Craig Thomas

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 President's proposal fiscal year 2000 Budget for National Park Service programs and operations. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to introduce S. 404, a bill to prohibit the return to a foreign country of any portion of a memorial to American veterans without the express authorization of Congress. The bill is identical to S. 1903 which I introduced at the end of the last Congress. I would not have thought that a bill like this was necessary, Mr. President. It would never have occurred to me that an Administration would even briefly consider dismantling part of a memorial to American soldiers who died in the line of duty in order to send a piece of that memorial to a foreign country; but a real possibility of just that happening exists in my state of Wyoming involving what are known as the ``Bells of Balangiga.'' In 1898, the Treaty of Paris brought to a close the Spanish-American War. As part of the treaty, Spain ceded possession of the Philippines to the United States. At about the same time, the Filipino people began an insurrection in their country. In August 1901, as part of the American effort to stem the insurrection, a company of 74 officers and men from the 9th Infantry, Company G, occupied the town of Balangiga on the island of Samar. These men came from Ft. Russell in Cheyenne, Wyoming--today's F.E. Warren Air Force Base. On September 28 of that year, taking advantage of the preoccupation of the American troops with a church service for the just-assassinated President McKinley, a group of Filipino insurgents infiltrated the town. Only three American sentries were on duty that day. As described in an article in the November 19, 1997 edition of the Wall Street Journal: Officers slept in, and enlisted men didn't bother to carry their rifles as they ambled out of their quarters for breakfast. Balangiga had been a boringly peaceful site since the infantry company arrived a month earlier, according to military accounts and soldiers' statements. The quiet ended abruptly when a 23-year-old U.S. sentry named Adolph Gamlin walked past the local police chief. In one swift move, the Filipino grabbed the slightly built Iowan's rifle and smashed the butt across [Gamlin's] head. As PFC Gamlin crumpled, the bells of Balangiga began to peal. With the signal, hundreds of Filipino fighters swarmed out of the surrounding forest, armed with clubs, picks and machete-like bolo knives. Other poured out of the church; they had arrived the night before, disguised as women mourners and carrying coffins filled with bolos. A sergeant was beheaded in the mess tent and dumped into a vat of steaming wash water. A young bugler was cut down in a nearby stream. The company commander was hacked to death after jumping out a window. Besieged infantrymen defended themselves with kitchen forks, mess kits and baseball bats. Others threw rocks and cans of beans. Though he was also slashed across the back, PFC Gamlin came to and found a rifle. By the time he and the other survivors fought their way to the beach, 38 U.S. soldiers were dead and all but six of the remaining men had been wounded. The remaining soldiers escaped in five dug-out canoes. Only three boats made it to safety on Leyte. Seven men died of exposure at sea, and another eight died of their wounds; only 20 of the company's 74 members survived. A detachment of 54 volunteers from 9th infantry units stationed at Leyte returned to Balangiga and recaptured the village. They were reinforced a few days later from Companies K and L of the 11th Infantry Regiment. When the 11th Infantry was relieved on October 18 by Marines, the 9th Infantry took two of the church bells and an old cannon with them back to Wyoming as memorials to the fallen soldiers. The bells and cannon have been displayed in front of the base flagpole on the central parade grounds since that time. The cannon was restored by local volunteers and placed under a glass display case in 1985 to protect it from the elements. The bells were placed in openings in a large specially constructed masonry wall with a plaque dedicating the memorial to the memory of the fallen soldiers. Off and on since 1981, there have been some discussions in various circles in Cheyenne, Washington, and Manila about the future of the bells, including the possibility of returning them to the Philippines. Most recently, the Philippine government--having run into broad opposition to their request to have both bells returned to them--has proposed making a copy of both bells, and having both sides keep one copy and one original. Opposition to the proposal from local and national civic and veterans groups has been very strong. Mr. President, I will include in the Record the text of a letter from the national office of the American Legion dated April 8, 1998; from the national office of the VFW Dated January 6, 1998 from the American Legion's Department of Wyoming dated December 5, 1997; and from the United Veterans Council of Wyoming dated March 13, 1998. To head off any move by the Administration to dispose of the bells, I and Senator Enzi introduced S. 1903 on April 1. The bill had 18 cosponsors, including the distinguished Chairmen of the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Finance, Energy and Natural Resources, Rules, Ethics, and Banking; the Chairmen of five Subcommittees of the Foreign Relations Committee; and five members of the Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, at this point let me dispose of a canard that was forwarded shortly after the time I introduced S. 1903 by those seeking the return of the bells. They asserted that the bill was actually in contravention of the wishes of the people of the State of Wyoming because the Wyoming Legislature, quoting a letter from the Ambassador of the Philippines dated April 3, 1998, ``supports the sharing of the bells.'' That statement, however, glosses over the real facts. Wyoming's legislature is not a ``professional'' one--that is, the legislators have other, full-time jobs and the Legislature only sits for forty days at the beginning of each year and twenty days in the fall. When the Legislature meets, it is often to process an entire year's worth of legislation in just a few weeks. Like Congress, the Wyoming Legislature has a formal process of introducing, considering, and then voting on bills which become law upon the signature of the chief executive--in this case the governor. Also like Congress, the Legislature has a system for expressing its non-binding viewpoint on certain issues through resolutions. But unlike Congress, the Legislature also has an informal resolution process to express the viewpoint of only a given number of legislators, as opposed to the entire legislative body, on a given topic; the vehicle for such a process is called a ``joint resolution.'' In this process, a legislator circulates the equivalent of a petition among his or her colleagues. Support for the subject matter is signified simply by signing one's name to the petition. Once the sponsor has acquired all the signatures he or she can--or wishes to-- acquire, the joint resolution is simply deposited for the record with the Office of the Governor; it is never--I repeat never--voted on in either House of the Legislature, nor is it signed by the governor. As a consequence, it is not considered to be the position of, or the expression of the will of, the Legislature as a whole, but only of those legislators who signed it. Although the Bells are an issue of interest among some circles state- wide, the issue is not well-known all over Wyoming. I have heard from several of the signatories of the joint resolution on the bells that they were not aware of the circumstances surrounding the bells at the time they signed the joint resolution. In this regard, it is important to note that the sponsor of the joint resolution did not enlighten them about the role of the bells in the unprovoked killing of 54 American soldiers in Balangiga before they signed the document. Moreover, that fact was completely and purposefully left out of the wording of the joint resolution itself; the death of these American soldiers was completely glossed over. The closest the joint resolution gets to mentioning the surprise attack and resulting deaths is this, which I quote verbatim: Whereas, at a point in the relationship, nearly one hundred (100) years ago following the Spanish-American War, armed conflict occurred between the United States and the Philippines; and Whereas, a particularly noteworthy incident occurred on the island of Samar in 1901 during the course of that conflict; and Whereas, that incident involved the ringing of the Church Bells of Balangiga on Samar to signal the outbreak of fighting. Imagine. The author of the joint resolution reduced the surprise attack and horrible deaths of fifty-four soldiers to a seemingly innocent, benign ``noteworthy incident.'' So while some may rely the joint resolution as though it were the ``voice of Wyoming'' in support of their position, an examination of the actual facts surrounding it proves that reliance to be very misplaced. While time has passed since this issue came to a head last April, Mr. President, my deep concern that the Administration might still dispose of the bells has not. The Administration has not disavowed its earlier intent to seek to return the bells--an intent derailed by the introduction of S. 1903 last year. In addition, despite Article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution, which states that the ``Congress shall have the power to dispose of . . . Property belonging to the United States,'' the Justice Department has issued an informal memorandum stating that the Bells could possibly be disposed of by the President pursuant to the provisions of 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2572. I continue to be amazed, even in these days of political correctness and revisionist history, that a U.S. President--our Commander-in- Chief--would appear to be ready to ignore the wishes of our veterans and tear down a memorial to U.S. soldiers who died in the line of duty in order to send part of it back to the country in which they were killed. Amazed, that is, until I recall this President's fondness for sweeping apologies and what some might view as flashy P.R. gestures. Consequently, Senator Enzi and I have decided to reintroduce the bill in the 106th Congress. Mr. President, to the veterans of Wyoming, and the United States as a whole, the bells represent a lasting memorial to those fifty-four American soldiers killed as a result of an unprovoked insurgent attack in Balangiga on September 28, 1901. In their view, which I share, any attempt to remove either or both of the bells--and in doing so actually physically dismantling a war memorial--is a desecration of that memory. S. 404 will protect the bells and similar veterans memorials from such an ignoble fate. The bill is quite simple; it prohibits the transfer of a veterans memorial or any portion thereof to a foreign country or government unless specifically authorized by law; Representative Barbara Cubin is introducing similar legislation this week in the House. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Enzi, Helms, Hagel, Smith of Oregon, Murkowski, Smith of New Hampshire, Roberts, Sessions, Nickles, and Coverdell as original cosponsors. I trust that my colleagues will support its swift passage. Last year, developments indicated to me that the White House was seriously contemplating returning one or both of the bells to the Philippines. The year 1998 marked the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Paris, and a state visit by then-President Fidel Ramos--his last as President--to the United States. The disposition of the bells was high on President Ramos' agenda; he has spoken personally to President Clinton and several Members of Congress about it over the last three years, and made it one of only three agenda items the Filipino delegation brought to the table. Since January 1998, the Filipino press has included almost weekly articles on the bells' supposed return, including several in the Manila Times in April and May which reported that a new tower to house the bells was being constructed in Borongon, Samar, to receive them in May. In addition, there have been a variety of reports vilifying me and the veterans in Wyoming for our position on the issue, and others threatening economic boycotts of U.S. products or other unspecified acts of retaliation to force capitulation on the issue. Moreover, inquiries to me from various agencies of the Administration soliciting the opinion of the Wyoming congressional delegation on the issue increased in frequency in the first four months of 1998. I also learned that the Defense Department, perhaps in conjunction with the Justice Department, prepared a legal memorandum outlining its opinion of who actually controls the disposition of the bells. In response, the Wyoming congressional delegation wrote a letter to President Clinton on January 9, 1998 to make clear our opposition to removing the bells. In response to that letter, on May 26 I received a letter from Sandy Berger of the National Security Council which I think is perhaps one of the best indicators of the direction the White House was headed on this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Nickles, Craig, Helms, Crapo, Grams, and Enzi, to introduce the State and Local Government Participation Act of 1999 which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This bill is designed to guarantee that federal agencies identify state, county and local governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under NEPA. NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a proposed federal action are considered and minimized by the federal agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate public participation in the decision making process on these federal activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to the proposed action. Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem in Wyoming and many states throughout the nation. A statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public planning process on federal lands, NEPA now serves to delay action and shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these federal lands for their existence. The State and Local Government Participation Act is designed to provide for greater input from state and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure would simply guarantee that state, county and local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning process, to often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. Unfortunately, many federal agencies have become so engrossed in examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on federal land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live near and depend on these areas for their economic survival. Mr. President, states and local communities must be consulted and included when proposed actions are being taken on federal lands in their state. Too often, federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, D.C. or New York City than the people who actually live in the state where the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input of state and local communities is vital for the proper management of federal lands in the West. The State and Local Government Participation Act of 1999 will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed decision that will affect their lives.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have been listening with great attention to what we are talking about. Certainly, there is nothing more important before us now than the budget. We have heard all kinds of explanations, and we will hear many more. We will argue about the allocation over time. But it seems to me, as I think about it, that the idea of a budget is where we really set our priorities. There is more to a budget than simply the question of where we spend every dollar. What we do with the budget is, we put into reality the things we would like to see in our Government. What size Government would you like to have? What do we do with respect to our working with the State and local governments? How does that fit? What do we do about taxes? Is there something we want to do there? I look at it as really an opportunity for us to, philosophically and from an ideal standpoint, look at why we are here and what it is we want to accomplish. For those who want a simpler and smaller Government, does this budget do that? I don't think so. This is an increase in size. This is more Government. This is larger. What if your goal was really to move more and more of the choices and more and more of the responsibility closer to people and State and local governments? Does this budget do that? No, I don't think so. What if you want to really feel strongly about spending caps and say that this is the way you control spending? Does this budget stay with the caps that we argued so much about just 2 years ago? No, it doesn't do that. If you had an idea that you would really like to take care of paying down this debt on a dependable program over a period of time, a little bit like, I suppose, a mortgage, and you wanted to do that, does this do that? No, it doesn't. So I hope that as we go through this whole process--and it will be, unfortunately, almost all of the year--I hope we start with the principles that we would like to see enunciated when we are through. We will have different views. Some people want more Government, more spending and more taxes--a legitimate idea, but not one that I share. I think we do much of that in the budget. So I hope, Mr. President, that we really take a look at measuring this budget in terms of our values, the reason we came here, the reason we have given to our constituents as to why we are here. Much of it will be reflected in this budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 354, a bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--formerly known as ``most- favored nation status''--to the products of Mongolia. I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee; Senator Kerry, the ranking minority member of my subcommittee; and Senator Robb and Senator Smith or Oregon as original cosponsors. Mongolia has undergone a series of remarkable and dramatic changes over the last few years. Sandwiched between the former Soviet Union and China, it was one of the first countries in the world to become communist after the Russian Revolution. After 70 years of communist rule, though, the Mongolian people have recently made great progress in establishing a democratic political system and creating a free-market economy. Since that time, there have been successive successful national and regional elections. Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States on trade and related matters since its turn towards democracy. We concluded a bilateral trade treaty with that country in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994. Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trading status since 1991, and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements of Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In additions, it has acceded to the Agreement Establishing of the World Trade Organization. Mr. President, Mongolia has clearly demonstrated that it is fully deserving of joining the ranks of those countries to which we extend nondiscriminatory trade status. The extension of that status would not only serve to commend the Mongolians on their impressive progress, but would also enable the U.S. to avail itself of all its rights under the WTO with respect to Mongolia. I have another, more parochial, reason for being interested in MFN status for Mongolia. Mongolia and my home state of Wyoming are sister states; a strong relationship between the two has developed over the last four years. Many of Mongolia's provincial governors have visited the state, and the two governments have established partnerships in education, agriculture, and livestock management. Like Wyoming, Mongolia is a high plateau with mountains on the northwest border, where many of the residents make their living by raising livestock. I am pleased to see the development of this mutually beneficial relationship, and am sure that the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status will serve to strengthen it further. Mr. President, I introduced an identical bill in the last Congress, but Congress adjourned sine die before the bill could be acted on by both houses. I was very appreciative that last year the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, indicated his willingness to favorably consider the legislation early in this Congress, and look forward to working with him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the text of S. 354 be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators Nickles, Craig, Helms, Crapo, Grams, and Enzi, to introduce the State and Local Government Participation Act of 1999 which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This bill is designed to guarantee that federal agencies identify state, county and local governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under NEPA. NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a proposed federal action are considered and minimized by the federal agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate public participation in the decision making process on these federal activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to the proposed action. Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem in Wyoming and many states throughout the nation. A statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public planning process on federal lands, NEPA now serves to delay action and shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these federal lands for their existence. The State and Local Government Participation Act is designed to provide for greater input from state and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure would simply guarantee that state, county and local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning process, to often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. Unfortunately, many federal agencies have become so engrossed in examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on federal land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live near and depend on these areas for their economic survival. Mr. President, states and local communities must be consulted and included when proposed actions are being taken on federal lands in their state. Too often, federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, D.C. or New York City than the people who actually live in the state where the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input of state and local communities is vital for the proper management of federal lands in the West. The State and Local Government Participation Act of 1999 will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed decision that will affect their lives.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 354, a bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--formerly known as ``most- favored nation status''--to the products of Mongolia. I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee; Senator Kerry, the ranking minority member of my subcommittee; and Senator Robb and Senator Smith or Oregon as original cosponsors. Mongolia has undergone a series of remarkable and dramatic changes over the last few years. Sandwiched between the former Soviet Union and China, it was one of the first countries in the world to become communist after the Russian Revolution. After 70 years of communist rule, though, the Mongolian people have recently made great progress in establishing a democratic political system and creating a free-market economy. Since that time, there have been successive successful national and regional elections. Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States on trade and related matters since its turn towards democracy. We concluded a bilateral trade treaty with that country in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994. Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trading status since 1991, and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements of Title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In additions, it has acceded to the Agreement Establishing of the World Trade Organization. Mr. President, Mongolia has clearly demonstrated that it is fully deserving of joining the ranks of those countries to which we extend nondiscriminatory trade status. The extension of that status would not only serve to commend the Mongolians on their impressive progress, but would also enable the U.S. to avail itself of all its rights under the WTO with respect to Mongolia. I have another, more parochial, reason for being interested in MFN status for Mongolia. Mongolia and my home state of Wyoming are sister states; a strong relationship between the two has developed over the last four years. Many of Mongolia's provincial governors have visited the state, and the two governments have established partnerships in education, agriculture, and livestock management. Like Wyoming, Mongolia is a high plateau with mountains on the northwest border, where many of the residents make their living by raising livestock. I am pleased to see the development of this mutually beneficial relationship, and am sure that the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status will serve to strengthen it further. Mr. President, I introduced an identical bill in the last Congress, but Congress adjourned sine die before the bill could be acted on by both houses. I was very appreciative that last year the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, indicated his willingness to favorably consider the legislation early in this Congress, and look forward to working with him. Mr. President, I ask unanimous that the text of S. 354 be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for arranging to have this discussion and talk about where we are going. That is, after all, what it is about. I listened to my colleagues state their impression, their interpretation of last night's State of the Union Address, and it is right on target. What we really are faced with--all of us--is a vision of where we are going in this country, a broad vision in the long run of where we want to go and what we want to achieve and what it takes to cause that to happen. That is really the challenge that we have; the long-term goal in a broad sense of things like freedom and opportunity and security, job security, business; smaller government rather than more, moving government back to people in communities. Those are the long-term goals that we ought to have so that as we then put our agenda together, we have to ask how do these things fit. When you talk about the things the President mentioned last night, 45 or whatever it was, how do they fit in this business of freedom, how do they fit in making Government smaller? So each, then, has a challenge to transfer our goals into the specifics that we talk about. Collectively, we need an agenda for ourselves narrowed down to those things with which we really need to deal. Of course, we all have other issues, but there ought to be some priorities, and that is what we are doing and that is what the Senator is doing in setting an agenda. We need to talk about Social Security and make it work. We need to make it work just as much for those who are now getting benefits as for those who are just beginning to pay in. That is one of the things we need to do. Everyone knows we need to strengthen the military, and we must do that. This administration has not. We can do that. Of course, we need to strengthen health care, but we don't need a national health care program. We already tried that. We already talked about that. We don't need to do that. We need to take pieces and strengthen the private sector. Tax reform--I don't think there is a soul in this country who doesn't believe we need tax reform to make it more simple, but we are moving the other way. Every time we want to effect some behavior, as in the President's message last night, we give them a tax break--a tax break here, tax break there. We need to look at the overall reduction for all taxpayers and earners in this country. Mr. President, it seems to me, rather than comment particularly on the State of the Union last night, I just am saying to myself and to you, let's take a look at our long-term goals of where we want to be over a period of time, measure those things that need to be done then immediately so that we can reach those goals, put some emphasis and priorities on a small number of items so that we can accomplish it and not have the same result the President did a year ago, when he listed almost the same number of events and, according to Broder in the Washington Post, was successful in one. We have a chance to be successful within an agenda--Social Security, health care, strengthen the military, do something on crime, and simplify and reduce taxes. I hope that is our agenda. It is our agenda. I hope it is the President's agenda as well. That is what we ought to do this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is an honor to once again join the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and the Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson in introducing legislation to create a two year budget and appropriations process. We've all worked long and hard on this issue and I am hopeful that we can finally enact this common sense reform this year. I've been saying for awhile that the current budget process is breaking down. After last year's debacle with the massive omnibus appropriations bill, I'd argue that the budget process is broken. Congress and the executive branch spend entirely too much time on budget issues. Since the most recent budget process reform in 1974, Congress has consistently failed to complete action on the Federal budget before the start of the fiscal year and, as a result, has increasingly relied on omnibus spending measures to fund the Federal Government. Last year's experience should dispel any lingering doubts about whether the current process is broken. In fact, only four of the 13 regular appropriations bills were passed before funding for 10 Cabinet-level departments was crammed into one bill debated over just a 24 hour period. The budget resolution, reconciliation bill and appropriations bill continue to become more time-consuming. In the process, authorizing committees are being squeezed out of the schedule. There are too many votes on the same issues and too much duplication. In the end, this time could be better spent conducting vigorous oversight of Federal programs which currently go unchecked. In response to these problems, in the 104th Congress I introduced legislation that would create a biennial budget process. I am pleased to continue this effort by joining Senator Domenici and Senator Thompson in offering this bill. It will rectify many of the problems regarding the current process by promoting timely action on budget legislation. In addition, it will eliminate much of the redundancy in the current budget process. This legislation does not eliminate any of the current budget processes--each step serves an important role in congressional deliberations. However, by making decisions once every 2 years instead of annually, the burden should be significantly reduced. Perhaps most importantly, biennial budgeting will provide more time for effective congressional oversight, which will help reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government. Congress simply needs more time to review existing Federal programs in order to determine priorities in our drive to balance the budget. Another benefit of a 2 year budget cycle is its effect on long term planning. A biennial budget will allow the executive branch and State and local governments, all of which depend on congressional appropriations, to do a better job making plans for long term projects. Two year budgets are not a novel idea. Nor will biennial budgeting cure all of the Federal Government's ills. However, separating the budget session from the oversight session works well across the country in our state legislatures. This legislation is a solid first step toward reforming the congressional budget process. This concept enjoys strong bipartisan support. It is supported by the Clinton administration, Majority Leader Lott and Minority Leader Daschle. In addition, 36 other Senators joined Senators Domenici, Thompson and I in sending a letter last year to Senate leaders calling for quick action on this bipartisan reform early this year. I am hopeful that effort and this bill will be a catalyst for swift action on this common sense, good government reform.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think it is great for us to get started with our work on the floor. We have been working, of course, in organizing our committees, drafting our bills, getting prepared--as a matter of fact, probably earlier than usual, despite the trial that is going on here. So it is good to get started. I am pleased that our party has also an agenda. We will be talking about Social Security, of course. I think a great many changes need to be made there to ensure that this program continues, not only for those now drawing benefits but for those who will in the future. We will be talking about education, seeking to get Federal help directly to the classrooms. We will be talking about strengthening the military, which I think is very important and must be done. I think tax reduction and tax reform is very high on our list of priorities. Certainly, we will be working on that. Health care, of course, will be part of what we talk about. And each of us, in addition to those, will have other issues. So I rise to talk a moment this morning about biannual budgeting. It is a real pleasure for me to join the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson, to introduce a bill that will create a 2-year budgeting appropriations process. We worked long and hard on that issue. I have been working on it for some time, largely because it is my belief that the current budgeting process is broken. After last year's massive omnibus appropriations bill, which was a debacle, of course, I argue that the budget process needs to be changed. We spend entirely too much time, both in the Congress and in the executive branch, on budget issues. Since the most recent budget process reform in 1974, Congress has consistently failed to complete action on the budget by the time of the start of the fiscal year and, as a result, have increasingly relied on omnibus measures that come in at the end. Last year's experience ought to ensure that we do, in fact, need a change. In fact, only 4 of the 13 regular appropriations bills were passed for funding for 10 cabinet-level departments, and the rest was crammed into a 24-hour budget session, which does not work well. Not a new idea. As a matter of fact, since 1950, Congress has failed on the 13 individual appropriations bills to be funded in every year except 2--only 2 years did we succeed in doing that. We routinely fund unauthorized expenditures and appropriations. The idea is to have an Authorization Committee and an Appropriations Committee. The authorization is made and then it is funded. That has not been the case. We need to change that. In response to that, I introduced, in the 104th Congress, legislation that would create a biannual budget, and I am very pleased to join in with Senators Domenici and Thompson in offering this bill this year. This legislation does not eliminate the budgeting process. Each step serves an important role and will continue to do that. However, basically, we would simply be doing it for 2 years rather than 1, having the off year for oversight. I happen to think that one of the principal obligations of the Congress is oversight of the kinds of programs that have been funded by this Congress. We have not had the opportunity to do that. We have extended debate on appropriations throughout almost the entire year in each year of the 2-year periods. Almost all of us come from States where a 2-year cycle program is used and is successful. It is not a brand new idea and it can be done. I am sure there will be resistance, largely from the appropriators, who rather enjoy the power plays that go on each year through the appropriations process. But I believe in the old saying that we have often heard that ``if you expect different results, you have to change the process.'' The results we have had are not the kinds of results that most people would like to have. I think that it is high time for us to change the process, and I look forward very much to that.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Seven minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for seven minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I strongly agree with my colleagues regarding the importance of the Section 29 tax credit. Wyoming has some of the nation's largest coal reserves and this tax credit gives producers an incentive to develop new and innovative technologies for the use of coal. I am disappointed that an extension of the Section 29 tax credit was not included in the Omnibus Appropriations package and urge my colleagues to make this matter a top priority during the 106th Congress.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the world is catapulted into the electronic information age, the United States has a rare opportunity not only to participate in a truly international legal database but also to sustain a leadership role in setting the highest standard for the creation and maintenance of such a database. It is also a fortuitous moment for the Congress to encourage and support an effort that will inure to the direct benefit of the Congress in its legislative functions by having access to foreign laws contemporaneously with or shortly after publication in the country of origin. This effort, conceived and developed by our own Law Library of Congress, is the Global Legal Information Network, popularly referred to as ``GLIN.'' GLIN is an international, cooperative, non-commercial database of legal information contributed to by governments of member nations in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. As a mission-driven project, GLIN was developed by the Law Library as a way to organize and gain access to legal information so that the Law Library could respond to requests from Congress in a timely, efficient manner since the Law Library is responsible for doing research and analysis on the laws of other nations, comparative law, and international law. This continues to be the goal of the Law Library's participation in GLIN. The database comprises abstracts of legal material, full texts of laws and regulations, and a legal thesaurus. The GLIN database is structured so that the full range of legal material including constitutions, laws and regulations, judicial decisions, parliamentary debates, scholarly writings, and legal miscellanea can be added to the database over time as countries are able to make these contributions. Since 1995, GLIN has become a truly ``global'' legal information network and the Law Library has trained technical and legal teams from numerous countries plus a team from the United Nations. These countries are at various stages of compliance with the GLIN standards for organizational, technical, and telecommunications capabilities. GLIN is the centerpiece of the Law Library's transition from a paper- based library to one that effectively exploits the advantages of electronic sources of information. The amount of time and resources needed to acquire, process, and store foreign legal material make GLIN a top priority for the Law Library, and as the United States station for the network it has also undertaken the task of putting United States law into the database using the same high standards demanded of other nations. To date, the Law Library has not received appropriated funds for work on GLIN. What other Parliaments around the world are doing concerning many of the issues we face is vital for our legislative functions. A 1886 treaty, still in force today, recognized the important need for the exchange of official journals, parliamentary annals, and documents. Congress needs access to the most reliable, current legal information available. GLIN can provide this information, but only if it is developed and maintained properly. With limited resources, and using the only technology and technological support available from an already strapped technology support staff in the Library of Congress which is consumed by other Library programs, participation by the Law Library in GLIN is at a critical point. The system now requires urgent updating and upgrading to enhance the performance of the Network and to attract additional countries, particularly those that are of interest to Congress. To best serve Congress, it is essential that the Law Library retain a leadership role technologically and content-wise. To facilitate such participation, the Law Library needs a special appropriation to bolster its staff and technological infrastructure on its own without being dependent or in competition with other Library of Congress programs. Besides affording the Law Library the ability to bolster resources to meet this important growing initiative, this special appropriation will permit the Law Library through development and training to fulfill its natural role as the largest law library in the world to set the highest of standards for the form and content of legal information to be exchanged between nations to ensure that such material is accurate and complete, and thereby totally reliable. It also fosters interparliamentary cooperation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the world is catapulted into the electronic information age, the United States has a rare opportunity not only to participate in a truly international legal database but also to sustain a leadership role in setting the highest standard for the creation and maintenance of such a database. It is also a fortuitous moment for the Congress to encourage and support an effort that will inure to the direct benefit of the Congress in its legislative functions by having access to foreign laws contemporaneously with or shortly after publication in the country of origin. This effort, conceived and developed by our own Law Library of Congress, is the Global Legal Information Network, popularly referred to as ``GLIN.'' GLIN is an international, cooperative, non-commercial database of legal information contributed to by governments of member nations in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas. As a mission-driven project, GLIN was developed by the Law Library as a way to organize and gain access to legal information so that the Law Library could respond to requests from Congress in a timely, efficient manner since the Law Library is responsible for doing research and analysis on the laws of other nations, comparative law, and international law. This continues to be the goal of the Law Library's participation in GLIN. The database comprises abstracts of legal material, full texts of laws and regulations, and a legal thesaurus. The GLIN database is structured so that the full range of legal material including constitutions, laws and regulations, judicial decisions, parliamentary debates, scholarly writings, and legal miscellanea can be added to the database over time as countries are able to make these contributions. Since 1995, GLIN has become a truly ``global'' legal information network and the Law Library has trained technical and legal teams from numerous countries plus a team from the United Nations. These countries are at various stages of compliance with the GLIN standards for organizational, technical, and telecommunications capabilities. GLIN is the centerpiece of the Law Library's transition from a paper- based library to one that effectively exploits the advantages of electronic sources of information. The amount of time and resources needed to acquire, process, and store foreign legal material make GLIN a top priority for the Law Library, and as the United States station for the network it has also undertaken the task of putting United States law into the database using the same high standards demanded of other nations. To date, the Law Library has not received appropriated funds for work on GLIN. What other Parliaments around the world are doing concerning many of the issues we face is vital for our legislative functions. A 1886 treaty, still in force today, recognized the important need for the exchange of official journals, parliamentary annals, and documents. Congress needs access to the most reliable, current legal information available. GLIN can provide this information, but only if it is developed and maintained properly. With limited resources, and using the only technology and technological support available from an already strapped technology support staff in the Library of Congress which is consumed by other Library programs, participation by the Law Library in GLIN is at a critical point. The system now requires urgent updating and upgrading to enhance the performance of the Network and to attract additional countries, particularly those that are of interest to Congress. To best serve Congress, it is essential that the Law Library retain a leadership role technologically and content-wise. To facilitate such participation, the Law Library needs a special appropriation to bolster its staff and technological infrastructure on its own without being dependent or in competition with other Library of Congress programs. Besides affording the Law Library the ability to bolster resources to meet this important growing initiative, this special appropriation will permit the Law Library through development and training to fulfill its natural role as the largest law library in the world to set the highest of standards for the form and content of legal information to be exchanged between nations to ensure that such material is accurate and complete, and thereby totally reliable. It also fosters interparliamentary cooperation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1693) to renew, reform, reinvigorate, and protect the National Park System. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1693) entitled ``An Act to provide for improved management and increased accountability for certain National Park Service programs, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, very much. I thank the Senator from Texas. I have several bills that will be concluded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 2432) to support programs of grants to States to address the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 2432) entitled ``An Act to support programs of grants to States to address the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1754) to amend the Public Health Service Act to consolidate and reauthorize health professions and minority and disadvantaged health professions and disadvantaged health education programs, and for other purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1754) entitled ``An Act to amend the Public Health Service Act to consolidate and reauthorize health professions and minority and disadvantaged health education programs, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendment of the House.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the immediate consideration of the following bills: S. 2039, S. 2276 and H.R. 3687.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments to S. 2276 be agreed to, the committee amendment to H.R. 3687 not be agreed to, the bills then be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.