Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise to introduce S. 1430, the United States-Macau policy Act of 1999. I ask unanimous consent that the text be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I understand that. I think it was five, but as a sponsor of the lockbox, I am very much for it. But in this instance it just seems to me that is what I am talking about, simply blocking it. There has been much opportunity to talk about lockbox. You can talk about it whenever you choose. I guess the reason the Senator voted against cloture is because he wanted an opportunity to amend.

Mr. THOMAS. I have listened just a little bit to the Senator and his associates, and I have the feeling you are not for changing the rules?

Mr. THOMAS. I do think so. I do think it is the same concept there. What we want to avoid, in many ways, is putting more authority into this Appropriations Committee. It is a very important committee. I recognize that. But it ought not be the center of all of our activity, and it can be if we are not careful. So I think there is a balance in both these areas. I support both the propositions that are here, and I hope we have some action that will put them into place.

Mr. THOMAS. I can answer that very quickly. Yes, I agree with that. I think it is the same concept as coming to the floor with an amendment on an issue that has never been discussed, has never been authorized. To do that in the conference committee, I believe, is equally wrong.

Mr. THOMAS. No. I will continue a little bit, and then I will be happy to answer the question when I am finished. I think we ought to emphasize this idea of authorizations. I was happy to be on the appropriations committee when I was in the Wyoming State legislature. So I have had some experience with that. The idea that you just simply ignore the authorizing committees and begin to do everything on appropriations is wrong, absolutely wrong. How we got here I am not sure. The minority whip has been here longer than I and I suspect remembers when Democrats were in charge. But I think maybe he has forgotten a little bit about the way it operated then. As I understand it, when the Senator from Maine was in charge, it operated very much the same way. I am not suggesting that should be the case, nor am I suggesting it is. It seems to me that there have been real efforts to be as fair as we can be, and that should be. We need to do that. In addition to having the opportunity to put everything on the floor, which I agree with, there is also a responsibility on the part of all of us to accomplish some things. My recollection is that during the last number of months amendments that have come from the other side of the aisle have generally been to stop anything from happening. There are a good deal of examples of that. Frankly, that is very frustrating for me--to bring up something and then the bill has to be withdrawn from the floor because we have lost completely the direction of things. What is this debate about? It is very simple. It simply says that in the precedence of the Senate, unless an amendment has to do with the same subject as does the appropriations bill, it is not allowed on the bill. You can make a point of order. And there has to be a majority vote to follow it up. That is pretty simple. I think it is fairly reasonable. If you are going to come in through the appropriations bill and put an appropriations amendment on it, you can have a point of order, have a vote on it, and, if it isn't appropriate, it isn't used. I don't find much of a problem with that. I think we ought to get to the topic and talk about what it is we are doing rather than going through all of these gyrations of fairness, and so on, in terms of getting on the floor. If that is a problem, if that is a real problem, then we have to resolve that problem. This is not the way to resolve that problem. We have some things that we have to do. We have to accomplish things right now. What do we have, 13 appropriations bills with which we have to deal? I think we have dealt with about seven. There are a number of examples of how nongermane issues have been raised and have been withdrawn. We have to withdraw the topic from the appropriations bill. What we are doing is seeking to overturn the ruling of the Chair with respect to legislation on appropriations bills. If the minority whip would like to make a comment, or ask a question, I would be more than happy to respond.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I wanted to talk about this issue because I feel very strongly about it. I have not been able to hear everything this morning, but it seems we have turned this into a little fairness technique which I have a little trouble understanding. What we are talking about is whether or not you put authorizing legislation on appropriations bills. It seems to have been turned into kind of a contest of who is being treated fairly. I don't quite understand that, frankly. There has been a lot of talk about the House. I served in the House. This is a different place. We have different rules--no question about that. We should have, and we will continue to have different rules. Since I have been here, I think this leader has been very fair in operating to give everyone a chance to speak, as should be the case. On the other side of the coin, we haven't heard much about the fact that these appropriations bills are amended with things that have nothing to do with them, and we lose track of where we are going on these appropriations bills. I think there is some responsibility on the part of the minority to feel that we need to accomplish something in this place other than simply introducing amendments that have nothing to do with the bill that is being considered. As you can see, I feel fairly strongly about that. One of the things which I think is important is to separate the idea of authorizing committees from appropriations. That is why we have an Energy Committee; that is why we have an Armed Services Committee; that is why we have an Agriculture Committee--to talk about the policy in those particular areas, and to determine what the authorizations are going to be and what the role of Government is going to be. Then we follow with the appropriations bills, which also, by the way, have a great deal of power because, obviously, you can't do a great deal in terms of policy unless there are some funds with which to do it. But when you do it the other way, as the minority apparently is urging, then you avoid hearings and you avoid having any real discussion in committees on the issue. They apparently want to just come to the floor with the issue having had no background at all. I am afraid I don't understand that. It seems to me to be a little naive to suggest that we have rules of that type. I wanted to talk a little bit about it.

Mr. THOMAS. I do not think anyone could argue against the need for a fair process. But I think to talk about all those things with respect to rule XVI is inappropriate. I think we very much need this. I urge the Senator's support. I thank my colleague.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise to introduce S. 1430, the United States-Macau policy Act of 1999. I ask unanimous consent that the text be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight 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 review the performance management process under the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act, by the National Park Service. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, August 4, 1999 at 2:15 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 Shawn Taylor of the committee staff at (202) 224-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 27. My objections to the motion and the underlying resolution, and to bringing them up at this point in time, are both procedural and substantive. My first procedural objection is that while the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] is within his rights to move to discharge the joint resolution pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2192(c) and 2193, by doing so he is effectively seeking to bring it to the floor by completely circumventing the committee process. S.J. Res. 27 was referred to the Finance Committee on June 7 of this year. As my friend the distinguished chairman of that committee [Mr. Roth] has noted today, the committee has had no opportunity to hold hearings on the relative merits of the resolution, to amend it, or to prepare a report on it to the full Senate. A piece of legislation this important, that would--if passed--have a huge effect on what I believe will be our most important bilateral relationship in the next century, deserves to be considered fully by the committee of jurisdiction without having that process short-circuited by a single Senator--especially one that is not a member of the committee in question. Second, the Senate still has a number of vitally important appropriations bills to complete before Congress recesses for August. There is no connection whatsoever between these legislative matters and the joint resolution. There exists no time exigency which makes it important to lay aside debate on appropriations bills in order to debate China NTR nor, for that matter, which makes it important to circumvent the statutory process set out for the consideration of resolutions like S.J. Res. 27. And that brings up my third procedural objection. Pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, it is the practice of the Senate that a resolution of disapproval of a renewal of NTR status must originate in the House. Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2192(f)(1)(A)(ii) and 2192(f)(1)(B), any resolution of disapproval which passes the Senate before receipt from the House of a similar or identical joint resolution is required to be held at the desk until the House acts and passes such a joint resolution. H.J. Res. 57, the companion resolution to S.J. Res. 27, was introduced in the House on June 7, 1999, and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. On July 1, the committee considered the resolution, and ordered it to be reported adversely by voice vote. The full House has yet to act on that report. So even if for some reason which escapes me the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith] can justify his urgent desire to bring his legislation to the floor, where is the logic in putting the procedural cart before the horse and acting before the House does? Those are my procedural objections to the motion. But I also oppose the resolution, and thus the motion to discharge it, on substantive grounds. In my five years as subcommittee chairman, I have always fully supported unconditional NTR status for China and done so for several reasons: some practical, some policy-based. First, from a practicality standpoint, I firmly believe revoking NTR would hurt us more than the Chinese--the economic equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face, or, as the Chinese say, ``lifting up a rock only to drop it on your foot.'' In 1998, U.S. exports to China directly supported over 200,000 U.S. jobs. In 1995, China bought $1.2 billion worth of civilian aircraft, $700 million of telecommunications equipment, $330 million of specialized machinery, and $270 million of heating and cooling equipment. Those figures have grown since then. China is now the world's third largest economy, and will continue to grow at an impressive pace well into the next century. The World Bank estimates that China will need almost $750 billion in new investments to fund industrial infrastructure projects alone in the next decade. Cutting off NTR--and the Chinese retaliation that would surely follow-- would only serve to deprive us of a growing market. China is perfectly capable of shopping elsewhere and our ``allies'' are more than happy to step into any void we leave. We recently saw a prime example of that willingness; in 1996 then-Premier Li Peng traveled to France where he signed a $2 billion contract to buy 33 Airbuses--a contract that Boeing thought it was going to get. Second, instead of using the NTR issue as a carrot-and-stick with the PRC, I believe the best way to influence the growth of democratic ideals, human rights, and the rule of law in that country is through continued economic contacts. I think anybody who has been to China, especially over the course of the last 15 years, has seen that for themselves. One of the strongest impressions that I take away from every trip I make to China in my capacity as subcommittee chairman is the dramatic effect that economic reform has had on the population. As you travel south from Beijing to Guangzhou where the greatest economic development has taken place, it is clear that economic development and contact with the West through trade has let a genie out of the bottle that the regime in Beijing will never be able to put back. Local government officials do not want to talk about the Taiwan dispute; they want to talk trade. Local businessmen do not want to talk about political ideology; that want to talk about increasing their profits and establishing a legal framework in China within which to do business. Local citizens do not care about the latest pronouncements from the Central Committee; they care about increasing their incomes and bettering their living conditions. People of the hundreds of thousands of villages where local democratic elections have been held have made it clear they would not quietly return to the old way of doing things. The development of a market economy is the best way to encourage democratic reform. We have seen it in South Korea, we have seen it in Taiwan, we have seen it in the former Soviet Union, and I believe that we are beginning to see it now in China. Third, revoking NTR would have a damaging effect on the economies of Hong Kong and Taiwan--two of our closest friends in the region. A vast majority of our China trade passes through Hong Kong and Taiwan; in addition, revoking NTR would have the greatest impact in the southern China provinces of Guangdong and Fujian where Hong Kong and Taiwanese businessmen have made substantial investments. Just for the limited sanctions and countersanctions proposed during our dispute over Chinese infringement of our intellectual property rights in 1996, the Hong Kong government estimated that Hong Kong would loose 11,500 jobs, $13.4 billion in reexport trade, and 0.4 of a percentage point from a 4.6% GDP. The effects would be much more pronounced were NTR to be involved. Fourth, NTR is not some special treatment or favor that the United States passes out rarely; it is the normal tariff status with our trading partners. Only 8 countries are not accorded that status: Afghanistan, Zerbaijan, Cambodia, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, and Serbia. To cast China into that grouping of pariah states would do irreparable damage to our bilateral relationship, and to the security and stability of East Asia as a whole. With the demise of the cold war, and changing world realities, we would do better to repeal Jackson-Vanik and the yearly theater that surrounds the China NTR debate. It only serves: to make U.S. businesses nervous--they never know from one year to the next whether they will have NTR, and their investments in China, yanked out from underneath them; to complicate our relationship with the Chinese--the annual debate always reminds them that we treat them differently than almost every other country and some of the ensuing rhetoric in the debates is less than helpful to the relationship; and, to compromise our credibility both with the Chinese and in Asia in general--threats to revoke NTR have yet to be carried out and conditioning has never worked. I am not an apologist for the PRC--far from it. My subcommittee has held numerous hearings highlighting Chinese human rights abuses, oppression in Tibet, saber rattling aimed at Taiwan, unfair trade practices including tariff and non-tariff barriers, and the recent allegations of espionage--all issues I have raised personally with Chinese leaders from President Jiang on down. But no matter how maddening or ill-advised Beijing's behavior, I do not believe that withholding NTR is an effective instrument of foreign policy vis-a-vis China. In fact, I believe that there is no more effective way to influence the PRC than engaging China and slowly drawing it into the family of nations. If there is a way, I have yet to be made aware of it; I just know that the revocation or conditioning of NTR is not it. For all these reasons then, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to discharge S. J. Res. 27. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. As I understand it, we are in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS. I can speak for approximately 6 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 want to talk about a bill introduced on Friday on Social Security in which I and other sponsors were involved. I mention it because it seems to me that it is one of the issues that is most important. I just came back from Wyoming, and I talked with folks about issues. Social Security is one of those that is, of course, a top priority. Obviously, most everyone knows Social Security has to be changed if we are to fulfill the goals all of us want, and that is to protect Social Security for those who are now beneficiaries, to keep it going for those who are now paying in and will pay in for many years and can then expect to be beneficiaries. Those are the things that have to happen, and there have to be changes to cause that to happen. We have a rapidly aging population. When we started Social Security, there were some 30 people working for every one who was drawing benefits. An individual paid $30 a year into Social Security in the 1930s. Then we got to where there were five people working for every one who was a beneficiary. Now I believe it is less than three, and we will soon be to the point where there will be one individual working for every one person drawing benefits. We have to make changes. Of course, people are living longer, so that also brings new demands on the programs. What are the options? There are several that are fairly obvious, some of which are not particularly popular. A tax increase: We already pay 12.5 percent of what we make into Social Security. That is a rather high percentage. For many people that is the largest tax they pay. So tax increases are not particularly a good option. We could cut benefits. I do not think people generally want to cut benefits. There may be some changes made in benefits because people are living longer and there are changes in our lives. The third alternative is one which I think probably has the most appeal, and that is to get a higher rate of return on the money we are putting into Social Security and have been putting into it for some time. That is the part of the bill we have introduced. It is a bicameral, bipartisan bill that enhances the program through private accounts. It will take a portion of the money you and I put into Social Security--I believe it is about 2 percent of the 12.5 percent--and that becomes a personal account for each person. It can be invested then at the direction of that account owner. It can be invested in equities, stocks, it can be invested in bonds, or it can be invested in a combination of those things. It will be invested by a private investor such as the Federal employees program is now. You will have a broad choice. The owners will not be doing the investing, but they will be choosing the kinds of investment they want. This can then accumulate as a nest egg for the owner. If the owner is unfortunate not to live long enough to receive the benefits that will accrue to his or her estate, it will be the owner's. We have been talking a lot about a safety box, some way to take the money that comes in to Social Security and ensure it is used for that purpose and not spent for some other purpose or not loaned to the general fund. This probably and certainly is the best way to do that. I make the point that we are not looking at total privatization. Some people accuse us of that. That is not the case. It is a partial privatization. It puts money in so it can earn more than it has earned in the past. As most people understand, excess in the trust funds now has to be invested in Government securities. It has a relatively lower return, lower than if you and I invested those securities. This is a change for improvement. We need to work on the lockbox. We tried five times to pass the lockbox legislation to have some way to ensure Social Security funds coming in are not expended for other things, and that they are, indeed, kept for the purpose of maintaining and strengthening Social Security. That is what we want to do. There are some other good features of the plan. It is more progressive. It guarantees larger benefits for low-income workers. It increases widow benefits, which has been unfair in the past. It repeals earnings limitations, if you are a beneficiary and choose to continue to work. In, in fact, there are several incentives for continuing to work. Since people are living longer and are healthier, there is more reason and opportunity and willingness to work. This bill is designed to protect current retirees. Current beneficiaries will not be affected by the changes. It is aimed primarily at young people who are beginning to pay into the program. Almost all young people 20 years old say: We probably won't get anything out of this; all we will do is pay. That is very unfair, and we can change that. There is a great deal of talk about doing something with Social Security, but, frankly, the administration and our friends on the other side generally have not come up with a plan. Now we have a bipartisan plan which is before the Senate. We can do something that will make the changes we propose to make and which are good for the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I won't even take 5 minutes. I want to share some of the frustration I have about where we are, trying to move forward with what I think is one of the most important issues before us and, of course, that is Social Security. Everybody is talking about it, of course, and they say, oh, yes, we want to do something. When the time comes, how many times have we been frustrated in trying to get to what is essentially the first step to do something about Social Security? That, of course, is to have a lockbox, take the money coming in for Social Security and put it there so that we can do something with Social Security. So this is clearly the first step that we have to take. I think this is the fifth time we have been trying to move forward with this. Each time all the people on the other side of the aisle say they are for Social Security, and the President says he is for Social Security, but they never want to do anything. I guess maybe this is part of the frustration that has been building up over the last month or so, and this week there has been frustration. I think it is time to invoke cloture and move forward on the lockbox issue to make sure the American people who are paying into Social Security, particularly young people who are starting to work and putting their money aside, will have some hope that there will be benefits for them. And we do that only by moving forward with our lockbox. I suggest that we do that. I thank the Senator for the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in introducing a bipartisan bill to protect, preserve and improve the Social Security system for the challenges of the 21st Century. We all know that Social Security faces massive demographic changes. For example, our population is aging rapidly. As a result, the ratio between the number of workers paying taxes into the system as compared to the number of retirees taking funds out of the system is falling swiftly. Soon, we will have fewer than two workers for each retiree. Other demographic trends are that Americans are living longer and retiring earlier. The combined effect of these changes is that future generations will face tremendous tax burdens or massive benefit cuts in order to preserve Social Security. The longer Congress waits before reforming the law, the more painful and difficult these changes will be. That's why I am pleased this bipartisan group has come together with credible reform legislation that will preserve Social Security in perpetuity. It achieves this important goal in large part through advance funding of the program. The bill allows workers to divert a portion of their existing Social Security taxes into a personal retirement account that they would own. This feature would enable all Americans to accumulate a cash nest egg for their retirement and would improve the rate of return on their Social Security taxes. Currently, Congress is considering legislation to create a ``Lockbox'' that would reserve Social Security surplus revenues for Social Security alone, not other government spending as is currently the case. I support this legislation and believe it is an important first step toward saving Social Security. But to me, the true ``Lockbox'' is private retirement accounts. These accounts ensure that individual Americans, not the Federal Government, are in charge of their retirement nest egg. If the worker dies before retirement, the accounts could be left to his or her heirs. In addition, these private accounts ensure that the Federal Government can't come back at a later time and reduce benefits. Another key feature of these accounts is that low income workers, most for the first time, will have an opportunity to own assets and create wealth. Another way the bill makes Social Security more progressive is by increasing the guaranteed benefits for those with low incomes. Other important provisions in the legislation will improve the Social Security benefits of widows, repeal the earnings test, and correct perverse work incentives inherent in the current system. Finally, our proposal doesn't affect current retirees. They would continue under the current system. But by reducing the tremendous unfunded liability the system faces and restoring solvency to Social Security, current retirees are protected from the potential tax increases and benefit cuts that would be necessary to preserve the system. Seniors' benefits are far more secure under this plan than they are under current law. Again, I am pleased to join Senators Gregg, Kerrey, Breaux, Grassley, Thompson and Robb in introducing this important legislation. And I encourage the rest of our colleagues to examine this bill carefully because I think it has the elements necessary to achieve a bipartisan agreement to save Social Security. The sooner we act, the better. Time is not on our side.

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. 710, to authorize a feasibility study on the preservation of certain Civil War battlefields along the Vicksburg Campaign Trail; S. 905, to establish the Lackawanna Valley Heritage Area: S. 1093, to establish the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Protection Sites, to provide for the protection of archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin of New Mexico, and for other purposes; S. 1117, to establish the Corinth Unit of Shiloh National Military Park, in the vicinity of the city of Corinth, Mississippi, and in the State of Tennessee, and for other purposes; S. 1324, to expand the boundaries of Gettysburg National Military Park to include Wills House, and for other purposes; and S. 1349, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct special resources studies to determine the national significance of specific sites as well as the suitability and feasibility of their inclusion as units of the National Park System. The hearing will take place on Thursday. July 29, 1999 at 2:15 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 Shawn Taylor of the committee staff.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to authorize the development and maintenance of a multi-agency campus in the town of Jackson, Wyoming. The management of our public lands and natural resources is often complicated and requires the coordination of many individuals to accomplish desired objectives. When western folks discuss federal land issues, we do not often have an opportunity to identify proposals that capture this type of consensus and enjoy the support from a wide array of interests; however, the multi-agency campus offers just such a unique prospect. As local, state and federal officials attempt to provide services to the public, they have identified a need to develop a campus in Jackson, Wyoming that offers visitors ``one stop shopping'' service for wildlife, tourism and resource issues. The multi-agency campus includes a wildlife interpretive center, facilities for public programs, walkways, bike paths, museum space, and office locations for Wyoming Game and Fish, U.S. Forest Service and the local chamber of commerce. There are several entities involved with this effort--U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Wyoming Game and Fish, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Department of Interior, Teton County, Town of Jackson, Jackson Chamber of Commerce and the Jackson Hole Historical Society. Project coordinators and involved parties have spent a great deal of time incorporating the concerns of various individuals through public meetings and by presenting their plans to agency and congressional representatives. This legislation is needed to improve communication between the federal agencies and related entities, and reduce costs to federal, state and local governments as they attempt to address public needs. Specifically, the bill would allow the U.S. Forest Service to transfer a small parcel of their land within the proposed campus boundaries to the Town of Jackson in exchange for the Town constructing a new administrative facility for the agency. Mr. President, this bill enjoys the support of many different groups including federal agencies, state organizations and officials, as well as the local community. It is my hope that the Senate will seize this opportunity to improve upon efforts to provide services to the American public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Park System New Area Study Act of 2000. Mr. President, last year when we passed the National Parks Vision 20- 20 legislation, we made a number of revisions in the way we do business within the National Park System. One of those changes concerned the conduct of new park studies. Prior to the National Park Service undertaking any new area studies, and from this point forward, Congress must act affirmatively on a list submitted by the Secretary of the Interior for studies on potential new units of the System. Pursuant to Public Law 105-391, the Secretary has submitted a list and this legislation reflects the Secretary's request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous request that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Park System New Area Study Act of 2000. Mr. President, last year when we passed the National Parks Vision 20- 20 legislation, we made a number of revisions in the way we do business within the National Park System. One of those changes concerned the conduct of new park studies. Prior to the National Park Service undertaking any new area studies, and from this point forward, Congress must act affirmatively on a list submitted by the Secretary of the Interior for studies on potential new units of the System. Pursuant to Public Law 105-391, the Secretary has submitted a list and this legislation reflects the Secretary's request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous request that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 the Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 1999, cosponsored by my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and state governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve. In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. Recently, the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's Rule relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of as opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately needed to the Endangered Species Act. Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, is the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog have been filed and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said the petition is not only warranted but deserves further study. I have lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I have logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival. My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer- reviewed. Right now, it is basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role. This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices. In my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior is unable to tell me what measures will be required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary cannot tell me what acts or omissions we can expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened? This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over- zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species? This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require. Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise the end of the process--the delisting procedure. Recovery and delisting are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to currently delist a species. There is no certainty in the process and the States--the folks who have all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list--are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be delisted. Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly Bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current delisting process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this one to noavail, despite tremendous effort and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole. The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so, are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big impacts. The changes I have suggested will have a significant effect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real goal--recovery and delisting.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 1999, cosponsored by my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi. The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray, and so today I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and state governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve. In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. Recently, the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings of the Preble's Rule relates to confusion about claims regarding the ``known range'' of as opposed to the alleged ``historical range.'' Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short-grass, semi-arid plains for southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. Further, the State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes are desperately needed to the Endangered Species Act. Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, is the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog have been filed and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has said the petition is not only warranted but deserves further study. I have lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I have logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival. My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer- reviewed. Right now, it is basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, states are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role. This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices. In my State of Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior is unable to tell me what measures will be required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary cannot tell me what acts or omissions we can expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened? This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or the diversion of a certain amount of water, or a private citizen's development of one's own property, is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over- zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species? This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, he should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require. Just as the beginning of the process needs changes, we need to revise the end of the process--the delisting procedure. Recovery and delisting are quite simply, the goals of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to currently delist a species. There is no certainty in the process and the States--the folks who have all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list--are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be delisted. Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly Bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current delisting process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this one to noavail, despite tremendous effort and financial resources to meet recovery objectives. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole. The point is something needs to be done. My constituents, rightly so, are angry and upset about this current law and the trickling effects of countless listings. Real lives are being impacted. It is time for some real changes. These are small changes but I believe they will make big impacts. The changes I have suggested will have a significant effect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real goal--recovery and delisting.