Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which revises an outdated and constricting statute for the number of federal sodium leases which can be held by any single producer within a state. This limitation is damaging the economic viability of an environmental responsible and critical mining industry for our country. The soda ash industry has been operating under the present acreage limitation for five decades. This cap for lease holdings is the oldest acreage limitation under the Mineral Leasing Act. In fact, sodium is the only mineral subject to the Act which has not had an increase since the law was amended in 1948. It is out of date with the competitive and technological advances in the industry and needs to be changed as we move into the next century. Specifically this legislation provides the Secretary of the Interior with discretion to increase the federally held acreage of individual sodium producers; the same additional discretionary authority he has had for some time for other mineral categories affected by this law. It would increase the current limitation from 15,360 acres per producer, to 30,720 acres. The Mineral Leasing Act set forth these limits to ensure that no single entity can control too much of any single mineral reserve. This remains an important objective. A lease limitation ensures that there is sufficient competition, while providing an incentive for development of these reserves and ensures a reasonable rate of return to the Federal Treasury. My bill is consistent with these objectives and seeks only to conform the present limitation to current economic and international conditions. Indeed I am pleased that this bill has the full support of the Wyoming Mining Association, including smaller sodium lease holders, who have traditionally been concerned increasing acreage. Mr President, I offer this bill after carefully reviewing the need for it in light of current conditions affecting the soda ash industry in my state. In my examination, I have been reminded that U.S. soda ash producers, four (of five) of which are in our state, are extremely competitive with one another for a relatively flat domestic market. And, they are also faced with stiff international competition. I believe this legislation is necessary to sustain the global competitiveness of the U.S. soda ash industry. Since our state is blessed with the largest known deposits of trona in the world, I am proud to say that the United States sodium industry is also the world's low cost supplier of soda ash. U.S. produced soda ash, critical to glass manufacture, is accountable for a $400 million positive contribution to our balance of trade. Today, the U.S. soda ash industry comprises five active producers--four in my home state--generating some 12 million tons of soda ash per year, or approximately a third of the world's demand. But I have learned we cannot take these producers for granted. Like so many other industries basic to our economy such as steel, paper, aluminum, copper, and so on, the soda ash mines must take the measures necessary to stay competitive. I know, as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, that many countries have make it difficult to export U.S. soda ash. They have erected tariff and non-tariff barriers to support their own less efficient domestic producers. For this season, U.S. producers have formed the American Natural Soda Ash Corporation (ANSAC), in recognition that the growth of U.S. soda ash is dependent on its ability to effectively export. ANSAC is the sole authorized exporter of soda ash and is wholly owned by the six U.S. sodium producers. It accounts for the employment of some 20,000 people in the U.S. and exports more than $400 million in soda ash to 45 different countries. This is but one example of how our domestic industry has taken the steps necessary to compete effectively abroad. In addition, the producers in my state are making major investments in moderizing their facilities and sustaining the level of capital investment necessary to continue to be competitive both at home and abroad. The start-up cost for a new soda ash operation is estimated to be at least $350 million, and to develop a world class mine, $150 million. This is largely due to the fact that soda ash is mined underground and thus requires a sophisticated processing plant to turn raw ore into the finished products. This is simply the reality of what is required to stay competitive. At this cost a new entrant, as well as existing producers, must have a predictable ``mine plan.'' A primary component of such a plan is a predictable level of reserves that will last several decades. The legislation I am introducing today would help provide this predictability by giving the Secretary the discretion to raise lease limits on a case-by-case basis if the producer can show it is in need of additional reserves to maintain its operations. Producers need to know of mine expansion is possible in order to develop structural design plans which are safe, efficient and maximize the large economic outlays. This is the predictability that any manufacturer needs when contemplating a major capital investment. And in the end, it is the capital required, rather than the acreage available, the must be weighed by new entrants. I would like to note that despite consolidated in the Wyoming trona patch, there is an anticipated new entrant to the soda ash business in our neighboring state of Colorado. Moreover, in Wyoming, six other leaseholders have substantial holdings that could be translated into active production. This bill does not discourage their entry. In fact, by raising the current cap on acreage holdings, it creates an incentive for additional purchase by these holders, one of whom already exceeds the existing limitation. Raising the acreage limitation for trona is also consistent with good environmental and safety practices followed by this industry. Much of the currently mined out acreage is essential to proper ventilation of ongoing operations and therefore critical mine safety. In addition, the mechanically mined out sections are also available for proper tailings disposal, thus avoiding environmental degradation elsewhere. This is a practice encouraged by our Wyoming State Department of Environmental Quality. In summary, Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today provides critical changes in existing statutes in order to sustain the economic viability of an environmental responsible and critical mining industry in our country. The current sodium lease limitation is approximately one-third of the per state Federal lease cap for coal potassium, and one-sixteenth the lease acreage cap for oil and gas. After passing the Mineral Leasing Act in 1948, Congress and the Bureau of Land Management have revised acreage limits for other minerals to meet the needs of these industries consistent with good mining and environmental practices. In light of the conditions I have described, I believe it is time we recognize the need to update the lease limitation for the trona industry as well. I thank you for the time and opportunity to discuss this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for the work that has been done on both sides. I know this is a very difficult issue, one about which Members have very different ideas concerning resolution. I do appreciate the work that has been done. Certainly, one of the things that has occurred and has an impact on what we are talking about today has been the difficult times we are having in agriculture. In my State of Wyoming, we have basically three areas of economic activity. This is one of the three; minerals is the other. Both have not been good lately. Fortunately, there are some signs of improvement, particularly in the livestock area, which is of course the most important part of Wyoming's agriculture. I come to the floor to talk about what we need to do in the long run. We are talking in this bill about a great deal of fairly short-term remedies. I don't argue with those particularly. I guess maybe we have spent a little more money than we should, used the emergency technique for some things that probably are not bona fide emergencies. On the other hand, we have a great deal to do in our community in agriculture and all that needs to be done. No one doubts the urgency of providing the short-term relief, whether it be from emergencies in weather, from emergencies in markets, or whether it be other kinds. But the fact is that this, in my view, is not the long-term solution to the problems we have. Producers in Wyoming generally do not favor returning to the Government farm programs. I think they would much prefer the idea of being in the marketplace, producing for the marketplace, developing new markets. We had an agricultural seminar in our State recently, and those were the things that were talked about--that we do need to develop markets; we need overseas markets because we are great producers. We produce efficiently and at good prices. But in order to do that, we have to continue to develop markets. I think we have to, in addition, reduce the kinds of restrictions that prohibit the sort of production we choose. So we need to follow up, and I think many of the agricultural leaders in the Senate believe we have some things we have to do to make Freedom to Farm work. Those are the things we must do in following up to make that marketplace work. One of them, of course, is to reduce unfair trade barriers throughout the world. We have a great many of those, and probably the most pressing one is the European Union, where they have found various ways through tariff barriers, or nontariff barriers, to keep agricultural products in the country moving--beef, for example, which is important to me and others. We have a great opportunity, as we go forward with the WTO meetings in Seattle soon, to take to that meeting the kinds of things that are important to us. I happen to be involved as chairman of the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific rim. So I have been involved with some of the countries with which we deal to a great extent. Japan has a 40-percent tariff on American beef. This is not a realistic thing to do. If we are going to have trade organizations and trade treaties that are designed to level the playing field and be fair, those kinds of things should not happen. We have some opportunities in China, as a matter of fact, where they moved this summer to suggest they would take more wheat and also more beef. So we have some great opportunities to do that. We just this week had some hearings with respect to the NAFTA treaty with Canada. In this instance, we had some hearings before the International Trade Commission to seek enforcement of those trade agreements. So what I am saying, of course, is that these are the kinds of things, over the long term, that we have to do to cause American agriculture to produce for the market and to be able to produce from that market a reasonable price. We can do that. Unilateral sanctions. We have had a great deal of talk and discussion about unilateral sanctions. I think most people would agree that unilateral sanctions are not an effective tool for foreign policy. Basically, what we do is bar our own producers from selling in those particular places and gain no advantage from it. If there have to be sanctions, they certainly ought not to be unilateral. They should be through some kind of a trade organization. So that, coupled with enforcement, I believe, of trade agreements is something that agricultural people are very anxious about. Obviously, foreign trade is not the only remedy, but it is one of the major ones. It was unfortunate that at the time we were moving into the marketplace in agriculture, we had the currency crisis in Asia, a place where we have a potential for great markets. Of course, now, hopefully, the Asian market is strengthening and we will find we will be able to move back there again. As I mentioned, foreign trade is not the only remedy and not the only issue on which we ought to be working. I think we have to have some other innovative avenues to spur market competition. I think one of them that, again, was talked about at our seminar in Wyoming was producer-owned cooperatives that move on through to the retail marketing of these products. I think it is pretty clear, particularly in the case of beef--or at least it is very appropriate there--where you had a major reduction in the price received by producers but no reduction in the retail market, no reduction in the grocery store when you went there--so there is some sort of a problem in between. We think producer-owned cooperatives may be a way to do the processing and to ensure that, indeed, producers are given their fair share of the final product. Another is niche marketing. A great number of things are taking place on the Internet, where people are marketing products in specialties areas. I think we need to look at the concentration of packers, where there are only two or three packers that handle 80 to 85 percent of the livestock. I think there are some similarities in the grain industry, where very few buyers are available to go into the marketplace. So you have to ask the question, Is there, indeed, a competitive, fair marketplace? We have the Packers and Stockyard Act which is designed to do that. Over the years, we have appealed to the Justice Department a number of times to look at whether there was, indeed, a monopoly factor. They have said that, under the law, there is not. Not everybody agrees with that. Nevertheless, that has been the result. We are going to, I think sometime this week, introduce a proposition that would have to do with packers' ownership of livestock and see if we can do something about reducing the potential for monopolies so the market prices are there. In this bill, I think there is a market-price- revealing requirement that is very important. Financial solvency, of course, for agriculture is always difficult. Crop insurance. The Senator who is presiding at this time continues to do a great deal with crop insurance, and we need to do that--at least from the weather emergency standpoint. That is the kind of thing that needs to be in place to protect the investment of farmers. In the form of tax relief, we have tried to do some things to extend income averaging. As you can understand, because some years are good and some are not, there needs to be the ability to income average. There is interest in estate taxes. Most agricultural people have their estate in property, and they make very little profit often, but it accumulates toward their estate under the circumstances, and after they get beyond the exemption of 55 percent, that estate has to be paid in taxes. That is extremely difficult for agriculture. So we are going to be doing some things there. Regulatory relief is particularly important in States such as ours, where 50 percent of the land belongs to the Federal Government, where much of agricultural activity, particularly livestock, is carried on, on public lands. The restrictions sometimes are very difficult. So I am pleased we are going forward with this bill. As is the case with many, it probably isn't the way I would do it if I were in charge. But I am not in charge, nor is anyone else. So when you put it all together, it is difficult. I think the committee has done the best they could and has done a good job, but we need to focus on the long-term prosperity in agriculture, the family farm. We need to focus on continuing to keep U.S. producers competitive in the world market and, finally, opening those markets throughout the world for our agricultural products on a fair basis, so we are not kept out of those markets by nontariff barriers, and, in addition, of course, to develop domestically the things we do. So, again, I say to the chairman, the Senator from Mississippi, good job. He has worked very hard in doing this, and we are pleased that this bill will be sent to the White House. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, October 12, 1999, at 2:30 p.m., before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been rescheduled for Wednesday, October 13, 1999, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. For further information please contact Jim O'Toole or Cassie Sheldon of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator, who is very knowledgeable and, of course, is involved. I want to talk about an interesting thing that has to do with the last year Democrats were in charge of the majority--fiscal year 1993. I don't think it is an excuse, but I think it is interesting, given all the conversation we have had. These are the dates that the appropriations bills were passed in 1993: The foreign assistance bill was passed in the Senate on September 30 and approved on September 30; the legislative branch bill, of course, which has to do with operating the Congress, was passed early, August 6, and approved on August 11; Treasury-Postal was approved in the Senate October 26 and signed on October 28--this, of course, was the same fiscal year we are dealing with now--Energy and Water was passed on October 26, signed on October 27. This was the year the Democrats were in the majority. This is the kind of thing they are talking about today. Military construction was passed in the Senate on October 19, signed on October 21; VA-HUD, October 28, when it was approved; District of Columbia, October 29; Agriculture, October 21; Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, October 21; Commerce, Justice, and State, October 27; Interior, passed November 11 and signed; emergency supplementals, of course, were before that; Transportation, October 27; Defense, November 11; the continuing resolution, the first one, on September 30, and a further continuing resolution on October 29. This was 1993. The Democrats were in the majority. The idea of a continuing resolution is not a brand new idea. Mrs. LINCOLN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. The request is for 30 seconds?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on H.J. Res. 68.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments about where we are, what we are faced with this afternoon, and what we are faced with over the next few weeks. We have heard, of course, a great deal from my friends on the other side of the aisle, some of which is a little hard to understand, I believe, but nevertheless I guess legitimate conversation. We, of course, are prepared now to take a vote within the next hour, or less, on the idea of a continuing resolution. It is not a new idea. It is one that has been used a number of times. Would we all like to be through now? Of course we would. This matter of appropriations is a very difficult task. I must tell you at the outset, one of the bills I have had in since I have been in the Congress--I brought it with me from the legislature in Wyoming--says we ought to have a biennial budget. Instead of going through this every year, we ought to do it every 2 years: Budget 1 year, appropriations the other year, which would give us more opportunity to have the kind of oversight Congress is responsible to do, but we do not do that. We go through this each year. Unfortunately, the appropriations becomes kind of the direction for the Congress, which is wrong. It seems to me we ought to set our priorities, do that in the authorizing committees, and then we fund it. The process, of course, is to have a budget. The budget was passed this year on time. The budget is designed to break down the total revenue, the total amount we are willing to spend, break it down by various subcommittees within the appropriations, and those are the amount of dollars with which each has to work. So we have done that, of course. This is a pretty positive year in many ways. I certainly wish we were further along. I think everyone does for various reasons. I have a few ideas as to why we are not, I might say to my friends on the other side. But there are some positive things about which we ought to talk. How long has it been, I say to my friend, how long has it been since we have had a balanced budget? How long has it been since we have had income more than our expenditures? Has it been 25 years? Has it been 30 years? I think so. I think so. So this is kind of a positive thing about which we are talking. This year's caps were less than last year's. Why? Because last year we took some out of this year to pay for it. This year's caps were less than last year's. I would like to stay with the caps; I voted for the caps. But when we bring up the kind of emergencies that my friend from North Dakota insisted on in agriculture--good idea? Sure. Nevertheless, that is over the caps, isn't it? That is an expenditure, and we have had a good deal of that. We have some positive things. We will not get into Social Security. We have not gotten into Social Security. That is one of the things we are dedicated not to do. We had about $14 billion, I believe, in this budget, that is not Social Security, and we are not going to spend Social Security. That is a commitment that we have. What are the pressures? The pressures have constantly been, from the White House, from the other side of the aisle, for more spending. That is the principle of this administration: Spend more. Spend more taxes. We are not willing to do that. On the contrary, we have been dedicated to keeping spending down, keeping Government size down. So it is not an easy project. I am not an appropriator. I am not familiar with the processes that have gone on internally within the committee. Talk about not being involved--I don't know that. But I do know this has been a very difficult task. I am told within these 13 bills, about 12 of them that have pretty much been completed on this floor are within the spending caps--except for the emergencies. Emergencies in military? Of course. Not a bad idea--Kosovo, all those kinds of things that were here to do something to strengthen the military, to which everyone on this floor agrees. These are the kinds of things, certainly, that got us where we are. One of the reasons it has been difficult, of course, it has been hard to move things on the floor. We, just this last week, have gone through a couple of filibusters, as a matter of fact, in which the very folks who have been up this afternoon talking participated. That kept us for 2 or 3 days talking about MMS, Minerals Management Service. That is one of the reasons we are where we are. It has been difficult to move along that way. But that is the way a legislative body works. We tried very hard to do some things to ensure Social Security would be kept as it was--the Social Security lockbox. How many times did we bring that up? There was unwillingness to accept it on the other side of the aisle. They did not want to do it, so we put that aside. They have not been willing to talk about what we want to do with Social Security and individual accounts so that the money will be there. When there is surplus money in this place, it will be spent. Could we get tax relief? No. No, our friends on the other side of the aisle did not want to do that; we ought to keep this money here so we can spend it. That is how we get into some of these things. I am persuaded there has to be a system if you have excess money: You either have to get it out to people on Social Security, put it in those accounts, or you have to give it back to the people who paid it, if there is an excess amount of money. No, they do not want to do that. What they want to do is spend more of it. That is where we got into this. Gridlock? Yes, indeed, we have had some gridlock. I have been here for less than one term, but I do not believe I have seen as much gridlock as there has been this year in terms of bringing up amendments to bills we have had to take 2 or 3 days to deal with, constantly bringing up an agenda that was different from the agenda that was on the floor. These are the things that, to me, certainly, have created difficulties in getting our task done. I agree, however, that is our task, that is what we are here to do, and I am disappointed we have not gotten it done by the end of the fiscal year. But we have not. We are not going to allow ourselves to get into the position--I do not think anyone wants to have that happen--where there is a closure and a shutdown of the Government. Certainly we are not interested in allowing that to happen, or encouraging it to happen, or promoting an opportunity for it to happen. Indeed, we want to move forward with the appropriations as they should be dealt with, and we are persuaded that is the thing we are going to talk about doing. Again, however, I do think there are some very positive things that have happened. For the first time in 25 years, we are not spending Social Security money, we are not spending deficit money in this budget. It has been a very long time since that has happened. Mr. President, I suspect what we ought to do is move forward. I yield back the time allotted to the Members on this side of the aisle and ask--I was going to ask for the yeas and nays, but I don't think I can do that. I ask unanimous consent that the vote on adoption of House Joint Resolution 68 occur at 5:15 this evening and that paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask that the vote occur immediately following the comments of the Senator from Arkansas.

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. 167, a bill to extend the authorization for the Upper Delaware Citizens Advisory Council and to authorize construction and operation of a visitor center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, New York and Pennsylvania; S. 311, a bill to authorize the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs, and for other purposes; S. 497, a bill to redesignate Great Kills Park in the Gateway National Recreation Area as ``World War II Veterans Park at Great Kills''; H.R. 592, an Act to designate a portion of Gateway National Recreation Area as ``World War Veterans Park at Miller Field''; S. 919, a bill to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to expand the boundaries of the Corridor; H.R. 1619, an Act to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to expand the boundaries of the Corridor; S. 1296, a bill to designate portions of the lower Delaware River and associated tributaries as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 1366, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct and operate a visitor center for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River on land owned by New York State, and for other purposes; and S. 1569, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Taunton River in the commonwealth of Massachusetts for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, October 12 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 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, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Cassie Sheldon of the committee staff. subcommittee on National Parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate 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. 1365, a bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to extend the authorization for the Historic Preservation Fund and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and for other purposes; S. 1434, a bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act to reauthorize that Act, and for other purposes; H.R. 834, an Act to extend the authorization for the National Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, October 19, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 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, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Cassie Sheldon of the committee staff.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are facing the last week for the consideration of appropriations bills for the next fiscal year. I expect we will end up having a continuing resolution--I hope so--so we can finish our work without an interruption, the closing down of the Government. One of the issues, of course, that is most important to all of us is that of education. I wanted to talk--and will be joined by several of my colleagues during the course of this hour--a little bit about strengthening education. The Republicans have had, and continue to have, a strong education agenda, one that reflects the view we share on this side of the aisle, that of returning control to the State and local levels so more of the decisions can be made by the school boards, by States, by parents, making Federal programs more flexible so there can be assistance from the Federal Government but at the same time allowing local governments to have the flexibility to adjust educational programs and school programs so they fit. My State of Wyoming is unique in that we have lots of space and not too many people. Chugwater, WY, would have quite a different educational approach than Philadelphia. I think those differences need to be recognized. We have worked hard to move towards block granting of Federal money directly to States and to local school districts. I happen to believe that is a very important item in terms of Federal participation in elementary and secondary education. There are differences of view as a matter of fact as to what the role of the Federal Government is with regard to elementary and secondary education. Many believe, of course, that it is the primary role of the local governments. I share that view. I share the view, however, that the Federal Government can assist, and in doing that, it needs to assist in a way that local officials can prevail. Underlying this debate that we will hear a great deal about today and every day is a fundamental philosophical difference as to how you approach education. The Democrat approach is to create a series of new mandates and new programs such as 100,000 federally funded teachers to deal with class size. There is a different approach as to classroom units depending on where you are. Most States--I believe 43 out of 50-- have this 18 to 1 ratio about which they talk. The Democrats are talking about federally funded school construction and afterschool programs, all of which sounds great and probably has some merit, but the fact is we ought to be thinking more about funding the programs that are already there, such as IDEA, those kinds of programs, than we should be talking about expanding into new programs. Democrats don't like the idea of letting local people make the decisions. They continue to want the educational bureaucracy in Washington to call the shots. That is a fundamental difference, legitimate difference of views. There are those who generally respect that idea and those of us who do not. Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between the basic differences of view as they get tangled up with the details of dollars. But it is the local people, it is you and me as we serve on the school boards, as I have and many of you, not the bureaucrats in Washington, who really need to decide what the classroom unit in our schools ought to be, whether they need a new gymnasium or something else. Those are the key issues about which we need to talk. It is not the issue of whether or not we want the Federal Government to participate. The issue is how it participates, how much more regulation goes along with this participation, and taxes, of course, as well. The Taxpayer Relief Act, which was vetoed last week by the President, had over $500 billion in family tax relief. Parents could have used this money to help educate their children. Specific educational provisions totaled $11.3 billion in this tax bill the President vetoed--educational savings accounts, interest deductions for student loans, deductions for employer-provided tuition assistance, these kinds of things that would give families the opportunity to do more with their educational programs. Congress had made substantial progress earlier this year with the passage of the Ed-Flex bill. I am hopeful the principal sponsor of the Ed-Flex bill, who is now presiding, will have an opportunity to share with us a little more of what that means. It is one of the big things we have done this year in terms of education. It allows district waivers of Federal requirements. This is the direction we really need. We need to let the schools and the districts make their decisions. That is really where we are in much of the discussion at this time. There will be some resolutions talked about today, introduced by the majority leader and the minority leader, which deal directly with the funding and how the funding is handled. I think they are extraordinary items we will discuss in relation to whether or not this administration has listened more to the polls and tried to do things that kind of pick up the people's attention or whether they really have been involved in seeking to strengthen education through the kinds of activities we have had. I yield to my friend, the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 3:30 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of two resolutions that were introduced on Friday regarding education. The Lott and Daschle resolutions will be debated concurrently for 2 hours. Then the Senate will proceed to two stacked votes. Therefore, Senators can expect the first vote at approximately 5:30 p.m. Following the votes, the Senate may begin consideration of any conference reports, appropriations bills, or nominations available for action. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. It certainly seems that way. I think there is a real paradox here. On the one hand we are talking about more money for education and at the same time voting to reduce that amount for education. So I think that is difficult. Let me go back to the topic that we are really here to discuss and that is MMS's proposed oil valuation rule. I rise in strong support of the Hutchison amendment. I have been working on this issue for a long time. I have been involved in numerous meetings. I have worked with the oil companies. I have worked with the school districts. I have worked with the State of Wyoming. We are working toward find a workable solutions for everyone, which seems to be ignored by the folks on the other side. We are trying to find a way, with these regulations, for Minerals Management to make them work better. We have met with them. The oil companies want to make it work better. We want to give the Congress an opportunity to participate in this matter of making regulations. So that is where we really are. The domestic companies, of course, already pay significant amounts of money. Someone was saying here that 95 percent pay but the others do not. That is simply not true but if it were, that is an enforcement issue. We have regulations now. The problem is, the regulations and the proposed regulation are not workable. Talking about having a price that is posted, that fits everywhere, that is not the way the oil business works. It is quite different in Wyoming than in Oklahoma. The idea of, where do you take the value? do you take it at the wellhead? that is what the contract says. But if you have to carry it, as an oil producer, out 10 miles to where it can be sold, it is quite a different cost that goes into it. These are the kinds of issues that are involved. These folks who have been talking this afternoon would make you think people were trying to do away with this. That is not the case at all. It is terribly unfair. It is not the issue. The issue is to work together with MMS and get these regulations enforced. It is relatively simple, frankly. I have to tell you, we talked some about the impact it has on Iowa, which is nothing; talked about the impact it has on Nevada, which is almost nothing because there is no production there. Let me tell you a little about our counties. We have 23 counties in Wyoming. Here is one, Park County: 82 percent Federal land. We have another one that is 80 percent Federal land: Big Horn County. These are places where jobs, where the tax base, where schools are financed largely by mineral production. We have mineral production now. Do we want to change the method of taxing? Fine. But we want to do it along with the Congress. We want to do it along with the producers. We want to make it work and not just be something that is to be done by MMS without consultation with industry and other involved. That is really quite simple. With regard to the editorial that was put in the Record, I have a rebuttal that also appeared in the LA Times, that I think would be fair to have in the Record, written by the vice president of the American Petroleum Institute, Chuck Sandler. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, what is the situation with regard to time?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I want to make a few comments to see if we can move this discussion back to the issue. We have been totally off the issue for the last 2 hours. The issue really has to do with MMS. It has to do with the development and enforcement of regulations. Nearly everyone who has gotten up so far has said: I do not know much about this; our State does not do this. And they have gone on to talk at length about it. I have been involved with this. I have been at the meetings with MMS. Our State is the largest State involved in terms of oil royalties. We ought to focus on the real issue for a while. I want to do that.

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator make it a little clearer as to exactly how this impacts?

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS. There is a great deal of involvement here. We have to talk a little bit about this industry. We have now, what, approximately 55 percent of foreign oil that comes into this country. Our oil people are stressed to keep it going. The oil business has been in something of a depression. We had oil down in the $6-, $7-, $8-a-barrel range in Wyoming. That is not to say there ought not to be regulations, that there ought not to be the kind of royalty rules that can be lived by. That is what we are working for. If you came in from Mars and listened to what has been talked about over the last hour, you would think we did not have anything except a bunch of robber barons. That is not true--absolutely not true. So I hope we can go forward with this, we can go ahead and work in the next year to put these royalty rules together, as it should be, to put it together in a way that is fair. We have proposed regulations. We now have some changes in personnel in MMS that I think might make it work quite a bit better. We have some changes now coming forth at the Assistant Secretary's level. We really need to get down to some facts and get away from all this hyperbole about what people are not paying, and people are cheating, and all these things. If that is true, that is an enforcement issue that ought to be dealt with by the Federal Government. The West does have a unique relationship with the Federal Government. As I mentioned, all of us have a great deal of our land that is there, a great deal of our resources. We are dependent largely on mineral resources, along with agriculture and tourism, for our economy. So we need to have an economy that has jobs, that creates a tax base, that does the kinds of things that this industry does. So I am really interested in us moving forward beyond these types of arguments brought up by the other side of the aisle and get something accomplished. We have talked about this now, and we have had several votes on this, as a matter of fact. We had 60 votes to move forward. We are ready to go forward with the Interior bill and do some things that have to be done in the next week and a half. We owe it to the American people. I am really distressed by the idea of standing around wasting time on an issue that has pretty well been summed up and should be completed. We have already finished it, but we continue to go on and on here on the floor, I guess for political reasons. I cannot think of any other reason we continue to go on as long as we have. One of the things, of course, that is most difficult from time to time in dealing with the Federal Government is the Federal regulations that are onerous and difficult. They make it very hard for businesses. By the way, many of the businesses in Wyoming--and the oil business-- are small businesses, independent producers. Many of them are stripper wells and down to 15 barrels or so per day. These are not all the mammoth companies, and so on, they talk about. This is an industry that is tremendously important to our State. By the way, our students do receive a great deal of support from this source, which is our principal source, of course, for funding schools and doing the other things we do in our State. Efforts will go forward to continue to complete the regulations and the rules. That is really what we are aiming toward. That is really what we ought to do. MMS needs to work with industry and come up with some workable regulations. Talking about schools not having the money-- the money is there now. As the Senator from Idaho indicated, there have been diversions from that pot of money by the very people who are continuing to talk about needing more. It seems to be something of an irony to do it that way. I guess I have been particularly concerned about shifting the focus of our discussion today on an MMS proposed rule over to campaign finance, which we heard talked about for 30 minutes this morning. It is not relevant at all to what we are doing. And the implication that everyone who is for a workable rule is somehow a product of the contributions, I am offended by this. I am. I think it is a very unproductive kind of an argument. I hope we can move forward, get this behind us, that we can get this job done. We can do it, and it can be done. By working with MMS, we and industry can come up with a workable rule. We are on our way to doing that now. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is our hour, if I understand it correctly.

Mr. THOMAS. On germaneness of debate, if the Senate is proceeding under cloture, debate must be germane. ``Germane'' means you have to be on the subject. It doesn't mean you can sway off the subject to some irrelevant subject. This says it must be germane, and I again raise a point of order.

Mr. THOMAS. I yielded the floor to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. THOMAS. We just completed this question on germaneness. If you would like me to read the ruling, I would be happy to do that.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think it is totally inappropriate. You can talk about the campaign finance issue on any issue. On this issue, we had a vote. This issue was designed to proceed for 30 hours. This issue was not to be done on campaign finance. I continue to raise a point of order, and will continue to raise a point of order.