Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27, 2000 to mark up H.R. 4844, the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act of 2000 and the Community Renewal and New Markets Act of 2000.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I would like to extend my appreciation and congratulations to former Ambassador Edward Masters on the occasion of his retirement on October 18 from his position as President of United States-Indonesia Society. During his 30-year career in the Foreign Service, in which he reached the senior rank of Career Minister, Ambassador Masters served as U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia and Bangladesh and Deputy Chief of Mission to Thailand. He also held posts in India and Pakistan and an assignment as director of the State Department's Office of East Asian Regional Affairs that involved policy coordination for the entire area. Indonesia figured prominently in both Ambassador Masters' diplomatic and private sector careers. As Political Counselor of the United States Embassy in Jakarta from 1964-68, he worked on reconstructing U.S. relations with Indonesia at a very difficult time. This included closing out our economic aid, information and Peace Corps programs because of the highly adverse political situation in Indonesia. Toward the end of that period, he worked with various elements of the U.S. Government and NGOs to reinstitute some of those programs but to do so in a way commensurate with Indonesian culture and sensitivities. He is, in fact, particularly known in both Indonesia and the United States for his ability to work effectively in the Indonesian environment. As United States Ambassador from late 1977 until the end of 1981, one of his major responsibilities was managing a large and very important economic aid program. He worked in particular and in detail on the Provincial Development Program, the programs to expand Indonesia's food grain production and enhance human resources development. Toward the end of his tour he organized various elements of the mission to develop programs to get the U.S. Government more effectively behind the programs to develop Indonesia's private sector and increase cooperation between that sector and the United States. In 1994, Ambassador Masters was instrumental in forming the United States-Indonesia Society. The Society is the preeminent institution in the United States devoted to developing a broad range of programs aimed at developing greater awareness and appreciation about Indonesia and the importance of the U.S.-Indonesia relationship in all major sectors in the U.S. Ambassador Masters has given briefings throughout the United States to academic institutions and other interested groups. He has provided witness testimony on numerous occasions before the Senate and House Foreign Relations Subcommittees on East Asian and Pacific Affairs on numerous occasions. He has organized conferences and other forums bringing Indonesians and Americans together to discuss short and long-term issues of mutual concern. One such conference he organized last October in cooperation with the Embassy of Indonesia in Washington DC., brought some of the most impressive, influential, and knowledgeable individuals from Indonesia and the United States to discuss the 50 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries and to provide policy suggestions to both governments on how to strengthen ties in the new millennium. On September 28, 1998 the Indonesian government recognized Ambassador Masters' valuable contributions and decorated him with the Bintang Mahaputra Utama, the second highest award given by the Government of Indonesia for his commitment and contribution to forging closer ties between the U.S. and Indonesia. As Chairman, I would also like to recognize and say thanks Ambassador Masters for the valuable work he has done. When I began my tenure as Chairman, Indonesia was--unfortunately--largely ignored in the United States. Despite being the fourth largest country in the world, and the largest Muslim country, its accomplishments and its importance to the United States as a friend and ally were largely overlooked and reduced to occasional tongue-lashings regrading Timor Timur. I made changing that situation a top priority of my chairmanship. And my job was made a lot easier by Ambassador Masters. The United States-Indonesia Society has greatly shaped, increased awareness and knowledge and provided support to those of us in the United States, including both houses of Congress, the administration and the government, the press, NGO community, academia and the population at large on the importance of Indonesia to the United States. Over the last two years this Society has become even more essential in helping the United States to understand the complex dynamics involved in moving from an authoritarian regime to the third largest democracy in the world. I understand why Ambassador Masters has decided to step down as President; he has earned the respite. But those of us concerned with the U.S.-Indonesia relationship will surely miss him and his steady hand at the tiller. I can only profoundly thank him for his many years of public service to the United States, and to his life-long commitment to improving relations between the United States and Indonesia. As the Indonesians would say, ``Terima kasih banyak.''

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes before those who have time reserved come to the floor.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have been in some meetings this morning. Of course, we do not have any more committee hearings going on because the other side has objected to that. I haven't listened to everything, but I heard enough to hear my friends on the other side of the aisle complaining about not moving forward. So I just believe it is really important to talk a little bit about the whole idea of what has been going on here now for several months, where we have been seeking to make some reforms and seeking to move forward, moving a number of bills, and finding nothing but roadblocks from the other side of the aisle. It is almost hilarious to hear that kind of conversation when the facts are that we have had nothing but roadblocks coming from the other side of the aisle. And it is too bad. We are down to where we don't have a great deal of time, and the notion that we continue to bring up the same topics, over and over and over again, simply because these folks want to make it an issue as opposed to a solution, frankly, gets pretty redundant and tiresome. Let me just mention a few of the things specifically that have been troublesome. S. 2045, amending the Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to H-1B nonimmigrant aliens: Senator Lott offered, on the 15th of September, a UC for both sides to bring the bill to the floor; objected to by Democrats. S. 2497, the McCain-Lieberman bill dealing with the entertainment industry's marketing of inappropriate R-rated videos: In response to the FTC report, Senator Santorum offered a UC to bring it to the floor. The other side objected. Four district judges in Illinois and Arizona: Asked to be brought to the floor; the minority leader objected. S. 2507, the intelligence authorization: We tried to bring that to the floor and get a UC; no response from the minority leader. H.R. 1776, the housing construction bill, with 32 cosponsors, including a dozen Democrats: The leader requested UC to go to conference; objected to by that side of the aisle. H.R. 3615, the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, a satellite bill so we can have local-to-local broadcasting in rural areas: The leader asked for a UC to go to conference; objected to by the Democrats on that side of the aisle. The Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Act, which the President and the other side of the aisle, along with Vice President Gore, claim they support: The leader asked for a UC September 7 to call it up. It was the sixth time in the 106th Congress that the Democrats have blocked the lockbox from coming up. It takes a lot of nerve to get up and talk about not moving forward when these are the kinds of things that have actually taken place. S. 2, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: We spent 2 weeks of floor time this spring and summer--2 weeks--debating and voting on amendments. The other side of the aisle has blocked two UCs--including 20 additional amendments--which have kept us from finishing this measure. It is really almost laughable to talk about that. What we need to do is to move forward. What we need to do is get these bills out, have our disagreements, vote on them, and get the job done that we are here to do. We tried to do that yesterday; we couldn't get it done. Let me share with you another batch of information. So far in the 106th Congress well over half the votes cast on amendments are initiatives from the other side of the aisle; that is, 231 out of 403 rollcall votes. Many of these votes are repetitive votes on their favorite agenda items which are out there more to create an issue than they are to create a solution. And they say they don't have a voice. Further, they have continued to block action on important issues for Americans, including education reform, meaningful tax relief, protecting Social Security, Medicare. We have pushed for effective reforms. That side of the aisle has continued to throw up roadblocks. We are continuing to look to the future and getting these items accomplished. Unfortunately, our friends continue with the roadblocks. Total rollcall votes during the 106th Congress, through September 11, 611; rollcall votes on amendments, 403. Those asked for on Democrat- sponsored amendments, 231; Republican-sponsored amendments, 172. Votes on the Democrat agenda: Votes to raise taxes or to reduce tax relief, 55; votes to increase Federal education spending, 35; Federal funds to hire new teachers as opposed to having local decisions, 9; Federal funds for school construction as opposed to letting people decide for themselves, 5; Federal funds for afterschool, 6; votes to further regulate gun owners, 13. Now, that is an issue that people disagree on, but how many times can we continue to bring it up? How many times can we have votes on it? How many times can it be used to slow down the progress toward getting our job done? Minimum wage package, 5; the minimum wage package is in a bill they have held up. This idea of our friends on the other side getting up and talking about things not happening here is ludicrous, absolutely ludicrous, in terms of the kinds of issues that have been put up over there as roadblocks. It is time for us to get on with it. Let's take a look at what we have before us. Let's have our debate; Let's have our exchange; and let's vote and move forward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding provisions of rule XXII, that immediately following the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the H-1B legislation, the Senate proceed to the conference report to accompany H.R. 4516, the legislative branch appropriations bill. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 hours for debate equally divided between the two managers, with an additional hour under the control of Senator McCain, 1 hour under the control of Senator Thomas, and 90 minutes under the control of Senator Kennedy. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or debate. I add, provided that 30 minutes of the Democrat manager's time be under the control of Senator Wellstone.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of minutes to talk a little bit about where we are, where we are going, and what we face this week and the few remaining weeks we have before us. There will be some more Senators to come over to the floor shortly to talk about some of the issues we have before us, particularly debt reduction, which we are committed to undertake this week, and I think is one of the most important things we can do. We will be talking, of course, about many of the things that are left to discuss. We have done a number of things in this Congress, of course, and we have a number of things yet to do, particularly appropriations. Those appropriations need to be finished by the end of the fiscal year which is the end of September. So we have a very short time to handle these things. We have worked at it for a good long time. We seem to have had a repetition of obstructions to moving forward. I hope we are now in a position to go ahead and fund those programs that have been authorized, that are out there for the American people, and that we do not find ourselves using this time to begin to insert into these bills all kinds of things that have already been discussed and that are intended more to create an issue than they are to find a solution. There have been, of course, a number of very important things done this year; we need to recognize that. I guess people have different ideas about how many things and what kinds of things. There is a great difference in the view of the direction this Government should take and what is the role of the Federal Government, whether the Government ought to tells us what to do or whether, in fact, the Government's role is to establish a framework in which we make our own decisions at the local level, as opposed to being dictated to by the Washington bureaucracy. These are some of the big issues. We passed the marriage tax relief bill here in the Congress. That would have been largely a resolution to an issue of fairness, where two single persons, each earning X amount of dollars and paying X in taxes, when they get married, making the same dollars, pay a larger amount of taxes. Unfair? Of course. Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed by the President, so we will have to take it up at another time. I do not think it will be taken up this year. Obviously, the White House is determined they will not permit tax relief of this kind. We passed the elimination of the death tax. That is very important. Some indicated it was only for the very wealthy. Of course that is not true. We have very many people in my State of Wyoming in the agriculture business, small businesses, families that have put together--sometimes over generations--a business. That business then has to be disposed of because they have to pay 52 percent taxes. That, of course, was also vetoed by the President. We did get some tax relief. Very important was elimination of the Social Security earnings test, which eliminates the tax on earnings by seniors 65 to 69. Previous to that, seniors in that category lost a dollar in Social Security benefits for every $3 earned. Again, I think it is largely a fairness proposition and we are pleased that did happen. The digital signatures bill, of course, is very important as we move into a new era in the business activities of our Nation. The digital signatures bill makes it easy for people to have legal protection in contracts of that kind. On national security, the Iran Nonproliferation Act was very important for free trade. It dealt with free trade in the sub Sahara, Africa, and the Caribbean. It is important those things continue to be done. I come from a State where agriculture is very important. Nearly 40 percent of our agricultural products are sold for export. We find ourselves dealing with unilateral sanctions, which often limit what we can sell to those people. Then they go somewhere else for it. We made some progress in that area, certainly. I hope we will make some more. We have done a good deal of work on affordable education; education savings accounts. We made available $500-$2,000 in tax relief for education. We need to get that forwarded. Also, with health care, we passed a Patients' Bill of Rights that says you can appeal, but the first appeal goes to a medical professional and not to lawyers. I think that is the better way to go. The opposition, of course, has seen to it that it ultimately not pass, but it has passed here. We passed bankruptcy reform which provided that if persons were able to repay at least a portion of their debt, that was an appropriate thing to do. So we have made a substantial amount of progress. We have, I think, many issues we need to discuss that are terribly important. This is a place for decisions on the direction we take, which is what elections are about, and the direction that you and I as voters and as citizens believe the country ought to move. There are legitimate differences. That is really what we deal with. Unfortunately, many times we do not get down to what those real differences are but get tied up in other things. On education, for example, I do not think there is a Senator in this place who doesn't believe education is one of the most important issues before us. Almost everyone in the country thinks that. The question is not that. The question is, What kind of educational support do we expect from the Federal Government? The amount the Government contributes from the Federal level is about 7 percent, but it is substantial. It deals with certain things such as special education. The real issue has not been that. The real issue is whether the Federal bureaucracy should tell the school districts what they ought to do with that Federal money or whether, indeed, we send it there and say they may have unique problems and need to spend their money for different things. The needs in Pinedale, WY, are different than they are in Pittsburgh, PA. We believe that. That has been the difference. I think it is a fundamental difference in government. Social Security--no one would object to the notion we ought to strengthen Social Security. I think everyone would agree with the idea we want Social Security dollars to be safely entrenched. But there are some differences as to how we do that. There is a proposition on the floor that I support--I think it is excellent--that would give a choice to younger people. People over 55 or whatever probably would stay the same, but younger people would have an opportunity to invest or have invested in their behalf a portion of those Social Security dollars in the private sector, in equities. They could choose whether it be in stocks or whether it be in bonds or whether it be in combination. The point being, if we do not do something about Social Security by the time young people who are now beginning to pay in become eligible for benefits, there will not be any, the demographics have changed so much. We started out with over 20 people working for every 1 drawing benefits. Now we have 3 people working for every 1 who draws benefits; it will soon be 2. We have to do something different than what we have been doing in the past. Obviously, you can raise taxes if you choose. That is not a popular idea. You can lower benefits, again not a popular idea. A third alternative is you can increase the return on those dollars that you have paid in and are in the trust account, and that is the difference. There is not agreement on that so we have to choose which way we want to go. I mentioned the Patients' Bill of Rights. Do you want someone in the medical community making a decision instead of your insurance company or do you want to go to court? You get to court, of course, long after the medical decision should have been made. We ought to be doing something to pay down the debt. We talk about paying down the debt, but we do not seem to do much on that. There is a proposition that I think is great, and that is to set aside, as one would with a house mortgage, money and say we are going to pay down so much of this $5 trillion every year and it becomes part of the budget. It makes a lot of sense to me. We find opposition to that because people want to spend the money, and if there is a surplus, they think Government ought to grow and get into many other areas. That is a philosophical difference of opinion. Tax reduction is much the same. When we have a surplus, it seems to me if after having funded the programs that have been authorized, after having done something to strengthen Medicare and having done something to begin to pay down the debt and strengthen Social Security, there is still surplus left, let that go. If we leave it here, it will be spent. It ought to go back to the people who paid in those dollars. Again, it is a different view than those who generally on the other side of the aisle want more Government, more expenditures, and do not agree with that idea. Those are legitimate differences. We have to make a decision, and we have to move forward. We haven't much time to do many of those things. Some of the questions before us are more parochial, more applicable to different parts of the country. I come from a State where 50 percent of the land belongs to the Federal Government, so the management of Federal lands and Federal resources have a great impact on our lives and on our economy. Everyone wants to preserve our resources. They want to take care of the natural resources. Certainly I do. I am chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. There is nothing I care more about than preserving those resources. At the same time, if we are going to do that, we need to have an opportunity for the owners to have access and to enjoy these resources. We also need to have multiple use so we can have hunting, hiking, grazing, and mineral production. Those are the kinds of issues with which we need to deal. The question is, How deeply do we want the Federal Government involved in making all the decisions in our lives? It is a legitimate difference. We are ready to move forward now. Out of 13 appropriations bills, we have completed 2. We have 11 to go. We will be putting together probably one or two bills at a time. I hope we do not come to the end with a huge omnibus package. That is not good governance. I hope we can avoid that. If, for example, we are considering the Interior appropriations bill, I hope we can get away from talking about the Patients' Bill of Rights or minimum wage. Those issues are great issues. We have already dealt with them. We have already voted on them. I think simply to bring them up as a blockage to moving forward with what we have to do is a mistake in governance. I hope we do not do that. I expect the chairman of the Budget Committee to come to the floor shortly and talk a little more about the budget, about the surplus, about the prospects of what we are going to do with those dollars; whether we can, indeed, take 90 percent of this surplus and put it into debt reduction and still have about $27 billion or $28 billion to deal with those issues that need to be strengthened, such as Medicare and Social Security. We have an opportunity to do those things. I am hopeful that each of us as citizens and voters of this country will take a look at how we see the future role of the Federal Government. We need to deal, obviously, with the military. Defense continues to be a most important item. Most people will agree we have not financially supported the military to the extent it needs to be supported for them to carry out the mission we have assigned. We have made some progress. We have put more money into the military over the last several years, more than the administration has asked for, in fact. We need to continue to do that so we can have a safe United States. I hope we can move forward. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss a little bit of my view of where we ought to go. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect two crown jewels of the National Park Service, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Specifically, the ``Yellowstone and Teton Scenic Overflight Exclusion Act of 2000'' would prohibit all scenic flights--both fixed wing and helicopter--over these two parks. A recent proposal for scenic helicopter tours near Grand Teton Park has many in this area of Wyoming concerned about the tranquility of Yellowstone and Teton parks. In fact, the proposal has evoked strong opposition by citizens in the area and over 4,500 people have signed a petition in support of banning these tours. We need to protect the resources and values of these parks in the interest of all who visit and enjoy these national treasures--today and for future generations. Every visitor should have the opportunity to enjoy the tranquil sounds of nature unimpaired in these parks. I don't take the idea of legislation lightly. I am aware that the recently passed National Parks Air Tour management Act provides a process that attempts to address scenic overflight operations. But this area of the country is unique and therefore requires quick and decisive action. For example, the proposed commercial air tour operations originate from the Jackson Hole Airport, the only airport in the continental United States that is entirely within a national park. Consequently, every time a commercial air tour operation takes off or lands, it is flying through Grand Teton National Park. Further, commercial air tour operations by their nature fly passengers purposefully over the parks, at low altitudes, at frequent intervals and often to the very locations and attractions favored by ground-based visitors. These threats to the enjoyment of these two parks require banning commercial air tour operations in the area. It is my hope that this legislation can be enacted quickly to ensure the preservation of natural quiet and provide the assurance that visitors can enjoy the sounds of nature at Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect two crown jewels of the National Park Service, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Specifically, the ``Yellowstone and Teton Scenic Overflight Exclusion Act of 2000'' would prohibit all scenic flights--both fixed wing and helicopter--over these two parks. A recent proposal for scenic helicopter tours near Grand Teton Park has many in this area of Wyoming concerned about the tranquility of Yellowstone and Teton parks. In fact, the proposal has evoked strong opposition by citizens in the area and over 4,500 people have signed a petition in support of banning these tours. We need to protect the resources and values of these parks in the interest of all who visit and enjoy these national treasures--today and for future generations. Every visitor should have the opportunity to enjoy the tranquil sounds of nature unimpaired in these parks. I don't take the idea of legislation lightly. I am aware that the recently passed National Parks Air Tour management Act provides a process that attempts to address scenic overflight operations. But this area of the country is unique and therefore requires quick and decisive action. For example, the proposed commercial air tour operations originate from the Jackson Hole Airport, the only airport in the continental United States that is entirely within a national park. Consequently, every time a commercial air tour operation takes off or lands, it is flying through Grand Teton National Park. Further, commercial air tour operations by their nature fly passengers purposefully over the parks, at low altitudes, at frequent intervals and often to the very locations and attractions favored by ground-based visitors. These threats to the enjoyment of these two parks require banning commercial air tour operations in the area. It is my hope that this legislation can be enacted quickly to ensure the preservation of natural quiet and provide the assurance that visitors can enjoy the sounds of nature at Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks.

Mr. THOMAS

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

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I asked for morning business because I am not sure where we are focused, but I want to continue to talk about PNTR, a topic that I hope we are able to conclude shortly. Certainly one of the most important issues we have before us is the issue and the way I come to the conclusion. We all talk about the problems that exist. Obviously, there are problems that exist. I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs that has dealt over a number of years with the issue of China. I don't think there is a soul here who wouldn't wish things were different there with respect to human rights, some of the issues with respect to proliferation, some of the issues with respect to freedom, and market system changes. I don't think that is the issue. The issue is how we best bring about that change. That is really what it is all about. Do we do it through threats to the PRC? Do we do it with sanctions? I think people have learned quite a bit in seeking to deal with Cuba with sanctions. It has had very little impact and very little effect. I happened to be in Beijing where we were having the great debate over some of the things that were controversial. They canceled a large order with Boeing. What did they do? They bought Airbuses from France. Sanctions don't work. I happen to come from a State where we are very interested in agriculture. So we need to do that. Someone suggested during the course of the discussion over the last couple of days that this bill, if it passed, to grant permanent trade relations would be, in a word, ``rewarding'' China. I don't agree with that. The fact is, we would be rewarding ourselves with regard to trade. The opening has already been given to China. We are the ones to whom they have agreed, if this happens, to lower tariffs on a number of our things that go there. It really doesn't change the situation much with regard to China. It gives us a better opportunity to do that. We also argue about how we implement these changes. Are we more likely to bring about changes if we are part of a multilateral group such as the WTO or are we more likely to do it with the unilateral kinds of things for ourselves? I happen to believe we would be better off to have an organizational structure such as the WTO to go through to talk about some of the things we think are not being done properly. Does that mean we don't continue to monitor things such as human rights, that we don't continue to monitor things such as weapons proliferation? Of course not. The question really is, Do we go ahead with this bill as it is and at the same time go ahead and monitor the other things as well? I am opposed to the Thompson amendment, which is an amendment to the bill to establish normal trade relations. First of all, as I mentioned, I am chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over some of these issues. Neither the Foreign Relations Committee nor the Banking Committee has been afforded the opportunity to consider and debate this issue before it was brought to the floor. That is not the customary way to deal with issues that are as far reaching as this one. To bring it to the floor without going through the committees and giving the committees of jurisdiction the opportunity to consider it--the Banking Committee, as you know, which has jurisdiction over a portion of these kinds of arrangements, is very upset about this process. We, of course, argue that under the time constraints it is most difficult. The House passed a bill to open normal trading relations. By the way, the Senate has done it every year for normal trading relationships. This is really a departure from what has been done. But certainly, if we amend it at this time in this session, we will have a difficult time getting it completed. My first problem is jurisdictional, of course. It was introduced by Senator Thompson. We had plenty of time and could have done it in May. It could have gone through those committees. But it didn't go to either committee. Certainly the kinds of changes that would be made there would apply. We ought to have that kind of process and not limit the process entirely. The House, of course, has passed this bill by a large majority, and we need to move forward with it. Aside from the jurisdictional concerns, I have a fairly large number of substitute concerns regarding issues of proliferation, and particularly the problem of transfers to Pakistan. I don't believe this amendment will do anything to change the situation. Instead, it would turn us to the discredited, failed strategy of mandatory unilateral sanctions and annual votes on the status of China trade. We have already talked a great deal, of course, about the passage of an amendment and the impact it would have on the relationship. I want to stress again that trying to work with China on some of those things does not make us oblivious to the things on which we disagree with them. Surely, human rights we are going to continue to champion. Again, we have to consider how to best have an influence on bringing about change--change that has not occurred as completely as I would like. I can tell you from my experience that there is change. The more visibility the people of China have to the outside world--the fact of market systems, the fact that personal freedoms provide a much better way of life, it is becoming more and more evident. For years, of course, they have not had any opportunity to see what is going on in the world. For example, things have changed substantially in China. Now they see it. It is important to encourage changes that need to take place. Of course, with respect to another statute that does something about proliferation, we already have numerous statutes available to the President. There is a long list, including the Export-Import Bank Act, the Arms Control Disarmament Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It goes on and on. They provide the very authority that is being talked about in some of these amendments. They are in place. Someone said it gives the President the opportunity to decide and be flexible about it. Then the author--in this case, the Senator from Tennessee--assures Members that this also has a waiver and it gives the President the opportunity to change. We have very little reason to have more legislation in this area. Finally, I vote against this amendment for the same reason I voted against all the amendments that preceded it. I am, along with the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, and many others, opposed to adding amendments that will, indeed, have the effect of delaying or killing the PNTR bill. Most any amendments would have that effect. I believe most of the Members of this body also believe that because each of the amendments that have been offered have not survived and have lost by a rather substantial vote. I hope we continue to do that. It is pretty unrealistic while we are trying to complete the work of this Congress to think we can spend another week going back and forth in conference with the House and get this done. I know there are justifiable differences of view. That is what this system is all about. We ought to talk about those. It is my view we have talked about them and there ought to be an end game so we can move on. We keep talking about the things we have to do, including 11 appropriations bills out of 13 that have not yet been passed. Several have not even been marked up. We have less than 3 weeks, 14 days, to work on these. We know very well that the President is going to create some obstacles to the completion of our work so he can have more leverage to get the kinds of spending he wants and put the pressure on the majority party in the Congress. All these things are real and realistic and not unusual. I think we need to understand where we are. I think we need to take a look at the job we do have to do so the American people can continue to be served by those programs that are in the appropriations, that we continue to strengthen education, so we can do something about fairness and tax relief, so that we can move forward in moving some of this money to lower the debt. We ought to continue to work in seeking to get some of the pay back for strengthening Medicare so some of those reductions that have been made can be replaced so we have services in the country. I have particular interest in that as cochairman of the rural caucus for health care. Some of the small hospitals and small clinics need it to happen. We need to move forward and not spend 2 weeks on a repetitious review of the same issues. There comes a time we should move forward. Therefore, I strongly urge we do move forward and that we do not amend the bill before the Senate. Conclude it and send it to a satisfactory signing at the White House and move forward on the issues facing the Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take a couple of moments. I already mentioned my concerns about the Thompson amendment, but I have to say it is interesting that the Senator is curious as to why there are objections to this amendment. He ought to recall that the Senate has already rejected three or four amendments for the same reason, and that is, we want to send a clean bill to the President. The idea that his is being rejected because of certain things is just not the case. There is a notion here that this bill ought to be sent, right or wrong. I happen to think that he is exactly right. There is also the implication that if you do not agree with this amendment, you do not care about these things. That is not true, either. We do separate things. There are seven or eight bills now in place. The Senator says we are not going to tie the President's hands and then on the other hand says this is going to force the President to do something. We need to get it clear. I wanted to make the point that there is no evidence that people do not care about these things. They do, indeed. There is a belief that these issues ought to be separated and we ought to deal with PNTR and then deal with the other issue. We should not think this is going to cause the President to do a number of things when we already have in place at least seven laws that are not being adhered to. Those are the things on which I wanted to be clear. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an intern, Leslie Smith be granted the privilege of the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Steven Theriault be granted the privilege of the floor during the debate on H.R. 4444.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Reserving the right to object, it was my understanding there was agreement that Senator Kyl would be the next speaker.

Mr. THOMAS. I will not object.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that now, following the conclusion of the statement by Senator Kyl, the following Senators be recognized: Senator Kerry, Senator Inhofe, Senator Graham of Florida, and Senator Smith of New Hampshire, in that order.

Mr. THOMAS. How much time?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. What is the order of business?

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I will proceed with PNTR on that basis. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4444, a bill to establish permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China. Let me begin today by disposing of the principle argument offered by opponents of this bill--that this bill somehow is a ``gift'' to the PRC, a reward. To hear the opponents of this bill talk, you would think that we were on the losing end of this equation. However, examining the basic facts shows there is a fatal flaw in that assertion. Our markets are already open to the Chinese and to Chinese goods; the same is not true about our ability to enter China's markets. This bill, and the accompanying accession of China to the WTO, changes that. This bill opens up their markets to the United States. This bill lowers tariff and nontariff barriers to our goods and services. This bill gives us a level playing field. In other words, it is a win-win situation for the United States. It is estimated that in the first year after this bill is enacted, and China accedes to the WTO, our trade with China will increase by $14 billion; in other words, almost double today's volume. And that translates into more jobs for U.S. workers and U.S. companies. To use my home State of Wyoming, as an example, which is not a large export State, China ranked as Wyoming's 15th largest export destination in 1999; that is up from 16th in 1998 and 19th in 1997. Our largest exports are agricultural products, such as beef, grains, and, in addition to that, minerals. Under this agreement, Wyoming farmers and cattlemen will no longer have to compete with export subsidies China uses to make its agricultural products unfairly competitive. China has agreed to eliminate sanitary requirements which are not based on sound scientific bases and which act as artificial barriers to products from America's Northwest, which includes Wyoming. Wyoming producers will benefit from a broadening of the right to import and distribute imported products in China, and from wide tariff cuts on a wide range of products. To illustrate, under the agreement, China has cut its tariff on beef from 45 percent to 12 percent. It has cut its tariff on pork from 20 percent to 12 percent. And, significantly for a great number of my constituents in Sweetwater County, it will reduce its exorbitant tariffs on soda ash--90 percent of which is mined in Wyoming--from double-digits to 5.5 percent. Passage of this bill means fewer barriers to U.S. exports. Fewer barriers mean more exports, and more exports mean more jobs for Wyoming farmers, ranchers, cattlemen and small business owners. I don't need to tell my colleagues about the present sorry economic state of many of our agricultural sectors and small businesses. The key to their continuing viability and growth is increasing their share of foreign markets. It is for that principal reason that I support this bill and for China to go into the WTO. Clearly, it is going to be more advantageous for us to deal with the People's Republic of China through this organization than on a unilateral basis which we have done for the last number of years. By the way, this same trade arrangement has been available to them on an annual basis. Let me make one more observation before moving on. Defeating the bill will not keep the PRC out of the WTO. China will accede to that body regardless of what we do this week, regardless of whether or not we want it. We don't have a veto over their admission, and we make it sound as if that is the case from time to time. What defeating this bill will do, however, will be to deny us the benefits of an open Chinese market, at least a more open Chinese market. It would allow China to keep its doors closed. It would give our allies and competitors a huge advantage over us. I was there a while back, when we had a feud going on between the United States and China. They canceled large orders from Boeing and bought airbuses from France. That is the way the world has become. They can do that. It would set in stone our present trade regime where 40- percent tariffs are the norm, not the exception. That is what would happen if we don't pass this bill. These are not the only bases for my support. Unlike some of my colleagues, I believe China is changing for the better and that admitting them to the WTO will, hopefully, speed that process. One has only to compare the China of 1978--the China of the Cultural Revolution, of Mao suits, and Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong theory--with the China of 2000, the China of the economic revolution, to see that changes are indeed both substantial and widespread. This is not to say that everything is great there. That is not really part of the discussion. Of course, there are a number of things that need to be done. The country continues to have an abysmal human rights record, to stifle political dissent, to subjugate Tibetans, to stridently attempt to cow Taiwan into submission. All these things continue to go on. No one likes that, but that is not really the issue. The issue is how can we best bring about change. There is no argument in this Senate as to whether China needs to change. We all agree it does. I believe the real issue is how do we effectuate that change. Do we do it by continuing to attempt to isolate China, as some Members would have us do, by pushing them away from us, or do we accomplish the task by seeking to engage China, by drawing it further into the community of nations, by giving its people an opportunity to see how others live in the world and then become impatient to make that transformation for themselves? We can see that happening in a number of places around the world. Is it too slow? Sure. Isolating China off by itself is to some a feel-good position, a solution for some people. Improve your human rights record or we will cut off trade. Stop threatening Taiwan or we will cut off military exchanges. Stop selling military hardware to other countries or we will cut off high-tech transfers. Do we want a policy that makes us feel good or do we want something that works? I don't believe you can unilaterally isolate a country such as China. Cut off trade and the European Union is more than happy to step in, sell China Airbuses, as I mentioned, in place of our Boeings. Cut off military-to-military exchanges and we lose the opportunity to impress the PLA with the vast superiority of our military while improving increasing mutual distrust among our two militaries. Cut off high-tech transfers and Beijing simply gets it somewhere else. Add that to the fact that foreign governments rarely react kindly to ultimatums from other governments--take, for example, how we in the U.S. would react to another country if they told us how to manage our affairs--and I believe the unworkability of the ``isolationist solution'' becomes self-apparent. Instead, I believe the best way to influence China is to engage it, to draw it inextricably into the world community, to expose it to the world of ideas. In 1995, on my first trip to China as subcommittee chairman the difference that contacts and trade with the West made in the PRC were clearly evident. I have not traveled there over the years as many people have, but just in the last few years there has been great change. Perfect? Absolutely not. More change is needed, of course. In Beijing, the vast majority of the population was still riding bicycles. There were, 5 years ago, very few private cars, and political questions, especially in Taiwan, and the party line were the sole topic of discussion. In Shanghai, bicycles were replaced by mopeds and more private cars. While Taiwan and ``one China'' were still topics of discussion, individuals I met there were more interested in talking about trade, what they could do to facilitate economic change and growth. In Guangzhou, there were fewer bicycles or mopeds to be seen. Private cars, including BMW and Mercedes Benz, appeared to be the norm. Politics wasn't talked about a great deal. The lesson was quite clear. The establishment of the rudiments of a market economy coupled with trade with the outside world leads to increased personal wealth and to increased personal entrepreneurship. That in turn leads to an increased interest in and expectation of growth and certain basic personal freedoms. We have seen that same development in Taiwan and South Korea where authoritarian governments have been replaced by thriving democracies over the last 20 years. The same hopefully will happen with China. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back. The march toward an open democratic society will happen. The only question is how long it will take. I am told by experts that in Asia it probably takes a generational change before some of those things happen. I am sure that is true. I believe, however, that we do speed its pace by passing this legislation. I also believe that Chinese accession will remove a major irritant in our relationship. Whenever we have a disagreement with China over trade relations, be it intellectual property or market access or whatever, our reaction is to apply some unilateral sanctions on China, sanctions which only serve eventually to limit the rest of our relationship and our exports to that country. It is ineffective here and it has been ineffective other places. We have removed a number of those sanctions this year. By bringing China into the WTO, we turn trade disputes from unilateral into multilateral issues. We transform the dispute from ``I said/he said'' to one mediated by an independent international body. We thereby lessen the irritation of bilateral affairs while at the same time increasing the likelihood that China will find a remedy to the problem. For all those reasons, I support H.R. 4444. Before I close, let me add a word or two about possible amendments which may be offered for consideration. Regardless of their relative merit, I, as Senator Roth, chairman of the Finance Committee, and many others am strongly opposed to adding any amendments to the China PNTR bill. Any amendment will only have the effect of killing it for this year, since amending would require it to be sent back to the conference committee. Once in conference, it is unlikely the bill would emerge before we adjourn sine die. We only have some 20 legislative days remaining in this session and a full plate of domestic appropriations and legislation with which to deal. It would be a herculean task under any circumstances, but this year makes it more difficult because, of course, some on the other side of the aisle are doing everything they can to stall the process. We hope that won't continue to happen. There is not, realistically, enough time for a conference and to pass it back through both Houses. It is clear the House fully supports the present unamended version. It passed by a vote of 237-197. So does a vast majority of the members of the Senate Finance and Foreign Relations Committees, and so do I. Mr. President, despite all the hyperbole about passage of H.R. 4444, it does not mean we are selling out to the Chinese, that we are telling them it is all right to proliferate, to abuse human rights, or to threaten Taiwan. It means we expect them to play by the same rules we do; we expect them to be a responsible member of the world community, and we expect to be able to reap the same benefits they do from an ever-expanding global economy. No more, no less. The bill is good for the United States, good for U.S. companies, good for U.S. workers, and good for the U.S. consumers. In the final analysis, this is good for China because it will undoubtedly bring about the kind of changes that many would like to see in that country, including many Chinese. Many Chinese would like to see democratization, rule of law, and respect for basic fundamental human rights. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 4444.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2749, a bill to establish the California Trail Interpretive Center in Elko, Nevada, to facilitate the interpretation of the history of development and use of trails in the settling of the western portion of the United States; S. 2885, a bill to establish the Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission, and for other purposes; S. 2950, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the interior to establish the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site in the State of Colorado; S. 2959, a bill to amend the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992, and for other purposes; and S. 3000, a bill to authorize the exchange of land between the Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the George Washington Memorial Parkway in McLean, Virginia and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Clark of the Committee staff at (202) 224-6969.