Craig Thomas

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. 1718) to amend the Weir Farm National Historic Site Establishment Act of 1990 to authorize the acquisition of additional acreage for the historic site to permit the development of visitor and administrative facilities and to authorize the appropriation of additional amounts for the acquisition of real and personal property. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1718) entitled ``An Act to amend the Weir Farm National Historic Site Establishment Act of 1990 to authorize the acquisition of additional acreage for the historic site to permit the development of visitor and administrative facilities and to authorize the appropriation of additional amounts for the acquisition of real and personal property'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to the amendments 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. 1408) to establish the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, 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. 1408) entitled ``An Act to establish the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, 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. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Darlene Koontz, a fellow with the National Park Service, be granted the privilege of the floor for this afternoon's session.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today and come to the floor to thank the Senate and the House for the passage of S. 1693, the Vision 2020 bill, national parks reform. I think it is a great day for the Congress and for our national parks. Parks are one of the real resources, one of the real treasures that we have in this country that I think all of us have feelings for. There are lots of different parks and lots of different kinds of parks, but they are all our heritage. They are our culture. I think we have known for some time that the parks have needed some assistance. They are more visited now than ever. They are more utilized, as they should be, by Americans than ever. The Park Service, on the other hand, thinks that they are at least $10 billion in arrears in infrastructure costs and they need to change. I think there is a willingness to change on the part of the Park Service. So through hard work and bipartisan compromise we forged a bill that will preserve and help protect our parks now and well into the next century. I have a special place in my heart for parks. I grew up right outside of Yellowstone Park near Cody, WY. We have the first park, Yellowstone, that is more than 125 years old now, also Grand Teton Park, which is, of course, a spectacular and unusual place, Devil's Tower. So parks are very much a part of the West. They also are very much part of the rest of the country. Right here in Virginia, last week my wife and I went to Philadelphia, Independence Park, one of the great treasures of our history. So I am very pleased with this legislation and I think it will be helpful. Let me mention a few of the major provisions of S. 1693. First, it requires the Department to develop a strategic plan and comprehensive budget for the individual units. It is a large business. The budget is $1.2 billion. So there has to, now, in addition to the management of resources, be management of a large financial issue. We need plans. We need a Park Service that has transparency in terms of its plans and in terms of its budget. There needs to be a budget. There needs to be assurance that the expenditures are the same as the appropriations requests. That has not always been the case. We need to establish a process for developing new parks. There are criteria for parks and they need to be followed. We have a proposition where there would be a study to see if, indeed, that park does square with the criteria that we have set forth. Too often, I think, Members of Congress have been able to bring parks into the system to be supported by Federal dollars when, frankly, they really perhaps did not meet the criteria that they should. The bill provides for enhanced training opportunities for Park Service employees. Many of them have very specialized jobs, very specialized work to inventory and to understand what the resources are and to protect them. In my experience of working with Government and in this Government, I don't know of an agency that has a more dedicated staff than does the Park Service. They are people who are really committed to what they are doing and committed to the preservation of parks and making them useful. We need to help with opportunities for training. We are providing for increased scientific study and research to ensure park resources are inventoried and they are, indeed, protected. There are two purposes: The first purpose of the park, of course, is to maintain the resources, whether they be cultural or natural resources. The second is to provide for its owners, the American people, to visit. One of the elements of that, of course, is the concessions that provide the services that are necessary. We have worked at changing the concessions policy and making it more competitive so that new businesses can have an opportunity to provide them, to provide them more efficiently, to provide more of an opportunity, and to pay some of the income to the park as a means of sustaining it. We have eliminated the preferential right of renewal so that there is competition for those services as they are renewed. We have authorized the new national park collectible passport which provides an opportunity for supporters of a park to pay a little something and to have in their car window or their house window this attractive passport that will allow us to help support the parks. We provide for increased philanthropic support for individual units to help Friends of Yellowstone, for example, to raise money, and they raise significant amounts of money for parks. We have authorized some studies for the Park Police which is necessary. We have some 400 Park Police right here in the Capital who have large responsibilities. These are some of the changes that we have worked at. This is the first time in 18 years that we have had a generic parks bill that is designed not to deal with some specific park but rather to deal with the whole idea of a system that will preserve and strengthen the parks. It is the culmination of more than 2 years of work by the subcommittee. We have had hearings coast to coast. We have been in Colorado. We have been out in San Francisco. There are many different kinds of parks. We had the same reaction at the hearings: that there needs to be more resources; they need to be managed better; we need to have more support; we need to deal with gateway communities; and have better communications. I think these things will be strengthened. We passed a bill that, I think, will do much of that. I want to take a moment to thank some of the people who were involved. We hear a lot about the difficulty of passing legislation, and it is difficult. Everyone has, legitimately, different ideas about how things ought to be done; indeed, philosophies of how they might be done. The media, of course, emphasizes the conflicts that we have, and we have conflicts. Here, although most everyone will agree with parks, there are conflicts about how we resolve these things. I am so pleased we had an opportunity to come together with people on both sides of the aisle, with people in the administration, with people in the Congress. No one got everything they wanted. We had to make concessions. We had to make changes, give up some things, add some things. But that is the way the legislative process has to work. I particularly thank Senator Murkowski, the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for all of his guidance on this legislation. Without his help, of course, we wouldn't have had this bill before the Senate. The chairman went out of his way to ensure that negotiations stayed on track. As you know, Alaska has some unique things. He helped to make this thing work. I also thank Senator Bumpers, the ranking minority member of the committee. I know personally that he has worked on some of these things. He has worked on the issue of concessions in particular for at least 10 years. He made some concessions on this issue. Without him, frankly, we wouldn't have a bill, particularly over in the House where he worked at it. I just say to the Senator from Arkansas that I really appreciate his help and appreciate the attitude that he brought here to this debate. I thank Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt. It is no secret that we don't always agree with a lot of things, like public lands. Bruce Babbitt worked as hard as anyone could be asked to work. He came from California to work with our staff on this. He helped form a compromise. Also, I thank Assistant Secretary Don Barry--these folks worked very hard--as well as Bob Bennett. There is a whole list of people. Over in the House, Jim Hansen and Chairman Don Young worked very hard as well. Finally, I thank the staff, of course, at all levels in the Senate, in the committee, particularly my personal associates: Liz Brimmer, my chief of staff; Dan Naatz, legislative director; Jim O'Toole, who is the director of the committee staff; and Steve Shackelton, a fellow, who worked originally with us on the bill. I wanted to come to the floor to say a couple of things. One is, I am very pleased we passed this. I think it is going to help parks. Second, I am impressed with the system when we really do work together and cooperate to come up with something that is a compromise and reach the goals with which we began. Mr. President, I thank you for the time and say, again, I am very pleased we were able to bring this to passage in the Senate.

Mr. THOMAS

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

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. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4326, which is at the desk.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair very much. I thank the Senator from Texas for his time in allowing us to complete these bills.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3910, which is at the desk.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the conference report appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 1260.

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, on Rollcall vote No. 306, I inadvertently voted aye when I meant to vote no. I wish to clarify in the Record my opposition to the motion to table the McCain amendment number 3719 (as amended and modified).

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the Senator from Mississippi for the work that he has done on this agriculture appropriations bill. It is a very difficult one. It is a large bill of $56 billion. It is very difficult. It comes at a time when we are seeking, I think properly, to make a transition from the old farm programs with the acreage allotments and the subsidies to a market system which, in my State at least, most farmers and ranchers believe we should do. Coupled with that, of course, has come some unfortunate weather disasters, flooding and those kinds of things and crop failures as well. And certainly the Asian currency problem has had an impact in terms of available foreign markets, which is very important when nearly 40 percent of agricultural products are sold in that way. So now we are faced with the problem of seeking to deal with these problems. Everybody wants to do that. Everybody wants to be helpful for agriculture. Then we need to find the proper way to do it. We need to be able to do this in a way that I think does not cause us to deviate from our policy position, which is to return to a marketplace in agriculture. We are doing a great deal for agriculture in this bill. There will be transition payments. There will be payments for disasters. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, the figures that I have indicate that through 1996 and 1998 farmers have been paid approximately $17 billion under the old bill. That would have been $10 billion. There has been a substantial increase there. Farmers will receive approximately $500 billion from the banks in transition payments in October of this year. Actually all these numbers added together equal $31 billion paid to farmers and ranchers over the past 3 years. If you take the 1998 bonus in advance for 1999, we would be paying $15 billion out in this 1 year. There is a substantial interest being made and properly being made. There are other things, in my view, that need to be done as well. We need to do something about increasing foreign markets, of course. I happen to be on the Foreign Relations Committee and am chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia. We are trying to do some things to reclaim that market--in all kinds of ways to get those markets back, particularly for agriculture. We have done something about the unilateral sanctions--the idea that if something happens in Asia or Pakistan that the first thing you do is sanction off the sales of agricultural products. We have made some changes there, as indeed we should. I believe we should move forward in doing something with income averaging on a permanent basis for agriculture. This is the kind of an industry where you may have a very good year, or have a very poor year, and you should be able to income average. We need savings accounts for farmers so they hold back in good years so they are able to do better. Crop insurance--crop interests need to be revised the way it came out of the farm bill. That was changed and has not been effective. We need to do that. It is interesting. Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about this increase, and the President is now making speeches on Saturday, and so on. It turns out that he started out asking for less than $1 billion. It went up to $2 billion, and suddenly politically he has gone up to $7 billion, and probably more. We have to really deal with this on that basis. Mr. President, I wanted to say that I am disappointed in a couple of areas. I come from a State, of course, where the major activity in agriculture is livestock--cattle and sheep. I was very much interested in our moving forward with this matter of labels; this country of origin kind of thing so that buyers could decide what kind of meats they choose to buy, whether they want to have American-made meats or meats from other countries. But they should be able to know that. We put that in the Senate bill and lost it in the conference. I am very disappointed in that. We also, I believe, need to have our market reporting strengthened so that all the cattle and all of the sheep that go in the market will be reported as part of the market, not those things that are held by packers and never reported that would impact the crisis. I am disappointed in those things. I hope that we can go forward. There is some indication apparently from the conference committee that we would go forward with the study of the labeling. I hope we do. On the other hand, I think it is going to be slow that way. I wish, frankly, that we could change it before we have to go back and do it that way. Mr. President, I just wanted to say that I admire very much the work that has been done. I know we must do something in agriculture. We are poised to do something. I wanted to point out the two areas of disappointment that I have-- that of labeling in the country of origin, and that of transparency in market prices. We need something we can do about that. Mr. President, I thank you for the time. I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to express my deep concern over the recent alarming political developments in Malaysia. On September 2, Prime Minister Mahathir fired Deputy Prime Minister Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, his hand-picked heir apparent. In the past few months, as the value of the ringgit has dropped more than 60 percent against the US dollar and as the economy has shown increasing signs of going the way of its surrounding Asian neighbors', Dato Seri Anwar has been arguing with increasing frequency that the country needs to adopt meaningful economic structural reforms. This has run counter to Mahathir's insistence that the root of the country's economic ills lies solely at the feet of George Soros, and that by fixing the ringgit's convertibility and taking other similarly isolationist measures. This difference of economic opinion began to grow into a larger rift between the two politicians as Dato Seri Anwar began touring the country and speaking publicly. Apparently, Mahathir felt threatened both by Dato Seri Anwar's views and his popularity as a focus for growing anti-Mahathir dissent, and dismissed him from his post. That didn't stop Dato Seri Anwar from continuing to express himself. As a result, Dato Seri Anwar was arrested on September 20 and held under the provisions of the Internal Security Act (ISA). The ISA removes arrested individuals from the protections afforded criminal defendants under Malaysia's constitution and statutes, and consequently Dato Seri Anwar was held in an undisclosed location without any formal charges being lodged against him. On September 29, however, he was hauled into court and charged with nine counts of corruption and sexual misconduct, including four sodomy counts. The nature of the charges, as well as the vagueness of them and the fact that several of the ``witnesses'' have already recanted, clearly indicates to me that they were concocted by the government for maximum shock value to discredit Dato Seri Anwar in a conservative Muslim country. More shocking to me, however, is the condition in which Dato Seri Anwar appeared at his arraignment. He had clearly been beaten while in custody. He told the judge that on his first night of detention, while handcuffed and blindfolded, that he was ``boxed very hard on my head and lower jaw and left eye . . . I was then slapped very hard, left and right, until blood came out from my nose and my lips cracked. Because of this I could not walk or see properly.'' To substantiate his claims, Dato Seri Anwar then showed the court a large bruise on his arm; his black eye was already evident to everyone in the courtroom. He has not been allowed any medical treatment for his injuries. Dr. Mahathir's contention yesterday that Dato Seri Anwar inflicted the injuries to himself in order to gain a public relations coup is so absurd, so ludicrous, that it simply confirms in my mind the veracity of Dato Seri Anwar's contentions. Mr. President, Dr. Mahathir prides himself on having transformed Malaysia from a divided multi-racial developing nation into a model of a modern, cosmopolitan, economically sophisticated country, and not without some justification. He also prides himself on being the self- appointed forward-thinking spokesman for Asian values and upholder of Asian independence from Western ``interference.'' But in my opinion by his actions in the case of Dato Seri Anwar, he negates much of the progress Malaysia has made in the eyes of the rest of the world. And on a personal level, he has sadly shown himself to be just another third- world despot intent on stifling any dissent, challenge to his authority, or deviation from the party line. Mr. President, I call on the Malaysian government to take every step to safeguard the rights of Dato Seri Anwar, ensure that any charges brought against him are not spurious, afford him a fair and open trial, and fully investigate and prosecute those responsible for his mistreatment while in detention. I hope that all Malaysians will be permitted to express their political views in a peaceful and orderly fashion without fear of arrest or intimidation, and that the government will avoid the perception that Malaysia is looking more and more like Burma and less and less like a democracy.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have been wanting to come to the floor for some time to talk a little bit about the situation that we are in here in the Senate, here in the Congress, the amount of work that we have to do in a relatively short time, and, frankly, to urge my colleagues that we get on with it. The immediate need, of course, is to deal with the appropriations, to deal with continuing to finish what has to be done this year so that we keep the Federal Government operating, so that we do the things that need to be done. At last count, it seems to me, out of 13 appropriations, I think only three have been passed: one prepared by the Presiding Officer, which is the only one I think signed by the President. In any event, we have a great deal to do. Of course, as is always the case, there are many things being talked about, some of which are amendments on appropriations. Others are freestanding bills. But a lot of things could wait. None of us like to see things wait that are ours, of course. But I guess I am prepared to say that the appropriations are what we need to do, and finish this job so that a week from Friday we will be out of here. I think that is what we really need to do. It is an opportune time, having had almost all year dealing with appropriations, to remind my colleagues that we ought to take a look at a biannual appropriations process where we do that every other year, where we appropriate for 2 years as they do in almost all legislatures, which not only gives the agencies more time to know what money they have to spend, but I submit to you that one of the important things that the Senate doesn't do as well as we should, which is oversight. One of the reasons is we spend all of our time on appropriations. So I hope that is something that we can do. I understand it is perfectly proper to promote those things that you feel strongly about. I understand that there are different points of view. That is part of the reason for this system. Substantially we have different points of view: The more liberal point of view, and the more conservative point of view. Those are valid, and we ought to promote them. But I think when we have diversionary tactics, as we have seen on the other side of the aisle over the last month, that keep us from doing what we ought to do, that we have to take kind of a long look at it. It has been clear for some time that has been the strategy--to move off of appropriations--a strategy of my friends on the other side of the aisle to move off of those onto other kinds of things. I hope the total end game is not to get us into this business of threatening to shut down the Government so that the President has leverage to tell the Congress we are going to do this or else. That is not good government. That is not what we ought to be doing. And I hope that doesn't happen. The Interior bill is a very important one, particularly to me. I happen to be on the Interior Committee. I stay very involved because of the large amounts of Federal lands that have been sidelined largely because of unrelated issues that have been used almost daily--issues like campaign finance reform, important as it may be. We have already dealt with that several times. It continues to come up. It continues to be threatened. Minimum wage--we have been through minimum wage, which continues to come up constantly. Patients' Bill of Rights. Good idea. And there are two Patients' Bills of Rights out there--one, of course, by the Senator from Massachusetts, one by the Republicans. Many of the components of the bills are the same. There are some very important differences. But that comes up constantly, and I am afraid what is happened is, it is simply being used to extend it as a political activity through the election time without really the purpose of passing it at all. I think the majority leader has said that there is a desire apparently to debate the bill as long as possible to use it as a campaign issue. Now, that is too bad. That is too bad. There is no one who likes to argue about different points of view better than I, but we have things to do and we ought to be moving, we ought to be moving on them. So the President, I think, has joined in that diversionary tactic now. His spokesman, McCurry, is saying that these appropriations bills will have to be done to the President's satisfaction. Well, I want to remind the Senate, as did our good friend, Bob Byrd, the other evening, that--let me quote from his talk to the Senate a week ago-- The legislative branch must be eternally vigilant over the powers and authorities vested in it by the Constitution. It is vitally important to the security of our constitutional system that checks and balances and separation of power be maintained. He said further: We as legislators have a responsibility to work with the Chief Executive, but it is intended to be a two-way street. The framers did not envision the Office of President as having the attributes of royalty. I certainly agree with that. And that is kind of what you see as we come down to the end of the appropriations--some attributes of royalty: It is either my way or the highway. Well, that is not the way you do legislative business. That is not the way it turns out best, and it is not the way we ought to be doing it. My good friend from Arkansas spent some time the other day speaking in terms of where we are with the economy. He was talking specifically about the proposed House tax reduction and was citing the 1993 Clinton tax increase as the reason for the balanced budget. I take exception to that. I don't think there is any evidence of that at all. He pointed out it was the largest tax increase in history, with not a single Republican vote. But anyone can raise revenue to close down the deficit. What you have to do is hold down spending, which has never been done by the White House, has never been done by this administration, but has in fact been done by the Republican Congress since 1994. Really, balancing the budget is the control of spending, and that is the way it ought to be. That is the way it ought to be. We have the highest taxes now that we have had since World War II, and we ought to do something about that. The American people and the business community are the ones who have balanced the budget by successfully competing in the world marketplace, by creating jobs and paying taxes. I had a letter from a constituent in Cody, WY, who has a point of view not everyone would agree with, but I thought it was interesting. He was talking about President Clinton's claim to have balanced the budget, and he said--this is from his letter: This is an extraordinary conclusion. It is mind-boggling because President Clinton has nothing to do with the successful economy. In fact, his efforts have only created problems for the business community--overtaxation, overregulation, endless legal challenges. That is a point of view. In any event, I think it is necessary to really be more precise about where we are. It is interesting now; we hear, of course, the President speaking out several times talking about ``save Social Security,'' and that all the surpluses ought to be saved for that. I think we ought to keep in mind that the Social Security surpluses over time have been used for Government spending, have constantly been used by Democratic Congresses all through the years, without having a balanced budget. The idea from the White House of ``saving Social Security'' has been a soundbite really without any outline particularly of how that is going to happen. We have to have some ideas, and there are some out there that are legitimate and good ones. The idea of saving the surplus and then coming up with almost a $20 billion supplemental request out of the same fund doesn't make any sense at all. It doesn't make any sense at all. We need to do something about Social Security. I am not a big fan of tax cutting, frankly. I think it might be more important to pay off some of the debt. This year, the defense budget will be about $250 billion and interest on the debt will be almost $25 billion more than that, about $275 billion-- interest on the debt, paying for things that some of us have enjoyed and these young people sitting down here are going to pay for because we put it on the credit card. It wouldn't be a bad idea to pay off some of that debt. It seems to me maybe that is what we really ought to do. There are ways to fix Social Security, even though the White House hasn't come forth with any program except to say ``save Social Security.'' There are some ideas that are good ones. Take part of the 12 percent, let it be made into a personal account for you and for me, and be able to invest it. And we can do that. And the return, of course, would be much greater. Furthermore, if for some reason you don't utilize all of it, it becomes part of your estate. It is something that people then would own. Now, that is a solution. That is more than just talking about ``save Social Security'' without having any plan to do that. So, Mr. President, I hope that we can address ourselves to this idea of completing our work here. I hope that we don't find ourselves using the special allocations beyond spending limits as a means of increasing the budget without moving the spending limits. I think we have promised ourselves we were going to do that. It seems to me that we--and this, of course, is my view; not everyone shares it; I understand that--ought to have several objectives over time, and one is to have a smaller, more efficient Government. I think we ought to constantly work for that. There are lots of things we are doing that the Federal Government doesn't do perhaps as well as local government, doesn't do as well as the private sector. We ought to pay down the debt so that we don't have this problem of the single largest line item in the budget is to pay interest on the national debt in this time of great prosperity. We ought to reduce taxes. We have, since World War II, the highest taxload on families in this country, and we ought to change that. Generally, in my view, they ought to be taken in that order. So, Mr. President, I guess I have shared my view that we have some really important things to do. We have a very short time to do it. I hope we can get the obstacles out of the way and deal with our differences. We have them, but let's resolve those questions that are our responsibility to resolve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, what is the status of the floor at the moment?

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to talk just a few minutes on this bill, particularly with respect to rural air service and some of the problems that we face in areas with small towns and small populations. First, let me say that I certainly support what the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Kentucky are doing here. I think this is a valuable bill, and I think we should move forward with it quickly. I do want to emphasize, however, the difficulty that we have in rural America with regard to air transportation. I must confess that it is not a new problem. As we deregulate various industries--and I happen to be for deregulation and letting competition work--we find ourselves with some problems in rural areas, whether it be telephones, or the deregulation of electricity, or air transportation. The obvious effect of deregulation is that capital and facilities, in this case airplanes, move to where there is the greatest usage, where there is the highest density. So we have made some arrangements, for instance, in telephones with universal service to ensure that despite the fact that the real advantages of competition go to where the heavy volume is, we do continue to provide service to rural areas. My State of Wyoming is struggling to maintain dependable, scheduled, available air service to airline hubs like Denver and Salt Lake City. We are in the process of seeking to strengthen our economy there, to recruit businesses to move to Wyoming. Travel and tourism is one of the three major economic activities in Wyoming, and so transportation is a vital component of our future. But we are having some problems. Last year, for example, Mesa Airlines, which operated as United Express, pulled service from five towns in Wyoming that they had been servicing in years past. I worked with Senator Enzi, my associate here, Congresswoman Cubin, the Governor, and others, and we finally were able to keep service to these towns. In fact, we had to go all the way to the chairman of the board of United Airlines to make this happen. Unfortunately, in most of these towns, we were only able to keep Essential Air Service (EAS). This provides just a bare minimum of service and I am glad we have it, but it does not provide the kind of service that is necessary if you are really going to have economic growth and development. In addition, in other Wyoming communities we continue to face cutbacks in the number of seats that are available every day as well as the loss of jet service to some of these towns. Those of you who are familiar with Jackson Hole, WY, know that it is a travel town. That is where a great number of people come and go. It is just devastating to the local economy when there are not enough seats to service demand. As I mentioned, Mr. President, I am in favor of deregulation. I think that makes for healthy competition. But I am concerned that sometimes we have to try another approach. As I mentioned, the investment in dollars nationally--and I understand it--go to where the yield is. They go to where the traffic is. That, I do think we have to understand. But we met with Delta Airlines which serves Salt Lake City and Jackson Hole, WY, and talked a little bit about the fact that there is a need for service, and frankly if we do not have service in some of these places I think you are going to see a continued interest in going back to some re-regulation in air service. I hope it doesn't come to that. Part of the problem, as I understand it, is the so-called code-share agreements between the big carriers and the commuters airlines. If you go to Denver from Casper, WY, a part of that fare subsidizes the cost of the trip that takes you from Denver to Washington. That does not seem right. That isn't the way it ought to be. These airlines are basically moving toward a monopolistic situation in the large ``hub'' airports, served almost entirely by one carrier, which makes serving rural America very difficult because then those airlines can dictate everything--fares, schedules, you name it. This is kind of unusual for me. I am a marketplace guy. I am one who wants competition. But I also firmly believe that when it comes to these vital services, there has to be a way to ensure that all of America will be served. I have been involved, because of my chairmanship of the Subcommittee on East Asia, in the rights to go overseas--``beyond rights.'' I have to think, myself, why are we spending a lot of time and energy talking about expanding air service to somewhere in China when you can't go to Cody, WY? So that's the situation we find ourselves in today. I don't have all the answers. But I do know that we will continue to work at this issue in Congress. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program works well. But we need to do more. Dependable and safe air travel is an economic lifeline for our State, as it is whether you are in Boston or whether you are in San Francisco. We depend on tourism and small businesses to drive our economy in Wyoming. We need to come up with a long-term solution to this problem. Hopefully, it will be done in the marketplace so it will be something that is not forced upon the airlines. However, it is hard for me, as I said earlier, to get excited about working on ``beyond rights,'' when we can't get to our own towns. I am glad we are considering this bill. We need to get this done so our airports can be financed. I am very involved in what is going on with Wyoming's air service. I happen to be a private pilot and have flown quite often into these airports. I know how important it is for us to have that air service. I commend the Senators who have worked on this bill. I suggest we always need to keep in mind those rural areas to which we find it difficult to provide service. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, to recognize the Proclamation of the Governor of Wyoming declaring September 18 as ``POW/MIA Recognition Day'' in Wyoming. I have come to this floor several times in my Senate career to extol the great sacrifices that our fighting men and women have made to protect this country and the ideals of freedom and democracy that we hold so dear. We owe these men and women a huge debt of gratitude. And I believe, Mr. President, that debt continues until we have brought home, or accounted for, all our missing service men. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the proclamation be printed in the Record. The proclamation follows. Governor's Proclamation Two thousand eighty-six Americans are still missing and unaccounted for from the Vietnam War, including 6 from the State of Wyoming, and their families, friends, and fellow veterans still endure uncertainty concerning their fate. United States Government intelligence and other evidence confirm that Vietnam could unilaterally account for hundred of missing Americans, including many of the 446 still missing in Laos and the 75 still unaccounted for in Cambodia, by locating and returning identifiable remains and providing archival records to answer other discrepancies. The President has normalized relations with Vietnam, believing such action would generate increased unilateral account for Americans still missing from the Vietnam War, and such increased results have not yet been provided by the Government of Vietnam. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the State of Wyoming calls on the President to reinvigorate United States efforts to press Vietnam for unilateral actions to locate and return to our nation remains that would account for hundreds of America's POW/MIA's and records to help obtain answers on many more. For these significant reasons, I, Jim Geringer, Governor of the State of Wyoming, do hereby proclaim September 18th, 1998, to be ``POW/MIA RECOGNITION DAY'' in Wyoming, and encourage all citizens to observe this day with appropriate ceremonies. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of Wyoming to be affixed this 29th day of July, 1998. Jim Geringer, Governor.