by the Federal Government, other things will 
be done by the States and by the people--this changed that. There was 
such a reaction to it that I understand it has been withdrawn. But the 
use of Executive orders is something that sort of moves away from the 
leadership of causing the Congress to do things, and working with the 
Congress. The idea of an Executive order on health care, for example, 
which is exactly the thing that the Republican bill has on the floor, 
it seems to me, is inappropriate.
  Energy--I guess I have a rather strong feeling about energy in that 
it is one of the things that is important to my State, but, more 
importantly, it is one of the things that is important to this country. 
We now have ourselves in the position where 57 percent, I believe, of 
the fossil fuel we use is imported. That puts us at sort of a security 
risk, it seems to me, in addition to not having the kind of domestic 
industry that is very important. Do we have a policy at the Department 
of Energy for that? No, we really do not. We really do not.
  We have a real problem with what we do with nuclear waste that is the 
result of nuclear power plants. Do we have a plan to do that? The 
administration is opposed to it. We have a responsibility to do 
something about nuclear waste storage. Does the Department of Energy 
have a plan? No. We are not moving forward.
  Those are the kinds of things that need to be resolved. One of the 
energy issues that is fairly knew this year and will continue next year 
is the deregulation of electric energy. It has a great impact on this 
country.
  The use of the huge monopolies--most of us would like to see us 
change monopolies and make them come a little more into the 
marketplace. Does the Department of Energy have a strong position on 
that? No.
  Finally, the chairman of the committee urged them to come up with a 
bill. But we need to do something with that. Here again, we get into 
the question of whether you do the same thing for every State. I can 
tell you that Wyoming's interest in electric deregulation is different 
than New York's. You have to have a system to do that. Leadership is 
what we need.
  The Senator from Kansas who just spoke is one of the experts in 
agriculture. He was, indeed, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee 
in the House. Agriculture is having a tough time. Agriculture is having 
a tough time because of the Asian situation, because of the crop 
failures, and because of the weather and many things.
  We are trying to do something with it and, indeed, have, but we need 
again some kind of impetus and leadership from this administration that 
has not been there.
  Previous to now, we have had accelerated payments that are the 
changed

[[Page S9911]]

payments from where we had the acreage and payment program into a 
market system. We have had averaging, income averaging, just extended--
that is good for farmers--and an IRA for farmers and ranchers. Of 
course, if you don't have any money, it does not help a lot. And that 
is going to have to be done. We did something about unilateral 
sanctions in countries so that we can have more markets overseas.
  These are some things, but there need to be more. We need to do 
something with crop insurance to make that work. We need to open more 
foreign markets because almost 40 percent of our agricultural product 
goes into foreign trade. We need to do something about agricultural 
credit to help make this transition from managed agriculture to market 
agriculture.
  So we need to work together, and we need some leadership in doing 
that.
  Mr. President, probably again the thing that seems always to strike 
me, because I guess I believe it also, is that the real issue in many 
of the things we do is in terms of federalism--what is the role of the 
Federal Government? Where can we be most efficient? Where can we get 
the job done more easily? At the Federal level? At the State level? 
Should we send block grants, for example, in some instances to the 
States? I think so. And the delivery system is so different.
  We held a couple of meetings on rural health care while I was in 
Wyoming. We have about 475,000 people in 100,000 square miles. Many 
people live in very small towns. We only have two towns that are over 
the 50-60,000 category. So you have to have a little different system 
for the delivery of health care than you do in Pennsylvania or than you 
do in New England, and that is an important kind of thing. 
Telemedicine, for example, is going to be very important to us.
  So all this comes into this equation of how do you best serve the 
people of this country. I happen to believe, as you can imagine from 
what I have said already, less Federal Government is better than more. 
I am one who thinks that the most efficient delivery system comes when 
it is done at the local level. I am one who thinks that the Government 
closest to the people is the one that provides the kind of services 
that people really want.
  So we need to focus, I think, on fundamentals. We need to focus on 
the idea that, for example, those things that are done by the Federal 
Government that are commercial in nature ought to be put out for bid, 
if that is possible, so we can do it in the private sector. It is done 
more efficiently that way, and it also creates more jobs in the private 
sector. And that is one of the fundamental things we ought to continue 
to focus on.
  We don't have much time remaining in this session--I think something 
around 20 days of activity. We have lots of things to do. I am hopeful 
that our friends on the other side of the aisle will address these 
issues that need to be resolved. I think it is clear that there are two 
or three issues they are going to try to insist on bringing up daily, 
not with the intention of completing them and finding a resolution but 
simply to bring them up so that they are the kinds of issues that will 
be involved in the campaigns that are coming up in November--patients' 
rights, for example. Both sides of the aisle have bills on patients' 
rights. Most of the elements of those bills are very similar and there 
is a consensus that some of those things need to be done. The 
leadership has offered to deal with it with a limited number of 
amendments so that we can get it done.
  That is not acceptable to the other side of the aisle because they 
want to keep this issue alive as a political issue. That is too bad. I 
am sorry for that.
  The minimum wage. We just have raised the minimum wage two times. It 
is a political issue that has to keep coming back. Campaign reform. 
Most of us want to make some changes in campaign reform. We have talked 
about it extensively in this session of Congress. It is kept alive as a 
political issue. We need to address ourselves to things that have to be 
resolved, those things that are important to the people in the conduct 
of the business of this country.
  So I am just really hopeful that our leadership in the Senate and the 
leadership in the House and this administration will address ourselves 
to some of these issues and that we will, in fact, during this next 
month be able to resolve them, conclude them, and do them in the 
fashion that is most acceptable and most useful to the American people. 
That, after all, is our job. I think it is based largely on making some 
decisions as to what the Federal Government does best, how it does it, 
how it can be done most efficiently, how we can involve the States, how 
we can involve local governments. Invariably, when you go home, you see 
things done voluntarily, you see things done on a local level, and it 
reminds you, fortunately, the strength of this country lies not in its 
Federal Government, the strength of this country lies in the 
communities and the people who live there, people who give leadership 
to issues that affect them, people who volunteer, people who address 
the issues and resolve them, and that is, indeed, the strength of this 
country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask consent to be yielded the 10 
minutes remaining under the time of Senator Thomas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________