[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8679-8681]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       A RECORD OF OBSTRUCTIONISM

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning I listened to my friend, the 
Senator from North Dakota, talk about what we ought to be doing in the 
Senate. I must tell you I couldn't agree more that we need to be moving 
forward. I also must tell you I have a totally different view as to why 
we are not.
  We have actually been seeking to move forward for some time. The 
Republicans have had a number of critical issues out here that the 
American people are interested in--marriage tax penalty relief, tax 
relief in other areas, farming, education, and critical needs of the 
men and women in the armed services. But, unfortunately, as each of 
these things has come up, we found ourselves being stopped from moving 
forward either by unrelated amendments or objections to moving forward. 
I really think we should analyze where we are and what we are seeking 
to do.
  In my view, in general terms, what is happening is that there is more 
of an interest, particularly on that side of the aisle, in simply 
trying to create issues rather than create solutions. Each time we 
bring up a basic bill, we come back to amendments that have already 
been dealt with, and they insist on dealing with them again.
  The majority leader is trying to deal with a number of issues. One of 
them, of course, is education. We are dealing with the whole question 
of elementary and secondary education. We are blocked by that side of 
the aisle from meaningful educational reform. We are trying to deal 
with the idea of moving forward with the kind of funding the Federal 
Government can provide for elementary and secondary education.
  There is a difference of view. Yes, indeed, we have a difference of 
view. The basic difference of view is to the extent the Federal 
Government is involved in the funding of local schools. Those local 
schools, their leaders, the school boards, and the counties and States 
ought to have the basic right to make the decisions as to how that 
money is used. I think it is pretty clear that the needs are quite 
different.
  Yesterday, I spoke at the commencement of a small school in 
Chugwater, WY. The sign on Main Street said ``Population 197.'' There 
were 12 graduates at this school. They come from, of course, the 
surrounding agricultural area. I can tell you that the educatioonal 
needs in Chugwater, WY, are likely to be quite different from those in 
Pittsburgh. The notion that in Washington you set down the rules for 
expending the funds that are made available in Federal programs we do 
not think is useful. I understand there are differences of view.
  But I guess my entire point is that we are always going to have 
different points of view and we should have an opportunity to discuss 
those and opportunities to offer alternatives. But we have to find 
solutions, and we have to move forward. That is why we vote. That is 
why there is a majority that has a vote on issues. But the idea that 
you have a difference of view and, because you don't get your view in, 
it is going to stop the process is not what we are talking about.
  Education, of course, is just one of the areas. There is the question 
of the marriage tax penalty and the question of tax relief and tax 
reform. But, quite frankly, more than anything, there is the question 
of fairness--where a man and woman can work at two jobs before they are 
married, earn a certain amount of money, and continue to work on those 
jobs and earn the same amount of money, but after they are married they 
pay more taxes. The penalty is approximately $1,500 a year. We have 
been fighting to change this for a very long time. President Clinton 
pledged in his State of the Union Address in January to reduce those 
taxes. It would be a very large tax reduction for American families. 
However, we still have the playing of politics on the floor and that 
bill has not yet passed.

[[Page 8680]]

  We will be seeking to do some things in agriculture. I agree with the 
Senator from North Dakota on some of the agricultural issues. We have 
been trying to deal with crop insurance. We have been trying to get 
that done. It is certainly something that ought to be done as we move 
forward towards more of the marketplace in agriculture. It has not been 
done because we have had objections on the floor.
  I have to tell you we have had, and continue to have, a record of 
obstructionism that I think really needs to be reviewed and resolved. 
It took five votes before we could break the Democrat filibuster and 
pass the Ed-Flexibility bill in 1999.
  Do you remember when the Republicans offered the lockbox idea where 
we were seeking to ensure that money which comes in for Social Security 
would be in the Social Security fund and not be expended on non-Social 
Security ideas? It was opposed six times by Senator Democrats, even 
after it had been passed in the House the year before by a vote of 416 
12. In Roll Call, which is the House paper, in May of 2000, the Senator 
from Massachusetts promised to eventually work with his colleagues on 
the education plan. But then he was quoted as saying: We will do that 
when Al Gore is elected President. We will all sit down next year and 
have a consensus.
  I don't think we are here to seek to establish those kinds of issues 
for Presidential elections and ignore what we can do here. We are sent 
here to resolve problems, to deal with them, and come to solutions. 
They have been out there on the floor. But, unfortunately, the whole 
idea of obstructionist tactics seems to be where we are, and we need to 
change that.
  There are a number of issues, of course, that are of particular 
concern to people from the West, including myself. We have had a great 
deal of activity in the administration with regard to public land 
management. All of it seems to be oriented towards the effort on the 
part of this administration, on the part of the President, and on the 
part of the Secretary of the Interior to develop for themselves some 
kind of a legacy--a little like Theodore Roosevelt, apparently.
  There are a number of things that have to do with access to public 
lands. Here again, it is quite different, depending on where you live 
in this country. In Wyoming, for example, 50 percent of the land is 
owned by the Federal Government and is managed by the BLM or by the 
Forest Service or by the Park Service, and it is a good operation. In 
some States federally-owned land is as high as 86 percent.
  It is quite different when we start to deal with the public land 
issue, of course. It is sometimes dealt with quite differently in the 
West than the East. That is proper. We have been faced with a number of 
things that make it very difficult to have access available for the 
people who own these public lands. We are dealing, for instance, with 
the operation of the Forest Service and 40 million acres of road lands. 
I have no particular objection to taking the road lands. We don't need 
roads everywhere, but we need to do it on an area-by-area basis to see 
what needs access. Sometimes the accusations suggest we help timber 
producers or grazers.
  The fact is, we have heard from veterans who can't walk 17 miles with 
a pack on their back. If we don't have road access, they are not able 
to use the forests. We have heard from children, as well.
  The administration puts out a block pronouncement that we will have 
40 million acres of wilderness, without knowing what the plans are, 
without including Congress in the process, without holding hearings or 
providing an opportunity for people to respond. There was nothing there 
to respond to. Hopefully, that will be changed.
  The Antiquities Act provides an opportunity for the President to 
declare large amounts of land for different uses and restricts uses 
exercised readily by this administration over the past year and a half. 
The BLM has a plan not to allow off-road use of BLM lands. We have 
bills before the Congress setting aside a billion dollars a year for 
the additional purchase of Federal lands on a mandatory basis as 
opposed to going through the appropriations. These are all designed, it 
seems to some, to reduce access to lands which are not only there for 
recreation, not only there for the use of everyone, but certainly there 
is a large impact on the economic future of States in the west.
  We plan to have a hearing this week after a pronouncement from the 
Park Service that all parks will no longer allow the use of snow 
machines by winter visitors. Yellowstone Park and Grand Teton Park are 
in Wyoming. Many people in the winter enjoy these unique scenes on 
snowmobiles. The Park Service, without hearings, without input by the 
Congress or by anyone else, has announced there will be a total 
cancellation of the opportunity of people to visit their parks in the 
wintertime.
  Again, I have no objection to taking a look and changing some rules. 
Some of the machines have been too noisy, some machines have excessive 
exhaust. But they can be changed. Rather than finding an alternative 
for people visiting the parks, which belong to them, this 
administration simply says we are not going to allow their use anymore 
and ignores alternative techniques. Also, it ignores the fact it has 
been going on for 20 years in most parks.
  We could separate cross-country skiers from snow machine operators 
and require through EPA that the machines be quieter and less 
polluting. Instead of seeking to manage them, we have been ignoring 
this for 20 years, and suddenly they abolish their use. I hope we have 
a hearing this week to take a look at how that might be resolved so 
people will still have the opportunity to visit facilities that belong 
to them, facilities that are unique, facilities that should be 
available to be used by whomever wishes to use them properly, 
hopefully, year round.
  My friend from North Dakota mentioned the sugar program, one that 
needs to be examined and discussed. We have had large newspapers, 
including editorials, that have not told the story fairly. They talk 
about a program that has caused consumers to pay more for sugar than 
they would otherwise. I don't believe that is factual. The fact is the 
world price for sugar is not a world price established by the market 
but is a dump price from countries that have subsidies for sugar. When 
they have an excess, it goes in at a lower price. If we are going to 
talk about the program, we ought to be discussing facts. That 
information ought to be mentioned.
  The sugar program has not been subsidized. The costs to consumers 
have not gone up but have gone down. The costs to producers have not 
gone up but, indeed, have gone down. We have a program that has worked.
  My point is it is necessary to understand the purpose of the program, 
what it is designed to accomplish, and then do what is necessary in the 
interim to ensure that purpose is nurtured.
  I think there are many issues we must cover. We have 13 
appropriations bills with which to deal. We have approximately 60 
legislative days remaining for the Senate to complete its work. We have 
13 bills with which to deal. The appropriations, of course, are very 
much the basis for what we do in the Federal Government. There are all 
kinds of issues. But the amount of money provided and the way it is 
spent has a great deal to do with what we are doing in the Congress, 
what kinds of programs we are involved in, how much the programs cost, 
how much we want to invest in the programs. Right now, it has a great 
deal to do with what we do with overall revenues that come into the 
Federal Government.
  Indeed, as it appears, we have a surplus. We have to make some tough 
decisions as to how much government we want. How do we divide the 
government between the responsibilities accepted and taken on at the 
Federal level as opposed to those taken on at the local level. The fact 
that there is money certainly is an encouragement to again expand the 
role of the Federal Government. Many believe that is not the proper way 
to proceed; We ought to do the essential things.
  Clearly, there is a difference of view about that. There is a 
difference of philosophy. There are those who genuinely

[[Page 8681]]

believe the more money that can be spent through the Federal 
Government, the more it helps people, and that is what we ought to do--
continue to always increase the size and activity of the Government.
  Others, including myself, believe there are essential finances for 
the Federal Government to carry forth, but the best way to do it is to 
limit that Federal Government to allow local governments to participate 
more fully, to allow people to continue to have their own tax dollars.
  The longer I am in Washington, the more I am persuaded the real 
strength of this country does not lie with the Federal Government. 
Obviously, it is essential. Obviously, it is important. Functions such 
as defense can only be performed by the Federal Government.
  Communities are shaped by things people do through local government 
or voluntarily. These mean so much to the strength of communities. We 
have a program called the Congressional Award Program in which young 
people are urged to take on community activities. We give out medals. 
It is wonderful to see the activities in which the young people become 
involved. It is wonderful to see themselves in the future as doing 
volunteer things, as becoming leaders, taking the risk of leadership, 
and spending their personal time to strengthen that community.
  We do have real differences of opinion. That is why we are here. We 
have a system for resolving those differences. Not everybody wins these 
debates. Some lose and some win. It is not a winning proposition to 
obstruct progress. I think that is where we find ourselves.
  I hope the leaders and Members on both sides of the aisle will take a 
long look at our position. We need to have a system where everyone with 
different ideas gets to present their ideas, but we have to do it in an 
organized way, where the amendments are germane to the issue. Now we 
find ourselves with some amendments--gun control amendments, for 
example, as important as they may be--that come up on every issue. It 
stalls what we are doing in terms of the basic generic purpose of that 
discussion, invariably coming up with the same kinds of amendments over 
and over. I think we can find a way to resolve that. I think we should. 
We have a great opportunity to move forward on a number of things, 
whether it be education, whether it be Social Security, whether it be 
tax relief, whether it be strengthening the military. These are the 
kinds of things that are so important.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________