Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will take a moment to talk a little bit about agriculture. As the President knows, agriculture is a most important element in Wyoming's economy and to Wyoming's culture. During this past week, I had a chance to visit with many people in Wyoming who are very concerned about agriculture and agricultural markets or the lack thereof. So I want to talk a little bit about my vision of the things we are doing and can be doing in Congress with respect to agriculture in this country. Certainly our purpose ought to be to strengthen markets so the price for agricultural products is enhanced and so family farmers and family ranchers are able to make a reasonable return on their investment and on their time. We have had a tough year in agriculture, in crops, and in livestock, and many of us have been working for some time to find some of the things that are appropriate for the Government to do to strengthen the agricultural sector. One of them, of course, is trade and the idea of reducing the unilateral sanctions we have had in place around the world. Many times in the past, countries such as Pakistan, when they set off the bomb and so on, we immediately then did not trade with them. We have changed some of those unilateral sanctions. They are not useful for any other reason than to penalize our own markets. We are pushing for stronger enforcement of trade agreements, particularly in NAFTA, for example, where we need to make sure that they are being administered properly, that goods are not being dumped, that goods are not coming in from another country through, in this case, the member of NAFTA that benefited from that, and working to reduce unfair trade barriers which have existed and continue to exist around the world in interesting places, such as the European Union, where the President has just been. These are the kinds of things that seem to me to be totally unfair, where we open our markets to others and, in return, we have market barriers. I am very pleased with what is happening with regard to the negotiations with China. I am not pleased with all the things that happen in China, of course, but in terms of the WTO negotiations, we find, for example, that we are going to make some arrangements to reduce the 40-percent to probably 10-percent tariff on our meat. That will be a very good forward move. I am hopeful we can find a way to get the largest potential customer in the world into the WTO so that not only will it open markets but we do not have to deal unilaterally with someone; if we have an agreement, then there is the World Trade Organization to enforce those agreements. We are talking about the tax relief for agriculture. We had income averaging last year, which is very good because the income of the farmers and ranchers varies very much. We have a proposition to have farm accounts which allow farmers to put the money into sort of an IRA for a period of time and draw it out before they pay taxes on it so that they tend to level out in income. Estate tax relief: I hope that is one of the things we talk about when we deal with the tax reform--estate tax relief. Currently legislation is there to do that. Meat labeling: I think we need to have, as we have proposed it here-- and will again--meat labeling so that we know what the products are and so buyers, when they go to the grocery store, can determine whether the product is domestic. They need to have an opportunity to do that. Also, grading: USDA grades are for domestic products, and will be used that way. Again, current legislation is pending. One of the problems of the livestock industry has been, allegedly-- and I agree with it--the concentration of packers. We have the latest figures, and I heard that about four packers kill about 87 percent of the product, which would cause you to think that there may be some legislation on pricing. And we need to do that. We met with the Attorney General and asked that we, again, take a look at the potential of monopoly activities that may be there and do something about the concentration of packers. If they find again that there is nothing illegal being done, as they have in the past, it seems to me that we ought to take a look at the underlying legislation, the Packers and Stockyards Act, to see if, in fact, that needs to be changed. We need to have more competition. Things like owning the cattle, for example, and then using their own cattle instead of going into the market, which can manipulate the price--that fact, that there is buying without reporting the market price. That is something we need to do. We are trying to change the inspections for interstate shipment of meat so that State inspections will suffice. We think that will help the market a great deal. Certainly, in the crop area we need to look at NAFTA to make sure that there is not dumping of wheat and other products in this country. We need to take a look at the Crop Insurance Program, which I think has not worked that satisfactorily, to move the Freedom to Farm, and some of the things that are included in that. Mr. President, I just think that there are a number of things that need to be done. We have some unique issues, of course, in the West where in a great many of our States--in my State of Wyoming 50 percent, and in the case of Nevada, 87 percent--the land belongs to the Federal Government. Much of the land is grazed. Livestock grazes on much of the land. We need to make that accessible so we can have multiple use of those renewable resources. We need to do something about the permit program so that they are not difficult. It isn't necessary, in my view, to have an environmental impact statement on every unchanged renewal of the grazing permits. So these are some of the changes that need to be done. I don't think agriculture is looking for subsidies, or looking for a farm program. But they are looking for an opportunity to have the markets--an opportunity to go into the marketplace and get prices that are, in fact, reflective of the costs that go into the product. This is a basic industry to our country. There will be changes made, of course, as time goes by. There have been tremendous changes in agriculture over the last 50 years. The family farmers are getting larger. They are more mechanized and more efficient. They are also much more expensive. And much more investment is required. When you have a great deal of investment, of course, when you have several years of bad prices, it makes it very, very difficult, which also leads to the need probably for some additional lending capacity and some additional assistance in lending because of the 2 years that we have had. So, Mr. President, I hope that as we come back in after this recess people will be more aware of the difficulty in agriculture, and that we can address ourselves to the many opportunities that we have to strengthen those markets and to provide more healthy and vigorous agriculture. I thank you, Mr. President, for the time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. 441, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route of the War of 1812 British invasion of Maryland and Washington, District of Columbia, and the route of the American defense, for study for potential addition to the national trails system; S. 548, a bill to establish the Fallen Timbers Battlefield and Fort Miamis National Historical Site in the State of Ohio; S. 581, a bill to protect the Paoli and Brandywine Battlefields in Pennsylvania, to authorize a Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution at Valley Forge National Historical Park, and for other purposes; and S. 700, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Ala Kahakai Trail as a National Historic Trail. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 22, 1999 at 2:00 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. Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation and the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a joint oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations of the Appropriations Committee. The purpose of this hearing is to review the report of the Government Accounting Office on the Everglades National Park Restoration Project. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 29, 1999 at 9:30 a.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. 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. 109, a bill to improve protection and management of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of Georgia; S. 340, a bill to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to make technical corrections, and for other purposes; S. 582, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an arrangement for the construction and operation of the Gateway Visitor Center at Independence National Historical Park; S. 589, a bill to require the National Park Service to undertake a study of the Loess Hills Area in western Iowa to review options for the protection and interpretation of the area's natural, cultural, and historical resources; S. 591, a bill to authorize a feasibility study for the preservation of the Loess Hills in western Iowa; and H.R. 149, a bill to make technical corrections to the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 and to other laws related to parks and public lands. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 15, 1999 at 2:00 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. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I wanted to take an opportunity in morning business, Mr. President, to comment just a little bit on this whole business of budgeting; I guess more specifically, supplemental budgets and the problems that are there. First of all, with respect to the budget that is before the Senate, I congratulate the leadership and the Appropriations Committee for the good work that they have done. I know that it is difficult. I think they have done a good job in seeking to offset the costs. But I really believe that one of the things we need to change in the Senate is our method of budgeting, our method of supplemental budgeting particularly. First of all, in the broader sense, I am hopeful that we will consider this year the idea of a biennial budget, that we will come in at the beginning of the 2-year period, put down a budget, and have 2 years under which to operate so that in the second year we can do more of what we should be doing, and that is oversight of the expenditures of that budget. I understand that under that circumstance there would be supplemental budgets, that you would probably be more likely to have one if you had the 2-year budget, but I think that is the thing we ought to be doing. Now we spend such a high percentage of our total time doing budgetary things and quite often bringing in things that are nonbudgetary on to budget bills. I think that is a mistake. We are set up to have a Budget Committee. We are set up to have an Appropriations Committee that deals with the expenditures. We are set up to have committees of jurisdiction that are responsible for the policy. Unfortunately, many times we find that issues on policy come to the appropriations, particularly on supplementals, without ever going to the committee of jurisdiction, and we find ourselves with policy on Appropriations Committee measures, which I think is inappropriate. There again let me say, I congratulate those who have been involved with this bill, because I think they have done a good job--something around $2 billion, I believe, that has been generally offset. And I know how difficult it is to keep the amendments from coming. Everybody sees that as an opportunity to put on there the things they have been seeking to do. We talk about having surpluses; we talk about what we are going to do with those surpluses. The real issue before us, particularly if you are interested in keeping the size of the Federal Government under control, is spending and spending caps. I am pretty proud of what has happened here in the Senate, in the Congress, over the last several years, when we have been able to have some spending caps, and we have been able to at least hold spending at a relatively level. Yet we have a surplus, and we begin to think, ``Oh, we can do this.'' If you really want to keep control over the size of the Federal Government, if you really want to encourage governance to take place more at the State and local level, then we have to be very observant, I think, of spending caps. There is a justification for emergency spending, certainly, when we have things like storms and earthquakes and so on, but emergency spending can also result in all kinds of things being called ``emergency spending,'' and the result is we spend more than our caps. So I think most people in Wyoming believe that $1.6 trillion is plenty of money. That is what our spending is. In the natural event, we spent last year about $20 billion in emergency spending, much of which would be very hard to really honestly identify as emergency spending. It was an ``emergency'' way to have more spending, encouraged by the administration, encouraged by this President. And his budget is going to cause us to consider that even more, where the President has cut down spending that needs to go on, to put in new spending in the hopes that the total spending will be increased. So, Mr. President, I just think that is the wrong way to go. I do, again, appreciate our chairman trying to hold and offset spending. I voted against the supplemental bill last year even though obviously there are always things there that you would like to have happen. I think we need to look very closely at this bill to make sure that spending is in fact offset or that it is indeed emergency spending. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share some general feelings about our budgeting system and to urge that we take a very close look at what we do in terms of our total spending and how it has been impacted by these kinds of supplemental budgets. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for morning business be extended until 11:45, under the same terms as previously granted.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise in opposition to the Hutchinson amendment and urge my colleagues to vote to table it. I support China's accession to the WTO. I believe that it is in our own best interests to draw China further into the world community through fora such as the WTO. It will benefit the United States by creating a more-equal trade relationship between us, and will work to promote the rule of law in China. I also believe that it will benefit the United States by taking bilateral trade disputes which may pop up between us and making them multilateral, thereby minimizing the opportunity for those disputes to spill over and infect the rest of our relationship. Of course, my support has an important caveat. China must accede on what are called ``commercially acceptable principles.'' China cannot accede as a developing country in some areas, and a developed country in others, leaving it to China to determine which are which. If the time comes for China's accession, Mr. President, you can be sure that if I am not convinced that the terms of China's accession are commercially acceptable, I will be the first Member to rush to this floor to oppose accession. This amendment though, Mr. President, is not about the mechanics of accession to the WTO. Rather, it is yet another thinly-veiled attempt by its author--one in a long series of attempts--to single China out and punish it for offenses--real or imagined--committed in other spheres. Let me be clear: there is no argument that there aren't problems in our relationship with China, serious problems that we need to address. But there are more appropriate ways to address those problems. WTO accession is a trade issue. It is not a human rights issue. It is not a military issue. It is not a technology or nuclear transfer issue. It is not an issue about how China treats Taiwan or Hong Kong or Tibet. The issue should not be linked under the guise of a WTO debate; we should not turn a decision on WTO into a referendum on the immediate state of our overall bilateral relationship. In addition, the sponsor makes a great deal of only wanting to pass this amendment in order to afford the Senate the opportunity to debate and then vote on all the merits of China's accession should that time come. But Mr. President, we already have that opportunity. If and when China accedes to the WTO, that is not the end of the process. Congress still has to vote on extending permanent most-favored nation status to China. That debate will give the Senate, and the sponsor, ample opportunity to address all of the myriad issues surrounding China that he rightly feels are so important. It will give us a chance to raise concerns about human rights, military buildup, trade deficits, and all the rest. There is no need to afford ourselves the same opportunity twice. In addition, Mr. President, requiring this second vote has no precedent. One hundred and ten countries have acceded to the WTO since 1948, and not once has the Senate required that we be afforded a separate vote on one of those accessions. But the Senator from Arkansas would like to single China out and set a different standard for that country's accession, to treat it differently than any other country that has come before it, or--presumably--would come after. I don't believe he can make a compelling case for doing so. Moreover, I am not convinced that giving ourselves veto authority in this manner over a trade agreement reached by the Executive Branch could pass constitutional muster. For all these reasons, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and support the motion to table of the Senator from Alaska.

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. 323, a bill to redesignate the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument as a national park and establish the Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area, and for other purposes; S. 338, a bill to provide for the collection of fees for the making of motion pictures, television productions, and sound tracks in units of the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes; S. 568, a bill to allow the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to establish a fee system for commercial filming activities in a site or resource under their jurisdiction. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, March 24, 1999 at 2 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. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, in introducing legislation to convey certain BLM lands to the Westside Irrigation District. This measure is a culmination of years of hard work, by folks affected, to reach a solution through perseverance and much negotiation. It is a compromise--interested parties working together for a common goal, and it has been 30 years in the making. I am pleased today to be part of setting forth what is needed to turn a goal for many Wyoming residents into a reality. This legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey roughly 37,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in Washakie County and Big Horn County, Wyoming, to the Westside Irrigation District. In turn, Westside Irrigation District will irrigate these lands and sell them as farmland parcels. Proceeds raised from the land sales will be given to the Secretary of the Interior for the acquisition of land in the Worland District of the Bureau of Land Management, for the purpose of benefiting public recreation, increasing public access, enhancing fish and wildlife habitat and improving cultural resources. In recent years, expanded residential development in Washakie and Big Horn Counties has resulted in key loss to the economy--farmland. What this legislation proposes to do is afford communities an opportunity to retain their economic vitality while protecting cultural and natural resources. It promises to benefit both the business community and preserve the environment. Benefits attained from this legislation will be fruitful for all parties. Agricultural producers have the rare chance to increase private land holdings in a largely public lands State. Wildlife interests are given the resources necessary to enhance critical habitat areas. In addition, the creation of 200 new jobs and an estimated financial impact of $16.8 million annually will spur tremendous economic development in these Wyoming counties. Mr. President, let me once again congratulate all of the folks who have worked so hard on this measure--it is a job well done. I hope the Senate will give this bill every consideration and I look forward to taking action on it in the near future.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I come to the floor today because I believe that the time has come for a thoughtful and critical re- examination of United States policy towards the People's Republic of China. There had been encouraging developments in China in the past two years. China has begun tackling the staggering job of reforming an antiquated command economy and opening it to private enterprise; and have begun to move the military out of the private sector. They've taken this difficult step even though they know it will result in the displacement and unemployment of literally millions of people. In addition, the government has greatly increased the number of democratic elections taking place at the village level throughout China. And Beijing has, for the most part, avoided interfering in Hong Kong affairs now that it is again a part of the PRC But Mr. President, despite these improvements, I cannot ignore the fact that for every step China has taken forward, it appears to have also taken one or two back. And a bilateral relationship that 10 months ago looked as though it were showing improvement is instead, I believe, headed down a rocky road. For example: Nuclear and Technology Transfer Recent press reports have indicated that over the span of the last several years there have been damaging leaks to the Chinese of sensitive United States nuclear technology which has enabled them to advance their own nuclear program. The exact facts of the case are still unclear, and I am sure will be the subject of intense Congressional scrutiny in the months ahead, but what is clear to me is that there is a credible foundation for the accusations and that they are not, as the Chinese would have us believe, the figment of some supposed ``anti-China'' media bias. My examination of the Cox report leads me to the identical conclusion with regards to the transfer and acquisition of satellite technology. Now it would naive to deny that espionage is a fact of geopolitical life, or that countries act in their own best interests; we should neither be shocked nor appalled that it goes on. But still, China's willingness to systematically circumvent our laws and acquire over the last several years--by stealth or otherwise--nuclear and computer technology is troubling to me, and demonstrates a willingness to take advantage of our relationship when possible. Taiwan After a long-standing chill in relations across the Taiwan Straits, during which the two sides failed to carry on even basic dialog, things had begun looking up lately. The two sides resumed direct meetings last year, and the head of the Taiwanese department that oversees cross- straits affairs visited Beijing a few months ago; his PRC counterpart, Wang Daohan, has agreed to a return visit to Taipei in the near future. Recently though, there have been some signs that things might turn chilly again. In the last several months, the PRC has relocated a number of its missiles from the interior of the country to Fujian, Zhejiang, and Guangdong Provinces--the three provinces directly across the Straits from Taiwan. Moving so many missiles into these coastal provinces is clearly meant, and understood, to send one signal to Taiwan. Remember, Mr. President, that it was from these provinces that China launched a series of ``missile tests'' just north and south of Taiwan during its 1996 presidential elections which effectively blockaded the ports of Kaoshiung and Taipei and which we felt were threatening enough to require the movement of part of the 7th Fleet to the Straits. The movement of those missiles, and the not so veiled threat that accompanies them, can only prove to be another destabilizing effect in the region. Accompanied by rather bellicose statements in the last two weeks by PRC Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan which pointedly omitted any promise to rule out the use of military force to achieve the reunification of Taiwan with the PRC, Taiwan cannot be faulted for feeling that the threat against it from the mainland has increased; nor can it be faulted for feeling the only way to protect themselves from that threat is to explore participating in the discussions about establishing a theater missile defense (TMD) system in East Asia. In reaction to the TMD discussions, last week Beijing started a media blitz charging that any Taiwanese participation in a TMD ``would be the absolute last straw'' is US-PRC relations, and have threatened a series of serious--albeit unspecified--retaliatory steps. Yet China completely overlooks the fact that their missile movements have, in great measure, precipitated Taiwan's interest. Tibet Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of the beginning of a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese occupation of their country--an uprising that was brutally suppressed. And which resulted in the death, arrest, or imprisonment of more that 87,000 Tibetans. It is unfortunate that since that time, the core position that China has vis-a-vis Tibet has changed very little. Despite a sincere ongoing effort on the part of the Dalai Lama to engage the PRC in a dialog about the future of Tibet, the Chinese have repeatedly refused to meet with the Dalai Lama or his representatives to discuss the issue. Each time Beijing has placed preconditions on the commencement of those talks, and the Dalai Lama has acceded to those conditions despite their unpopularity among his people, the Chinese have effectively moved the goalposts. For example, the Dalai Lama has agreed to negotiate within the framework enunciated by Deng Xiaoping in 1979; namely, that he does not seek independence for Tibet but rather the opportunity for Tibetans to handle their domestic affairs and freely determine their social, economic, and cultural development. Once he acquiesced to that position, however, Beijing apparently decided that Deng's framework was no longer sufficient. Most recently, during his meeting with President Clinton last year, Jiang Zemin suggested he would meet with the Dalai Lama if the latter would recognize that Tibet and Taiwan are a part of China. His Holiness subsequently made a statement to that effect. But then the Chinese said that ``he is not sincere" in his statement--that the Dalai Lama is lying--and therefore still refuse to negotiate with him. And in the meantime, China continues to do all it can to squelch the Tibetan identity. Large numbers of ethnic Han Chinese are still being moved into Tibet in an apparent effort to make Tibetans a minority in their own land. Buddhist monks and nuns are imprisoned, and monasteries closed or their populations severely reduced. The government continues to manipulate and direct the selection of religious leaders more agreeable to the party line. When confronted with these facts, the Chinese are fond of sidestepping them and noting that the life of the average Tibetan -- from a health and economic standpoint--is better than it was before they took over. That may be. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the Tibetan people are free to worship as they please. Whether they are free to express their cultural and ethnic identity. Whether they are free to determine their futures for themselves. And at present, the answer to those questions is a simple no. Human Rights There has been a disturbing increase in the last six months in government crackdowns on the freedom of expression, as evidenced by a sharp increase in the number of arrests and convictions of prodemocracy advocates. In addition, the government has shut down fledgling prodemocracy organizations, and sought to curb Internet use and access. I believe I understand, although I certainly in no way condone, the impetus behind the crackdown. As I noted earlier, China has recently embarked on a program to restructure its economy along free-market lines and to open itself more to the world around it. These changes could be viewed as potentially destabilizing for a communist regime which controls over 1.2 billion people. President Jiang admitted as much at the end of last year when he characterized government actions as necessary ``to nip those factors that undermine social stability in the bud.'' As with other campaigns in China's recent past, such as the ``Let 100 Flowers Bloom'' campaign, when this latest openness campaign took hold and began to accelerate, the central authorities got overly anxious about their ability to control the pace of reforms and about it getting out from underneath them and unleashing democracy. They have thus, true to form, begun slamming on the brakes and stifling any dissent, real or perceived. But in doing so, the Chinese are blatantly flouting international norms and agreements to which they had previously pledged to adhere among them the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural, and Social Rights. And in doing so, the Chinese are turning their backs on us and an issue that is of central importance to us. North Korea As a participant in the Four Party Talks in Geneva, China has helped facilitate getting North Korea to the negotiating table in an attempt to stabilize the Korean peninsula. But while purporting to assist us on the one hand, despite United States requests the Chinese are still not doing all they could--or in their own best interests should--do to defuse the potential powder keg that is North Korea. Beijing's initial response is to say, as Foreign Minister Tang did this week, that we are overestimating the potential threat North Korea poses to the region. But to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the issue, North Korea is probably the number one threat to peace and stability in all of East Asia. The Chinese fall-back position then is to say that they have no influence over the North that could be used to help us effectuate change. But China continues to supply the North, a country that is literally starving its own people to death to maintain its military and its political elite, with food and technical goods, and serves as its only source of aviation fuel. In fact, it was reported last week that China has supplied the North with missile technology. All those seem to me to be potent incentives that could be used to influence the actions of the North, but which are pointedly not being taken advantage of by the Chinese. Mr. President, we have had a policy of ``engagement'' with China now for a number of years. I have, since I came to the Senate, generally supported the concept as the best way--in my view--to effectuate change in China. But as a supporter of the concept, I now have to look at the facts and ask what the payoff has been to us. Mr. President, this is what engagement has gotten us lately: a military buildup that seriously threatens Taiwan, a Chinese veto last month in the UN of a proposed peacekeeping operation in the Balkans, an upswing in the harsh suppression of internationally recognized human and political rights, a continuing refusal to address the question of Tibet, the undermining of United States efforts to deal with North Korea, a continuing effort to purchase or steal sensitive computer and nuclear technology from us, and a trade deficit that hit an all-time high this year. At times, it has seemed to me that this Administration--one that ironically accused its predecessor of ``coddling Beijing''--has been more interested in the concept of engagement than in what results, if any, the application of that concept is achieving. Call it ``engagement for engagement's sake.'' The most glaring, and disturbing, illustration of that tendency may involve the allegations of leaks of nuclear technology from our facility at Los Alamos to the Chinese which came to light this week. Regardless of when the leaks occurred, initial reports suggest to me that this Administration knew of the problem but soft-peddled it so as to avoid calling its China policy into question. A NSC spokesman recently refuted that allegation by saying that the Administration has kept the relevant committees of Congress closely informed of the problem over the last 18 months, and of what was being done to address it. Mr. President, I have been Chairman of the East Asia Subcommittee for more than four years now. No one from the Administration has ever mentioned it to me, or to my staff. Nor has anyone contacted the staff of the full Foreign Relations Committee, or Chairman Helms' Asia advisors. I believe it is time to take a step back--on both sides of the aisle--and give our China policy a very long, hard, critical look. Congress needs to take the lead in examining whether, in the Administration's eagerness to engage China, we have overlooked the fact that our return--an improvement in China's domestic or international behavior--has been negligible at best. I am not advocating isolating China, or shutting off our contacts or dialog. I do not believe that we can bully or badger the Chinese into accepting our view of the world as the only one that is correct. Instead, I agree that we need to communicate with Beijing on a whole variety of fronts, to engage in open and frank dialog, and that because of its size, its economy, and its geopolitical importance we cannot, and should not, ignore them. But we need to take a look at the level at which that interaction takes place, and what we are willing to give up in exchange for that relationship. And we also need to look at what we want or expect in return. Mr. President, our relationship with them should be grounded in reality, not in wishful thinking. And it should be a two-way street, not a one-way to a dead-end.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, in introducing legislation to convey certain BLM lands to the Westside Irrigation District. This measure is a culmination of years of hard work, by folks affected, to reach a solution through perseverance and much negotiation. It is a compromise--interested parties working together for a common goal, and it has been 30 years in the making. I am pleased today to be part of setting forth what is needed to turn a goal for many Wyoming residents into a reality. This legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey roughly 37,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in Washakie County and Big Horn County, Wyoming, to the Westside Irrigation District. In turn, Westside Irrigation District will irrigate these lands and sell them as farmland parcels. Proceeds raised from the land sales will be given to the Secretary of the Interior for the acquisition of land in the Worland District of the Bureau of Land Management, for the purpose of benefiting public recreation, increasing public access, enhancing fish and wildlife habitat and improving cultural resources. In recent years, expanded residential development in Washakie and Big Horn Counties has resulted in key loss to the economy--farmland. What this legislation proposes to do is afford communities an opportunity to retain their economic vitality while protecting cultural and natural resources. It promises to benefit both the business community and preserve the environment. Benefits attained from this legislation will be fruitful for all parties. Agricultural producers have the rare chance to increase private land holdings in a largely public lands State. Wildlife interests are given the resources necessary to enhance critical habitat areas. In addition, the creation of 200 new jobs and an estimated financial impact of $16.8 million annually will spur tremendous economic development in these Wyoming counties. Mr. President, let me once again congratulate all of the folks who have worked so hard on this measure--it is a job well done. I hope the Senate will give this bill every consideration and I look forward to taking action on it in the near future.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would allow the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to charge a fee when commercial filming activities take place on public lands in their jurisdiction. This legislation is another important part of our efforts to preserve and protect the pristine beauty of our national parks and other public lands. A similar version of this legislation was included in S. 1693, the Vision 2020, National Parks Restoration Act, when that bill passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the language was removed from that bill when it passed the House of Representatives. The purpose of this measure is very simple. When commercial film companies use our nation's public lands, they should pay for that privilege. Our nation's parks and other lands provide an outstanding backdrop for the commercial film industry and we should ensure that these areas are not negatively impacted by that use. This legislation is not designed as a ``bash Hollywood'' bill. I want to comment the commercial film industry for their efforts to work with me and other members of Congress to find a reasonable solution to this matter. Although there are those in the industry who do not want to pay for the use of these lands, by and large the film industry is willing to pay a fee for filming on public lands as long as it is reasonable, understandable and fair. I believe the bill I am introducing today meets all of those criteria. Let me take a few moments to outline this measure. The legislation would authorize both the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to charge a reasonable fee for commercial filming activities on federal lands in their jurisdiction. The fee will be based on a number of criteria including; the number of days the filming takes place within the areas, the size of the film crew and the amount and type of equipment used. The agencies would also be directed to recover any costs incurred as a result of filming activities such as administrative and personnel costs. All of the fees charged for film activities would stay at the site where they are collected. We have also included language in this bill to address the issue of still photography on public lands. As we worked to craft the parks bill last year, we heard from a large number of still photographers who were worried about the impact this legislation would have on them. In order to address those concerns, we have included language in our bill exempting still photography unless the agency determines that this activity will disrupt the public's use and enjoyment of the resource. I believe this is a fair way to address this question. Mr. President, the time has come to establish a film fee system on our nation's public lands that is sensible and understandable. Once again, I want to stress that this bill is not designed to punish the film industry. Instead, this measure will benefit both the public and the film industry by establishing simple and understandable system for operating on federal lands. Establishing a sound fee system for filming on public lands can be a ``win-win'' for the public and the film industry and I hope the Senate will take quick action on this important measure.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which would allow the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to charge a fee when commercial filming activities take place on public lands in their jurisdiction. This legislation is another important part of our efforts to preserve and protect the pristine beauty of our national parks and other public lands. A similar version of this legislation was included in S. 1693, the Vision 2020, National Parks Restoration Act, when that bill passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the language was removed from that bill when it passed the House of Representatives. The purpose of this measure is very simple. When commercial film companies use our nation's public lands, they should pay for that privilege. Our nation's parks and other lands provide an outstanding backdrop for the commercial film industry and we should ensure that these areas are not negatively impacted by that use. This legislation is not designed as a ``bash Hollywood'' bill. I want to comment the commercial film industry for their efforts to work with me and other members of Congress to find a reasonable solution to this matter. Although there are those in the industry who do not want to pay for the use of these lands, by and large the film industry is willing to pay a fee for filming on public lands as long as it is reasonable, understandable and fair. I believe the bill I am introducing today meets all of those criteria. Let me take a few moments to outline this measure. The legislation would authorize both the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to charge a reasonable fee for commercial filming activities on federal lands in their jurisdiction. The fee will be based on a number of criteria including; the number of days the filming takes place within the areas, the size of the film crew and the amount and type of equipment used. The agencies would also be directed to recover any costs incurred as a result of filming activities such as administrative and personnel costs. All of the fees charged for film activities would stay at the site where they are collected. We have also included language in this bill to address the issue of still photography on public lands. As we worked to craft the parks bill last year, we heard from a large number of still photographers who were worried about the impact this legislation would have on them. In order to address those concerns, we have included language in our bill exempting still photography unless the agency determines that this activity will disrupt the public's use and enjoyment of the resource. I believe this is a fair way to address this question. Mr. President, the time has come to establish a film fee system on our nation's public lands that is sensible and understandable. Once again, I want to stress that this bill is not designed to punish the film industry. Instead, this measure will benefit both the public and the film industry by establishing simple and understandable system for operating on federal lands. Establishing a sound fee system for filming on public lands can be a ``win-win'' for the public and the film industry and I hope the Senate will take quick action on this important measure.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999. This legislation empowers the states to restructure their electric industries at the rate and in the way they decide. My legislation imposes no ``retail choice mandate'' or deadline on the States so as to fully allow the best market ideas and approaches to occur. As well, EURECA removes Federal impediments to competition and deregulates and streamlines the industry. My bill gives the States the leading role in implementing competition in the electric power industry. This approach contrasts with the bills introduced in the House and Senate last Congress that required competition nationwide by a date certain. A Federal mandate on the States requiring retail competition by a date certain is not in the best interest of all classes of consumers. I am concerned such an approach would cause increased prices for low density States with relatively low cost power. This bill will protect States' rights and allow States maximum latitude to adapt competition to their own individual needs. I believe States are in the best position to deal with this complex issue. Although the cost of electricity varies across the country, electric industry restructuring can result in lower consumer prices for everyday goods and services, the development of innovative new products and services, and a growing, more productive economy. We have spent the last two Congresses holding hearings to review the state of competition in the electric power industry and discussing numerous pieces of legislation dealing with restructuring. Meanwhile, 20 individual States have passed their own legislation introducing competition into the retail electric industry and many other States are considering such proposals. According to industry statistics, nearly 50 percent of all Americans now live in States committed to retail competition. States are clearly taking the lead--they should continue to have that role--and this bill encourages more innovation by affirming States' ability to implement retail choice policies. It is critical to the welfare of the States that each one have an opportunity to ready and equip themselves for a successful transition to a deregulated environment. By learning from the States which have already implemented competition, other states can take precautions and adopt laws that will best protect them as they adjust to this new competitive environment. With FERC's Order 888, which created competitive wholesale power supply markets through the availability of non-discriminatory open-access transmission service under tariff, we have seen at both the State and Federal levels that we are now in a critical testing period in the implementation of market-based policies. Specifically, we saw the price spikes that occurred last summer in the Midwest. After holding a hearing on the subject, the experts agreed that we are indeed in a transition period. Although no one could point to one specific reason for the occurrence, and many were suggested, all seemed to agree for the need of national reliability standards. Traditionally, reliability of the transmission system was managed by a voluntary, industry-led organization known as the North American Electric Reliability Council. We have added many new players to the transmission grid, making for an increasingly decentralized and competitive U.S. electricity industry. And, as determined by a recently issued DOE Task Force Report, ``the old institutions of reliability are no longer sufficient.'' I have added a section on reliability to my legislation. The industry collectively came up with a legislative proposal that would transform NERC from a voluntary system of reliability management to NAERO, an organization that is mandatory in nature and subject to FERC oversight. Sustaining system reliability is crucial for protecting all classes of consumers and such an organization can help ensure that power markets function efficiently. One of the most important aspects of this debate--assuring that universal service is maintained--is a critical function that each state PUC should have the ability to oversee and enforce. In my legislation, nothing would prohibit a state from requiring all electricity providers that sell electricity to retail customers in that state to provide electricity service to all classes and consumers of electric power. All classes of consumers should have access to adequate, safe, reliable and efficient energy services at fair and reasonable prices, as a result of competition. Mr. President, my proposal will create greater competition at the wholesale level by prospectively deregulating wholesale sales of electricity. We did this in natural gas and it worked--I am confident it will work in electricity. Although everyone talks about ``deregulating'' the electricity industry, it is really the generation segment that will be deregulated. The FERC will continue to regulate transmission in interstate commerce, and State PUCs will continue to regulate retail distribution services and sales. When FERC issued Order 888, it allowed utilities to seek market-based rates for new generating capacity. This provision goes a step further and allows utilities to purchase wholesale power from existing generation facilities, after the date of enactment of this Act, at prices solely determined by market forces. Furthermore, the measure expands FERC authority to require non-public utilities that own, operate or control transmission to open their systems. Currently, the Commission cannot require the Power Marketing Administration (PMAs), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), municipalities and cooperatives which own transmission to provide wholesale open access transmission service. Since approximately 22 percent of all transmission is beyond open access authority, requiring these non-public utilities to provide this service will help ensure that a true wholesale power market exists. One of the key elements of this measure is streamlining and modernizing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). While both of these initiatives were enacted with good intentions, there is widespread belief that the Acts have fulfilled their original obligations and have outlived their usefulness. My bill amends Section 210 of PURPA on a prospective basis. Current PURPA contracts would continue to be honored and upheld. However, upon enactment of this legislation, a utility that begins operating would not be required to enter into a new contract or obligation to purchase electricity under Section 210 of PURPA. With regard to PUHCA, I've included Senators Shelby's and Dodd's ``Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1999.'' This language is identical to the bipartisan legislation reported by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the 105th Congress. Under this proposal, PUHCA would be repealed. Furthermore, all books and records of each holding company and each associate company would be transferred to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)--which currently has jurisdiction over the 19 registered holding companies--to FERC. This allows energy regulators, who truly know the industry to oversee the operations of these companies and review acquisitions and mergers. These consumer protections are an important part of PUHCA reform. Mr. President, an issue that must be resolved in order for a true competitive environment to exist is that of utilities receiving ``subsidies'' by the federal government and the U.S. tax code. For years, investor owned utilities (IOUs) have claimed inequity because of tax-exempt financing and low-interest loans that municipalities and rural cooperative receive. On the other side of the equation, these public power systems maintain that IOUs receive benefits in the tax code such as accelerated depreciation, investment tax credits and deferred income tax and many use tax-exempt debt for pollution control bonds. Are these in a way, ``subsidies?'' The jury is still out on how best to tackle these difficult issues but without a doubt, we will need to come to a resolution. Finally, my bill directs the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury to file a report to the Congress detailing whether and how tax code incentives received by all utilities should be reviewed in order to foster a competitive retail electricity market in the future. Mr. President, with respect to federal comprehensive restructuring legislation, it is the states themselves that hold the key to ultimate success. EURECA allows states to continue to move forward and craft electricity proposals that best fit their own particular needs. This legislation is the best solution to move forward with a better product for all classes of consumers and the industry as a whole.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999. This legislation empowers the states to restructure their electric industries at the rate and in the way they decide. My legislation imposes no ``retail choice mandate'' or deadline on the States so as to fully allow the best market ideas and approaches to occur. As well, EURECA removes Federal impediments to competition and deregulates and streamlines the industry. My bill gives the States the leading role in implementing competition in the electric power industry. This approach contrasts with the bills introduced in the House and Senate last Congress that required competition nationwide by a date certain. A Federal mandate on the States requiring retail competition by a date certain is not in the best interest of all classes of consumers. I am concerned such an approach would cause increased prices for low density States with relatively low cost power. This bill will protect States' rights and allow States maximum latitude to adapt competition to their own individual needs. I believe States are in the best position to deal with this complex issue. Although the cost of electricity varies across the country, electric industry restructuring can result in lower consumer prices for everyday goods and services, the development of innovative new products and services, and a growing, more productive economy. We have spent the last two Congresses holding hearings to review the state of competition in the electric power industry and discussing numerous pieces of legislation dealing with restructuring. Meanwhile, 20 individual States have passed their own legislation introducing competition into the retail electric industry and many other States are considering such proposals. According to industry statistics, nearly 50 percent of all Americans now live in States committed to retail competition. States are clearly taking the lead--they should continue to have that role--and this bill encourages more innovation by affirming States' ability to implement retail choice policies. It is critical to the welfare of the States that each one have an opportunity to ready and equip themselves for a successful transition to a deregulated environment. By learning from the States which have already implemented competition, other states can take precautions and adopt laws that will best protect them as they adjust to this new competitive environment. With FERC's Order 888, which created competitive wholesale power supply markets through the availability of non-discriminatory open-access transmission service under tariff, we have seen at both the State and Federal levels that we are now in a critical testing period in the implementation of market-based policies. Specifically, we saw the price spikes that occurred last summer in the Midwest. After holding a hearing on the subject, the experts agreed that we are indeed in a transition period. Although no one could point to one specific reason for the occurrence, and many were suggested, all seemed to agree for the need of national reliability standards. Traditionally, reliability of the transmission system was managed by a voluntary, industry-led organization known as the North American Electric Reliability Council. We have added many new players to the transmission grid, making for an increasingly decentralized and competitive U.S. electricity industry. And, as determined by a recently issued DOE Task Force Report, ``the old institutions of reliability are no longer sufficient.'' I have added a section on reliability to my legislation. The industry collectively came up with a legislative proposal that would transform NERC from a voluntary system of reliability management to NAERO, an organization that is mandatory in nature and subject to FERC oversight. Sustaining system reliability is crucial for protecting all classes of consumers and such an organization can help ensure that power markets function efficiently. One of the most important aspects of this debate--assuring that universal service is maintained--is a critical function that each state PUC should have the ability to oversee and enforce. In my legislation, nothing would prohibit a state from requiring all electricity providers that sell electricity to retail customers in that state to provide electricity service to all classes and consumers of electric power. All classes of consumers should have access to adequate, safe, reliable and efficient energy services at fair and reasonable prices, as a result of competition. Mr. President, my proposal will create greater competition at the wholesale level by prospectively deregulating wholesale sales of electricity. We did this in natural gas and it worked--I am confident it will work in electricity. Although everyone talks about ``deregulating'' the electricity industry, it is really the generation segment that will be deregulated. The FERC will continue to regulate transmission in interstate commerce, and State PUCs will continue to regulate retail distribution services and sales. When FERC issued Order 888, it allowed utilities to seek market-based rates for new generating capacity. This provision goes a step further and allows utilities to purchase wholesale power from existing generation facilities, after the date of enactment of this Act, at prices solely determined by market forces. Furthermore, the measure expands FERC authority to require non-public utilities that own, operate or control transmission to open their systems. Currently, the Commission cannot require the Power Marketing Administration (PMAs), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), municipalities and cooperatives which own transmission to provide wholesale open access transmission service. Since approximately 22 percent of all transmission is beyond open access authority, requiring these non-public utilities to provide this service will help ensure that a true wholesale power market exists. One of the key elements of this measure is streamlining and modernizing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA). While both of these initiatives were enacted with good intentions, there is widespread belief that the Acts have fulfilled their original obligations and have outlived their usefulness. My bill amends Section 210 of PURPA on a prospective basis. Current PURPA contracts would continue to be honored and upheld. However, upon enactment of this legislation, a utility that begins operating would not be required to enter into a new contract or obligation to purchase electricity under Section 210 of PURPA. With regard to PUHCA, I've included Senators Shelby's and Dodd's ``Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1999.'' This language is identical to the bipartisan legislation reported by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in the 105th Congress. Under this proposal, PUHCA would be repealed. Furthermore, all books and records of each holding company and each associate company would be transferred to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)--which currently has jurisdiction over the 19 registered holding companies--to FERC. This allows energy regulators, who truly know the industry to oversee the operations of these companies and review acquisitions and mergers. These consumer protections are an important part of PUHCA reform. Mr. President, an issue that must be resolved in order for a true competitive environment to exist is that of utilities receiving ``subsidies'' by the federal government and the U.S. tax code. For years, investor owned utilities (IOUs) have claimed inequity because of tax-exempt financing and low-interest loans that municipalities and rural cooperative receive. On the other side of the equation, these public power systems maintain that IOUs receive benefits in the tax code such as accelerated depreciation, investment tax credits and deferred income tax and many use tax-exempt debt for pollution control bonds. Are these in a way, ``subsidies?'' The jury is still out on how best to tackle these difficult issues but without a doubt, we will need to come to a resolution. Finally, my bill directs the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury to file a report to the Congress detailing whether and how tax code incentives received by all utilities should be reviewed in order to foster a competitive retail electricity market in the future. Mr. President, with respect to federal comprehensive restructuring legislation, it is the states themselves that hold the key to ultimate success. EURECA allows states to continue to move forward and craft electricity proposals that best fit their own particular needs. This legislation is the best solution to move forward with a better product for all classes of consumers and the industry as a whole.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman once again for the time, and I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise in begrudging support for S. Res. 45. I say begrudging only because while I agree that the UN Human Rights Commission should address China's human rights record, I neither believe that the UNHRC will place the issue on its agenda nor do I feel that this resolution has been brought to the floor in the most constructive manner. I agree with the other Senators who have spoken this morning that there has been a disturbing increase in China in the last six months in crackdowns on the freedom of expression, crackdowns evidenced by an increase in the number of arrests and convictions of prodemocracy activists. Moreover, despite attempts to establish a dialog with Beijing, China still refuses to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to discuss the future of Tibet and instead continues to facilitate the increasing immigration of Han Chinese into Tibet and the jailing of Buddhist nuns and lamas. Christian churches not registered with the central government continue to be subject to harassment and closure and their congregants subject to arrest. I believe I understand, although I certainly in no way condone, the impetus behind the crackdown. China has recently embarked on a program to restructure its economy to a market-oriented system and to open more to the world around it. These changes are obviously potentially destabilizing for a communist regime governing 1.3 billion people. And as with other campaigns in China's past designed to restructure society, such as the ``Let 100 Flowers Bloom'' campaign, once the program took hold and began to accelerate, the central authorities got anxious about continuing to be able to control the pace of reform and about it getting out from underneath them. They have consequently begun slamming on the brakes and stifling any perceived dissent. And it is that movement to stifle peaceful dissent and universal human freedoms that should prompt the US to press this issue before the UNHRC. In a perfect world one would think that these are exactly the type of actions the UNHRC would want to address, but sadly we all know the reality of the eventual outcome. This year, as in years past, the United States will fail by a significantly wide vote margin to place China on the Commission's agenda. We will be deserted by most of our purported allies who, while nominally paying lip service to the sanctity of human rights, appear more interested in securing their commercial interests in the PRC. Well Mr. President, so be it. As Senator Biden has noted, there is no shame in standing alone on the right side of history, and I fully support that stand under the conditions prevailing in China this year. But Mr. President, while I support the consideration of this resolution today, I am less enthused about the terms of the unanimous consent agreement which brought it here. As the Chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, in past Congresses I have strongly disfavored the practice of discharging the Foreign Relations Committee from the consideration of legislation which the Committee has not had the opportunity to address first. My disapproval of discharges is especially acute when the legislation in question is sponsored by a Senator not a member of the Committee. I intend this to be my practice in this Congress as well. I have, however, made exceptions in the case of legislation which is completely non-controversial or is somehow time-sensitive. Since the UNHRC meetings this year in Geneva are imminent, and since there was not enough time to consider the legislation in Committee, it made sense in this narrow case and for those reasons I agreed to the discharge. I am also uneasy with the terms of the unanimous consent agreement because they preclude any amendment to the resolution, thereby preventing members from offering what I feel would be constructive changes to the text. In addition, Mr. President, I am unsure why--when the Senate should be focused on more pressing domestic issues such as the Y2K problem or Social Security--we are taking the Senate's time to debate and then vote on a resolution about which there is no difference of opinion and which will most likely pass 100 to 0. This could have just as easily been disposed of by unanimous consent yesterday. For those that argue that a unanimous roll call vote somehow sends a stronger signal than passing legislation by unanimous consent, I would note that it is my longstanding experience that very few people if any outside the Beltway--especially in foreign countries--understand the nuanced differences between the two.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which was passed by the Senate during the 105th Congress and unfortunately was not passed by the House of Representatives. This measure, which would return a family farm in Big Horn County, WY, to its rightful owners, has also gained the Administration's full support. The family of Fred Steffens lost ownership of the property where they lived and prospered for almost 70 years, as a result of a misrepresentation by the original property owners. Mr. Steffens' relatives have explored every avenue to regain the title to their property, and are left with no other option than to seek congressional assistance. I stand before you today, on behalf of my constituents, to request help in providing a timely solution to this problem. It is my hope that in doing so, this wrong can be righted. Upon the death of Fred Steffens on January 20, 1995, his sister Marie Wambeke was appointed personal representative of the 80-acre Steffens Estate. In February 1996, Ms. Wambeke learned from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that she did not have a clear title to her brother's property, and she submitted a Color-of-Title application. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Wambeke was informed that her brother's property was never patented, so her application was rejected. The injustice of this situation is that when Mr. Steffens purchased this property in 1928, he did receive a Warranty Deed with Release of Homestead from the former owners. Unfortunately, these individuals did not have a reclamation entry to assign to Mr. Steffens. In fact, 2 years before selling the property, the original owners had been informed that the land they occupied was withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation for the Shoshone Reclamation Project. At the same time, they were notified that they had never truly owned the property. Unethically, this did not stop them from selling the land to Mr. Steffens in 1928. In good faith Mr. Steffens purchased the property, paid taxes on the property from the time of purchase, and is on record at the Big Horn County Assessor's office as owner of this property. Due to the dishonesty of others, his family now faces the sobering reality of losing this land unless a title transfer can be effected legislatively. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would transfer the land from Fred Steffens' Estate to his sister Marie. This property has been in their family since 1928. Through no fault of their own, these folks are being forced to relinquish rights not only to their land, but to a part of their heritage and a legacy to their future generations. I hope we can expedite this matter by turning this land over the Marie Wambeke's ownership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which was passed by the Senate during the 105th Congress and unfortunately was not passed by the House of Representatives. This measure, which would return a family farm in Big Horn County, WY, to its rightful owners, has also gained the Administration's full support. The family of Fred Steffens lost ownership of the property where they lived and prospered for almost 70 years, as a result of a misrepresentation by the original property owners. Mr. Steffens' relatives have explored every avenue to regain the title to their property, and are left with no other option than to seek congressional assistance. I stand before you today, on behalf of my constituents, to request help in providing a timely solution to this problem. It is my hope that in doing so, this wrong can be righted. Upon the death of Fred Steffens on January 20, 1995, his sister Marie Wambeke was appointed personal representative of the 80-acre Steffens Estate. In February 1996, Ms. Wambeke learned from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that she did not have a clear title to her brother's property, and she submitted a Color-of-Title application. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Wambeke was informed that her brother's property was never patented, so her application was rejected. The injustice of this situation is that when Mr. Steffens purchased this property in 1928, he did receive a Warranty Deed with Release of Homestead from the former owners. Unfortunately, these individuals did not have a reclamation entry to assign to Mr. Steffens. In fact, 2 years before selling the property, the original owners had been informed that the land they occupied was withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation for the Shoshone Reclamation Project. At the same time, they were notified that they had never truly owned the property. Unethically, this did not stop them from selling the land to Mr. Steffens in 1928. In good faith Mr. Steffens purchased the property, paid taxes on the property from the time of purchase, and is on record at the Big Horn County Assessor's office as owner of this property. Due to the dishonesty of others, his family now faces the sobering reality of losing this land unless a title transfer can be effected legislatively. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would transfer the land from Fred Steffens' Estate to his sister Marie. This property has been in their family since 1928. Through no fault of their own, these folks are being forced to relinquish rights not only to their land, but to a part of their heritage and a legacy to their future generations. I hope we can expedite this matter by turning this land over the Marie Wambeke's ownership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment or recess of the Senate until Monday, February 22, 1999, the President of the Senate, the President of the Senate pro tempore, the majority leader of the Senate, and the minority leader of the Senate be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.