Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support this legislation designed to protect contracts and leases of surface patent holders for coalbed methane. This legislation, which my colleague Senator Enzi and I are jointly introducing along with our House colleague Congresswoman Cubin, is vitally important to coalbed methane producers and lease holders in Wyoming and will address a problem which arose due to an appellate court decision rendered earlier this summer. On July 20, 1998, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals turned years of precedent and practice on its head by ruling that coalbed methane should be classified as a coal-by-product rather than a form of natural gas. That decision was completely contrary to past interpretation, and will severely impact coaled methane lease holders in Wyoming and throughout the nation. The ruling will also delay completion of leases and drilling, which will negatively impact our state's economy. The court's decision is particularly troubling for producers because the Office of the Solicitor at the Department of Interior had issued two earlier opinions regarding ownership of coalbed methane in federally-owned coal, which were directly opposite to the appellate court's ruling. Both in 1981 and in 1990, the Solicitor's office issued options which stated that coalbed methane was not part of the federally-reserved coal protected under the 1909 and 1910 Coal Lands Acts. Now, leaseholders and producers, who believed they were acting in good faith and compliance with federal law, are faced with the troubling possibility that their leases may be revoked. The legislation that we are introducing today is designed to remedy many of the problems caused by the appellate court's decision. This bill would protect current contracts and leases of surface patent holders for coalbed methane gas. The measure does not address future leases or contracts and only deals with folks who are already engaged in the production of coalbed methane gas or who have leased land for drilling and exploration. It is a fair and reasonable proposal and would simply protect people who acted in compliance with the law as it was interpreted by the Department of Interior. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will take quick action on this measure and approve it as quickly as possible. Coalbed methane production is a growing and vibrant part of Wyoming's economy and we need to take action to ensure that the lives of folks who rely on stable production of coalbed methane are not completely disrupted. Producers acted in good faith and in compliance with the law as they knew it. We should not punish them for actions beyond their control and should work to ensure that the blood and sweat which they invested into their businesses is not swept away by the actions of the court.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to strongly support this legislation designed to protect contracts and leases of surface patent holders for coalbed methane. This legislation, which my colleague Senator Enzi and I are jointly introducing along with our House colleague Congresswoman Cubin, is vitally important to coalbed methane producers and lease holders in Wyoming and will address a problem which arose due to an appellate court decision rendered earlier this summer. On July 20, 1998, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals turned years of precedent and practice on its head by ruling that coalbed methane should be classified as a coal-by-product rather than a form of natural gas. That decision was completely contrary to past interpretation, and will severely impact coaled methane lease holders in Wyoming and throughout the nation. The ruling will also delay completion of leases and drilling, which will negatively impact our state's economy. The court's decision is particularly troubling for producers because the Office of the Solicitor at the Department of Interior had issued two earlier opinions regarding ownership of coalbed methane in federally-owned coal, which were directly opposite to the appellate court's ruling. Both in 1981 and in 1990, the Solicitor's office issued options which stated that coalbed methane was not part of the federally-reserved coal protected under the 1909 and 1910 Coal Lands Acts. Now, leaseholders and producers, who believed they were acting in good faith and compliance with federal law, are faced with the troubling possibility that their leases may be revoked. The legislation that we are introducing today is designed to remedy many of the problems caused by the appellate court's decision. This bill would protect current contracts and leases of surface patent holders for coalbed methane gas. The measure does not address future leases or contracts and only deals with folks who are already engaged in the production of coalbed methane gas or who have leased land for drilling and exploration. It is a fair and reasonable proposal and would simply protect people who acted in compliance with the law as it was interpreted by the Department of Interior. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will take quick action on this measure and approve it as quickly as possible. Coalbed methane production is a growing and vibrant part of Wyoming's economy and we need to take action to ensure that the lives of folks who rely on stable production of coalbed methane are not completely disrupted. Producers acted in good faith and in compliance with the law as they knew it. We should not punish them for actions beyond their control and should work to ensure that the blood and sweat which they invested into their businesses is not swept away by the actions of the court.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong opposition to the Boxer amendment. Contrary to what we have heard over there about withdrawal and cheating and all these things, there are some real issues here, issues that many of us, particularly those of us who live in public land States, have been working on for a very long time. That is the question--how do you have regulations that extract one- eighth of the value of Federal oil into the Federal Treasury? Nobody objects to that. That is the law. Nobody argues with that. There are some real issues here. For instance, what is the value in Chugwater, WY, as compared to Oklahoma City? What is the value when you are close to a collection point as opposed to having to carry the oil for a very long time? Where do you apply the value? Do you have to pay for the transportation to where it is going in order to have one-eighth of it? There are some real issues here, and we have not been able to come together with the bureaucracy to have a satisfactory solution. And that is why this amendment is there--to have a moratorium on time so that this can, indeed, be resolved. I have been involved in some of these meetings here in which we have tried to find a solution. I, by the way, have not seen any of my friends from the other side of the aisle there participating in trying to find a solution. All they do is come up and complain. I am, frankly, a little offended at the idea that seems to be promoted that somehow if you are not for this it is because you may have gotten a contribution from an oil company. I am offended by that. People believe in what they are doing here. They believe it is important to their communities and to their States. They believe there ought to be jobs. They believe we ought to have a domestic oil industry. These are beliefs. I do not hear anyone saying they are where they are because the environmentalists are having TV ads to support their candidacy. I suppose you could say that. I do not think that is a great idea. What we have is some real confusion. Let me give you a little example. We had an independent who was brought back before the agency because they did what someone in the agency told them to do. They did what the employee told them to do. And the director of MMS says, ``Well, you can't go by that because that might not be what the Assistant Secretary meant to happen.'' Give me a break. You mean a citizen who goes to an employee of an agency cannot rely on the information they get there because it might not be consistent with what someone said who is Assistant Secretary? That is the kind of thing we are dealing with here and the kind of thing we need to get resolved. We have met with MMS on a number of occasions. I must tell you, I have been working with this since I was in the House 4 years ago, where I suggested, and would suggest again, that the States do the actual collection of the mineral royalty and share it with the Feds. We are duplicating it now. MMS is one of the most inefficient agencies we have in this Government in terms of their cost. It is not clear what it is that they are doing. It is clear that it is not a workable situation. When you take the NYMEX and apply it to a place in Oklahoma City, and out in Wyoming, that is not a workable way to determine what the market value is. We need to do something about that. Mr. President, I do not think we ought to be fooled by arguments of the proponents that they are not getting a fair share of the royalties. This amendment is not about reasonable valuation, collection. This amendment is not about schoolchildren. This amendment is quite simply one that wants to attack the oil industry by those who are critical of business, those who think that this is some kind of an environmental question. And it is not. It is important that the MMS rule be understood, that it does not only impact large petroleum producers. If that were the case, why would the independents be involved? Why would the independents be interested in bringing some kind of court action? It is because they are very much impacted. We have also heard over the last several days that the Governors are not for this. I just bring to the attention of my colleagues a letter by the Governor of Wyoming. . . . I strongly object to Senator Barbara Boxer's amendment to the Department of Interior's Appropriations Bill. . . . The amendment would allow the Department to implement new and untested federal royalty crude oil pricing regulations. And it goes on, in opposition to that. Minerals Management has proposed rules that are complicated, that are unworkable, that result in hardship to the producer, result in a loss of jobs, a loss to the economy of our State of Wyoming, and I think a security issue to this country when we have 55, nearly 60 percent of our oil imported. We have an opportunity here. Simply put, this valuation rule is a job killer. We ought not to go forward without having some time to make it work. I think the current language in the appropriations bill is fair and reasonable. Instead of taking reckless actions and getting up in broad generalities and talking about the evils of business, we ought to craft some rules that work. We can, in fact, do this. Again, I urge my friends in the Senate to vote against the Boxer amendment and continue to resolve the question in a way that is workable and a way that really deals with some regulations that will cause us to be able to collect these royalties, as we are all willing to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a project that is extremely important to the city of Casper and the State of Wyoming. The National Historic Trails Interpretive Center, located in Casper, is a unique project designed to showcase the importance of Wyoming as a center for a number of historic trails in the West. The site selected for the Center overlooks the place where the Oregon, California, Mormon and Pony Express Trails cross the North Platte River. In addition, the head of the Bridger Trail and a fork of the Bozeman Trail can be seen from the spot. The city of Casper and the State of Wyoming have been working very hard to build an interpretive center that will attract visitors from throughout the nation and provide them with a quality recreational and educational experience. The facility will showcase the important role historic trails played in the development of the West and the incredible hardships faced by settlers as they migrated to all of the western states. The project is strongly supported throughout Wyoming and would be funded through a unique ``public/private'' funding program using local, state and federal sources. Wyoming's congressional delegation has been working on obtaining federal funds for the Historic Trails Center for many years. Throughout my time in the Senate, as well as my years serving as Wyoming's only Congressman, I have worked hard to obtain planning and architectural money for the Center and requested assistance from the Appropriations Committee in obtaining the roughly $5 million in federal funds needed to complete the project. Unfortunately, construction funds have never been included in the appropriations bill. This year, the House of Representatives has included $2.6 million in the fiscal year 1999 Interior appropriations bill for completion of the National Historic Trails Center. Although this is only half of the money necessary to complete the project, I am extremely pleased the House took this action and recognized the importance of constructing this facility. Currently, the Senate version of the Interior appropriations bill does not include funds for the Trails Center. I understand the difficult funding choices faced by the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee as this bill was crafted, but I am extremely disappointed that the Senate version of this legislation did not provide funds for the Center. As the Senate completes its work on the Interior appropriations bill and this legislation moves to a conference with the House, I plan to do everything I can to ensure that funds for the Historic Trails Center are included in the final bill. Clearly, this project has merit and would be a valuable addition to our nation's cultural and historic landmarks. Over the coming days, I plan to work with Senators Gorton and Byrd to ensure that the House funding level is protected during the conference on this legislation. The National Historic Trails Interpretive Center is a worthy project. I urge the Senate to recede to the House language on this important measure and begin the process of completing this outstanding facility.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing that was scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to receive testimony on S. 1372, to provide for the protection of farmland at the Point Reyes National Seashore, and for other purposes, has been canceled. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on September 14, 1998, at 1 p.m., in Dirksen 628, for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you. Madam President, I am going to speak a few minutes on the amendment and, in particular, on the farmers' and ranchers' situation. Madam President, almost all of us have farmers and ranchers in our areas. Certainly in Wyoming, agriculture is one of the three economic interests that we have, most of us do, so all of us are concerned about agriculture. And we are in a time when agriculture needs, indeed, are our concern, and more than our concern, it needs some action. Many of us have been working for some time to find some areas in which agriculture can be strengthened, in which agriculture can be helped and assisted through a very hard time. I have listened this afternoon to several Senators representing their constituents and talking about agriculture. Each of them has represented a point of view, and that is basically to seek to return to the farm program time, and that is the issue here. I don't think there will be a soul in this place who doesn't want to assist agriculture. There won't be anyone in this Senate who doesn't think we ought to do something to strengthen this segment of our economy, but there is a division of view as to whether we seek to do some things to help make the transition from agriculture, as we have known it over the years-- with acreage limitations, with farm subsidies and those kinds of things--to a market enterprise which we are now seeking to do. Our real challenge is to assist in continuing to move toward market agriculture which, at least in the State I represent, is the predominant view. People know that long-term agriculture will be stronger. Agriculture will be better. Our production will be more efficient in a market economy. What we are really talking about is how can we best do this, how can we best help agriculture, how can we best pull through this kind of a situation, and at the same time continue to help agriculture move to a market economy. Some have spoken about their contacts over the last week and, indeed, over the last month. I spent August in Wyoming talking with farmers and ranchers about it. Interestingly enough, we have three economic areas, basically, in my State: One is agriculture; one is mineral extraction; and one is visitation and tourism. Frankly, agriculture and minerals are both in tough shape. Oil, for example, is the cheapest it has been in history, I think. So we do have some concerns. Let me talk to you about some of the things that agricultural producers said to me in terms of long-term recommendations. One is consumer demand. For instance, in the beef industry, we need to strengthen consumer demand. Certainly what has happened in Asia has an impact on agriculture, particularly on exports. Some 40 percent of agricultural production goes into exports. Meat labeling, which we are moving toward doing--we need meat labeling so we know the origin of meat, whether it is imported, whether it is domestic, so buyers can make a choice. In my State, we have other kinds of things. Fifty percent of our State belongs to the Federal Government and is Federal lands. We have a good deal of problems with animal damage control, with predators and these kinds of things. These are also some of the issues. The idea that you simply try to go back to a controlled farming program is not a solution to all of agriculture. I understand the Senator from Iowa is concerned about the basic crops--wheat and corn and grains. That is a farm program kind of a thing. The agricultural problem is not confined only to those commodities. I am told, with the market, in rural areas, they are talking about fast track, for example, doing something about increasing markets in South America, doing something about increasing markets in Asia to strengthen access, increase consumer demand. These are the things that were told to me by agriculturists who want to do things that will be of long-term benefit. We need to talk about control programs for grasshoppers. We haven't done as well. We are not funding the Grasshopper Control Program as we did. Those are things having an impact on agriculture, not simply going back to a program that we had before to increase the loan rate. That is a remedy, but that is certainly not the only remedy and, indeed, probably not the best remedy. We need to be doing some things now and, indeed, we are. We need to continue to do that. The $5.5 billion in transition payments and accelerated payments that have been made to farm producers designed to help make the transition from a controlled Government farm program to a market program, that is what is expected; that is what is being done. We will do something, hopefully, about fast-track negotiations which are being held up, as you know. The Crop Insurance Program is one that needs to be changed. Crop insurance is based on last year's production, last year's crop. If you didn't have a crop last year because of the drought, or whatever, then your crop insurance is virtually of no value. We need to do something about tax legislation. We need capital gains relief in agriculture. Probably of any industry, the people who are in agriculture have more money invested in their facilities for the amount of cash flow of any industry. There are farm savings accounts and income averaging which we passed and need to make permanent. Agriculture is traditionally profitable one year, less profitable another year. There needs to be income averaging. They need 100 percent deductibility of self-employed health care, which is one of the things that farmers and ranchers need to put them on an even par with others. These are the kinds of things that we are, indeed, talking about doing and, indeed, must do in order to allow this transition to take place. There has been talk about a program for an increased conservation reserve, which would cost, I suppose, $2.5 billion to actually take some of the production out of production and put into a conservation area so that we can have impact on the prices. We can do this. These are the things that are underway now, as a matter of fact, and have been for some time. Some of them were passed before we left in August. And we should continue to do that. So I think everyone here takes seriously the difficulties that we are having in agriculture. Everyone here knows that we need to do some things to keep agriculturists in business, to help level out income over years when it is up and down--as it traditionally is--to do something about crop insurance so that when you are put up to the vagaries of weather and those kinds of things that there is some kind of an income support that you can depend on, but one that is part of the market, the market system. We surely need to go back to the beginning to open more foreign markets so we can do that. We have to do something about unilateral sanctions, which we already did at least partially. And you remember in Pakistan when they fired off the nuclear thing, immediately sanctions went on, the fact that we could not sell agricultural products there. That has been changed and, indeed, should be changed so we have that market available. So these are the kinds of things. I hope that we take a look at what really helps farmers and ranchers make a transition into the marketplace, in which I believe strongly. Frankly, the people in my State who I talk to believe also the best long-term direction for both agriculture and producers, and for consumers, is to have a market demand so that the production is, indeed, for the market, that production is not simply for some kind of a loan in which it goes into storage and becomes an obligation of the Federal Government. We have been through that. We have been through that program. I happen to have been in agriculture almost all my life. My first job when I got out of the Marine Corps was with the Farm Bureau. I worked with the Farm Bureau for a very long time at the local level, the American Farm Bureau. I just came back from my home college, the University of Wyoming, where we had Agriculture Appreciation Weekend this weekend. This is an area about which I feel very strongly. I hope that we make some moves before we leave, as the Senator from Iowa said. We should do that. We have begun. We started a number of things that need to be continued now. We need to do more short-term things that will have impact this year, but also the long-term kinds of changes that allow this transition to take place, that allow farmers to produce for the market, that allow consumers to have a choice as to what it is they buy, that farmers are not dependent upon the Federal Government paycheck but indeed produce the kinds of things in the market, that we can increase these markets. We have the most efficient agriculture in the world, and there is a great deal of market available there as the world changes. Let me say, again, that there is no question, I do not think among all of us, there needs to be something done. The real question is, What do we do? It is a philosophical question to a large extent, not whether you help but how in fact you do it, how in fact that help will impact over a period of time as we make the transition to a marketplace. Madam President, I hope that we continue to talk about this. And I am sure we will.

Mr. THOMAS. What is the current business?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the time, and particularly for the effort and information that he has participated in giving during this debate. I am interested in the fact that our fellow Senators talk about having a discussion. How long are we going to discuss this? It seems like we have been through this every year. We have been through it three times last year; we have been through it the second time this year. I can hardly imagine that anyone can make a case that we have not had a chance to talk about this issue. As a matter of fact, frankly, I just think we have a lot of things to do in the next 3 weeks. I hope we focus on doing those things and not continue to repeat and discuss the same things that we have done before. This subject had three failed cloture votes in 1997. This is the second cloture vote in 1998. We had the opportunity to talk about this, and under the system in the Senate which we all use, this issue has failed to be approved. Frankly, I think it will be one more time. I heard earlier that this is something that everybody in the country is clinging to and wanting to have resolved. I have not seen that. Where people are asked to list the things that are most important to them, where do you see this on the list? If at all, on the bottom. I think the fact is times have changed. The fact is we do spend more money, perhaps too much money, but we want people to vote. We believe they should be educated, and if you do that, you do that through the public media, which is expensive. So we are changing those things a great deal. What puzzles me a great deal--and I am not here to talk about the details; others are much more familiar with them than am I--but we find ourselves with the dilemma of having a campaign finance law in place now that we seem to be unable or unwilling to enforce, and in fact what do we want to do? We want to have more laws put on top of the ones that we are not willing to enforce now. That seems to be a real difficult thing for me to understand. I think it would be a mistake to pile more bureaucracy, more new laws on top of the ones that we have, and then say to ourselves, ``Look at all the things that were illegally done in 1997 or 1996.'' We haven't enforced the laws that we have. It is strange to me there is a pitch for making more laws until we do that. I will not take much time. I do think there ought to be some changes. I certainly support the idea of strengthening and enforcing disclosure. I think disclosure ought to be there prior to the election, and I am for that. I would even probably support the amount of soft money that can be contributed. But I am also quick to understand that there are lots of ways to do it, and laws simply do not have the effect that sometimes we think they should. So, I think most everything has been said here, but I did want to rise to say that the notion if you are not for this somehow you don't care about elections, somehow you don't care about voting, that is not true. That is not at all true. All of us want to have an open declaration of spending. We want to have disclosure. We also want to have people have the opportunity to participate as fully as they choose under the first amendment, and there are some restrictions in here. So, we will continue to talk about this, I presume. But McCain- Feingold is not the answer, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that I don't care about elections, because I do care about them, and so do all of us. That allegation is simply not true. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the time. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, September 24, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1372, to provide for the protection of farmland at the Point Reyes National Seashore, and for other purposes. 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 Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is an interesting time, of course, for us here. Entering into the last month of this Congress, we are faced, of course, with finishing the work that we have begun, and more particularly, in closing up the appropriations process so that the Government can continue to function with a real determination and, Mr. President, to assure that that happens and that we do not get into this business of accusing one another of closing down the Government because we do not agree on issues. I am very much persuaded we will have a continuing resolution so if we do have disagreements that cannot be resolved in this time that the Government will continue to go on. If it does not, it would be my opinion it would be up to the administration to have it shut down. As was the case with most of the Senators here, I recently spent a month in my home State of Wyoming, having an opportunity to visit with people about things that concern them, having an opportunity, perhaps more importantly than visiting, to listen to what people believe to be the role of the Federal Government, what the people believe to be the issues most compelling to them. Of course, everyone has them. In my State, where we have relatively little diversity in our economy, we have three basic economic areas: One is tourism, one is mineral extraction, and one is agriculture. Unfortunately, both agriculture and mineral extraction are not in good shape economically at the moment, and we are seeking to do something about that. So this time I think is useful time for us. People always say, ``Hey, you're on vacation.'' Well, it is not vacation. It is a very busy time. But it is a useful time and a chance to perhaps stand back a little and look at some of the broader problems. And that is so important, especially, I think, in this last month when we become so focused on every detail, every little appropriations process, where we tend sometimes to sort of get away from really the fundamental issues that we are here to represent. So my comments today will simply represent my point of view. I do not allege to speak for anyone else. But I happen to think that one of the things that is most important to us as we deal with all issues is to have some philosophical guidance, some basic belief that you measure all these details against. Failing in that, it seems to me, it is very difficult to make decisions that are consistent, to make decisions that finally end up doing what you really believe in and what your philosophy ought to be. One of the conclusions that I have reached, not only on my own certainly, but because of what I hear in Wyoming, people having heard it of course in the media, is that this administration is basically in limbo, that it will be for some time, that we have relatively little, if any, leadership coming from the administration. We need to recognize that and to move forward with the issues that confront us. We can do that. And we need to do that. Frankly, we have had relatively little leadership over the last several years. This administration, in my judgment, and the judgment of others, has been one without any real basic commitment to a point of view or to a philosophy or to a direction, but rather driven more by polls and what happens to be the political thing at the moment. I suppose this is perhaps not a brand new idea, but one that I think is very dangerous and one that really does not direct us in the way that we ought to be going; that, indeed, instead we have a time of spin, an administration that is basically sort of predicated on how you can make things seem, whether they are that way or not, or whether, indeed, they are predicated on Saturday morning radio talks in which there are issues brought forth, and subsequently no real commitment to doing something about it, like the State of the Union in which things like ``Social Security first'' are mentioned, but then nothing is done as a followup. That is a concern to me, that there is no real commitment and, frankly, relatively little real belief or commitment or, indeed, character in terms of where we are going. I think there are some major areas that need attention and that will be continuing to need attention. We need to look into them. One is foreign affairs, foreign policy--or a lack of foreign policy. Almost daily we see that some country--mostly the rogue countries--is challenging the rest of the world, challenging the United States. Why? Because they have begun to do this, and there is no real response, there is no reason why they shouldn't. Why shouldn't Iraq thumb their nose at us in terms of doing the weapons thing that they promised to do when obviously they are not going to be required to do that? We have not finished our job in Bosnia, Kosovo. Those things are still there. We have the Asian currency issue, a difficult issue that impacts us, one that, again, we need to make some decisions as to where we are and let people know exactly where we are. The idea from the administration that we are going to raise that question is not a good enough answer-- the most current one, of course, being North Korea, and which we have dealt with for some time, particularly through the KEDO arrangement, trying to find a way to cause them to control what they are doing in nuclear arms development in return for a substantial contribution on the part of the United States and Japan and South Korea to build light- water reactors to replace that. And yet, they seem basically to say, ``Well, we appreciate what you are doing, but we are going to go ahead and do what we want to do. We are going to go ahead and fire missiles. We are going to go ahead and have underground development of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials.'' We cannot do that, in my judgment. And I feel very strongly about it. I happen to be chairman of that subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Rim. We are going to have another hearing this week. We had one just a month ago before we left and talked about the adherence to the KEDO agreement. There was certainly a notion that at that time things were being done that were not consistent with the plan. I think we need to give some real consideration to our military preparedness. This is not a peaceful world. One of the best ways to ensure as much as we can that it is peaceful is to continue to have a strong defense force, a strong military, to be the world's strongest military. And we are. However, there is increasing evidence that we are not putting enough emphasis into it in terms of support for it, in terms of the distribution of our troops all over the world. It is very costly. It is very difficult, then, to meet the mission that we have given ourselves, and that is to be able to work in two theaters, if necessary, at one time. Some doubt that we can do that now. So we, I think, have to deal with those kinds of very difficult issues. The matter of taxes is one, as you can imagine, we hear a great deal about when we go home--taxes in terms of the amount of taxation that citizens pay, the unfairness of taxes in terms of things like marriage penalty, the behavior of the IRS, which, of course, we addressed in our last session and hopefully will be useful. Perhaps even more important is the whole notion of Tax Code reform. You can deal with the IRS, you can deal with the management and the administration, certainly, of tax collection, but the real bottom line is the Tax Code. If the Tax Code is going to be so convoluted and so difficult and so detailed, it becomes increasingly difficult to do that. Here again, the administration has come forth with no real idea as to how to simplify the Tax Code. There is not unanimity among any of us as to what it ought to be--whether it ought to be a flat tax, a sales tax, or a consumption tax, or simply a simplification of what we have now. But we need some leadership to do that and we need something from the administration to do that. We need some ideas to do that instead of simply getting up and saying Social Security first, and then turning off the radio. I have a number of other items I would like to share, Mr. President, but I want to recognize my friend, the Senator from Kansas, who has come to the floor. I yield as much time as he desires for his observations.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Kansas very much for his comments. Mr. President, I guess the real issue and the thing that he and I are both talking about is the basic, fundamental functions of the Federal Government and what priority they should have. Certainly, the defense of this country has to be among the--if not the--top priorities. No one else can do that. I appreciate very much the comments the Senator has made. This whole idea of priority setting, this whole idea of the concept of the basic belief of what you think the better role of the Government, is of course a difficult issue but it is the basis of why we are here; it is the basis of elections to decide. People say, ``What is your position with respect to the Federal Government?'' There are legitimate differences of view. You can see them on this floor. There are those who believe sincerely that the Federal Government ought to be the predominant activity in government in the whole country. There are those who, frankly, have very little confidence in local governments and in State governments, and they think the Federal Government ought to do all of those things. Obviously, there are roles for the Federal Government. In my view, there are quite certainly roles that are better done at the local and State level. That is the constant issue with which we deal. I was talking about some of the things people talked about while I was in Wyoming. I mentioned Social Security. I would like to go back to that for just a little bit. There has been a great deal of talk about the condition of Social Security to the extent that people, many older people, are worried about, of course. But maybe even more importantly, younger people who are now just entering the workforce are saying, ``I am going to be paying into this thing forever, but by the time I am ready to retire, there will be nothing there.'' I think it is clear that Social Security is strong for 20 years or 25 years, and all those who will become eligible for benefits during that time will see them. But young people, like these folks sitting here, are the ones who will be paying the tab. Unless we do something, we will unlikely have a solvent Social Security program. We need to move forward. I am pleased that there is a considerable amount of talk about it. I hope we do something rather soon. It seems to me that if we can do it, the sooner you do it, the less severe the changes need to be. If you make rather simple changes, rather incremental changes 20 years out, it makes a great deal of difference. What are we talking about? Of course, one of them that is already underway is to raise the retirement age. Times have changed. People are living longer. People are working longer. That is legitimate. There will be debate about how far that goes, of course. But, more importantly, the notion that seems to be catching on is that some percentage of the payments that are made, some of the percentages of 12-percent payments that are made into Social Security, should be set aside into an individual account which is invested in equities, invested in something that will earn more interest than the current investment which is in Government securities; that that account will grow more quickly; that there will be more benefits from the same investment. And that is very possible, of course; further, that that account would be your account and my account. If for some reason or other you happen to pass on before you use all of that, that it, indeed, be part of your estate. There would be a substantial difference. I don't think many are talking about a full privatization of Social Security. That is something that would be a pretty big step. But to take 30 percent, for example, 3 or 4 percent out of the 12 percent, I believe that is happening. I certainly hope so. I already mentioned tax reform. Certainly, we will have some debate soon about what seems certain to be a budget surplus--a budget surplus on which we will have some decisions to make; choices about doing something about reducing the debt, a debt on which we pay $280 billion a year in interest; do something about reducing tax rates so that the people who own the money will be able to keep more of it. I suppose one of the considerations will be to spend more. I hope that is not a successful consideration. Others are suggesting some of it be put in for this Social Security reform and that it be used that way. There is nothing wrong with philosophical differences. We just need to stand for what we are for. We are for less government, if we are having people keep more of their own money. It is pretty clear where you stand on that issue. I hope the marriage penalty is considered. I saw some numbers the other day where two single persons were making roughly $35,000 a year, and they pay individually. If they are married, this is about a $1,300 penalty to the same people earning the same amount of money simply because they are married. That needs, of course, to be changed. Another one that I heard a lot about and I also feel strongly about is the Executive orders that have been issued. There are a good many Executive orders, some of which simply are done apparently to replace what the Congress should be doing. One on federalism created a great deal of concern. Basically, the President issued an Executive order that broadened the scope of the Federal Government in terms of working with States and working with counties, and instead of the good old 10th amendment where it says that those things which are specifically laid out in the Constitution will be done by the Federal Government, other things will be done by the States and by the people--this changed that. There was such a reaction to it that I understand it has been withdrawn. But the use of Executive orders is something that sort of moves away from the leadership of causing the Congress to do things, and working with the Congress. The idea of an Executive order on health care, for example, which is exactly the thing that the Republican bill has on the floor, it seems to me, is inappropriate. Energy--I guess I have a rather strong feeling about energy in that it is one of the things that is important to my State, but, more importantly, it is one of the things that is important to this country. We now have ourselves in the position where 57 percent, I believe, of the fossil fuel we use is imported. That puts us at sort of a security risk, it seems to me, in addition to not having the kind of domestic industry that is very important. Do we have a policy at the Department of Energy for that? No, we really do not. We really do not. We have a real problem with what we do with nuclear waste that is the result of nuclear power plants. Do we have a plan to do that? The administration is opposed to it. We have a responsibility to do something about nuclear waste storage. Does the Department of Energy have a plan? No. We are not moving forward. Those are the kinds of things that need to be resolved. One of the energy issues that is fairly knew this year and will continue next year is the deregulation of electric energy. It has a great impact on this country. The use of the huge monopolies--most of us would like to see us change monopolies and make them come a little more into the marketplace. Does the Department of Energy have a strong position on that? No. Finally, the chairman of the committee urged them to come up with a bill. But we need to do something with that. Here again, we get into the question of whether you do the same thing for every State. I can tell you that Wyoming's interest in electric deregulation is different than New York's. You have to have a system to do that. Leadership is what we need. The Senator from Kansas who just spoke is one of the experts in agriculture. He was, indeed, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House. Agriculture is having a tough time. Agriculture is having a tough time because of the Asian situation, because of the crop failures, and because of the weather and many things. We are trying to do something with it and, indeed, have, but we need again some kind of impetus and leadership from this administration that has not been there. Previous to now, we have had accelerated payments that are the changed payments from where we had the acreage and payment program into a market system. We have had averaging, income averaging, just extended-- that is good for farmers--and an IRA for farmers and ranchers. Of course, if you don't have any money, it does not help a lot. And that is going to have to be done. We did something about unilateral sanctions in countries so that we can have more markets overseas. These are some things, but there need to be more. We need to do something with crop insurance to make that work. We need to open more foreign markets because almost 40 percent of our agricultural product goes into foreign trade. We need to do something about agricultural credit to help make this transition from managed agriculture to market agriculture. So we need to work together, and we need some leadership in doing that. Mr. President, probably again the thing that seems always to strike me, because I guess I believe it also, is that the real issue in many of the things we do is in terms of federalism--what is the role of the Federal Government? Where can we be most efficient? Where can we get the job done more easily? At the Federal level? At the State level? Should we send block grants, for example, in some instances to the States? I think so. And the delivery system is so different. We held a couple of meetings on rural health care while I was in Wyoming. We have about 475,000 people in 100,000 square miles. Many people live in very small towns. We only have two towns that are over the 50-60,000 category. So you have to have a little different system for the delivery of health care than you do in Pennsylvania or than you do in New England, and that is an important kind of thing. Telemedicine, for example, is going to be very important to us. So all this comes into this equation of how do you best serve the people of this country. I happen to believe, as you can imagine from what I have said already, less Federal Government is better than more. I am one who thinks that the most efficient delivery system comes when it is done at the local level. I am one who thinks that the Government closest to the people is the one that provides the kind of services that people really want. So we need to focus, I think, on fundamentals. We need to focus on the idea that, for example, those things that are done by the Federal Government that are commercial in nature ought to be put out for bid, if that is possible, so we can do it in the private sector. It is done more efficiently that way, and it also creates more jobs in the private sector. And that is one of the fundamental things we ought to continue to focus on. We don't have much time remaining in this session--I think something around 20 days of activity. We have lots of things to do. I am hopeful that our friends on the other side of the aisle will address these issues that need to be resolved. I think it is clear that there are two or three issues they are going to try to insist on bringing up daily, not with the intention of completing them and finding a resolution but simply to bring them up so that they are the kinds of issues that will be involved in the campaigns that are coming up in November--patients' rights, for example. Both sides of the aisle have bills on patients' rights. Most of the elements of those bills are very similar and there is a consensus that some of those things need to be done. The leadership has offered to deal with it with a limited number of amendments so that we can get it done. That is not acceptable to the other side of the aisle because they want to keep this issue alive as a political issue. That is too bad. I am sorry for that. The minimum wage. We just have raised the minimum wage two times. It is a political issue that has to keep coming back. Campaign reform. Most of us want to make some changes in campaign reform. We have talked about it extensively in this session of Congress. It is kept alive as a political issue. We need to address ourselves to things that have to be resolved, those things that are important to the people in the conduct of the business of this country. So I am just really hopeful that our leadership in the Senate and the leadership in the House and this administration will address ourselves to some of these issues and that we will, in fact, during this next month be able to resolve them, conclude them, and do them in the fashion that is most acceptable and most useful to the American people. That, after all, is our job. I think it is based largely on making some decisions as to what the Federal Government does best, how it does it, how it can be done most efficiently, how we can involve the States, how we can involve local governments. Invariably, when you go home, you see things done voluntarily, you see things done on a local level, and it reminds you, fortunately, the strength of this country lies not in its Federal Government, the strength of this country lies in the communities and the people who live there, people who give leadership to issues that affect them, people who volunteer, people who address the issues and resolve them, and that is, indeed, the strength of this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I will alleviate your concern that I will take the whole hour. Nevertheless, I think I will be joined by some of my colleagues.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if I may, I wish to make another comment or so on this amendment. I understand the notion that you want to make this thing work, and we have tried for quite a long time. It just seems to me that around the world right now in a number of places we are having these kinds of countries with the dictators sort of testing the United States, saying, ``You have told us certain things, we have made certain agreements, but we are not going to keep them, and what are you going to do about it?'' I feel as if that is an increasing tendency around the world, and this is one of them, as well as Iraq and some other places. So I think we want to continue to work, we would like to have the KEDO agreement, we would like to go ahead with the light-water reactor to avoid the nuclear development in North Korea, but that is the deal. And if that isn't being adhered to, then I think you have to do something. I think we have to take a tougher position than we have in the past. I just do not see that it is good for the United States in the future to be making agreements with these sorts of rogue countries, trying to make things better, going ahead and doing our part, and them not doing theirs. I think that is what this amendment is about. And what we are challenged with, frankly, is to say, ``We have things that need to be done, we are willing to work with you, but you have to keep up your part of the bargain.'' I think that is what this is all about. I yield the floor. By the way, if I may take that back, I was also listening to Senator Dodd's proposal that has to do with things in Central America that have been kept secret, and I am very much interested in part of that myself, the Sister Ortiz thing that really needs to be declassified, in my judgment. So I just wanted to comment that I speak in support of the Dodd amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to address briefly the McCain amendment on S. 2334. I will talk a little bit about the situation in North Korea and the bill relating to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization, KEDO. I have been chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asia for almost 4 years, and we have held five hearings on North Korea during that time--more than any other single country, with the exception of China. In all of that time, I have continued to be amazed at and concerned by the dangerous, unpredictable and unbalanced nature of the regime in North Korea. Despite widespread starvation and disease, the Government continues to adhere to the very economic policies which have led to famine in the first place. Despite the worldwide reputation of communism, the Government continues to revolve around sort of a Stalinist cult of personality slavishly devoted to Kim Jong Il. Despite international norms and conventions, the North Koreans continue to sell nuclear and conventional missile technology to such rogue states as Iraq and Libya in violation of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Despite the terms of the Agreed Nuclear Framework with the United States, North Korea continues to develop its program aimed at producing nuclear missiles. Mr. President, I have been sort of a begrudging supporter of the Agreed Framework since its inception. Although the agreement is far from perfect, I supported it because I believed that, in the end, it was in our best interest and in the best interest of the East Asia region to do so. I supported it through its fits and starts. I supported it when the North diverted oil deliveries to military use and when the North showed signs of restarting their nuclear program. I supported it because, on the whole, North Korean movement forward in the Four-Party Talks and cooperation in the nuclear area outweighed the North's traditional tendency to always push the envelope with us. Mr. President, when North Korea fired off a missile last week over Japanese air space, it was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back. This is what I consider to be a clearly belligerent act and should drive home the fact to this body that the Agreed Framework has been gutted by North Korea. At present, it seems no better than the paper on which it was written. Time after time, the DPRK has broken its commitment under the agreement. While the North took our oil and dragged its heels, it has constructed underground facilities to test both propulsion and warhead systems with only one purpose: the development of long- and short-range nuclear weapon capabilities. Frankly, I have a sinking feeling that they have used us, played us for a fool, and have played it very well. Mr. President, I intend to meet with the Defense Intelligence Agency this week, and to hold a hearing next week in our subcommittee to examine the present situation and to ask the State Department and Defense Department some tough questions. If these questions can't be answered to our satisfaction, and if we can't be convinced that adherence to the Agreed Framework under the circumstances are in our best interests, then our support, I am sure, will evaporate very quickly. I am pleased that we are considering it here. I am supportive of the McCain amendment. I look forward to having a chance to vote on it. I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask that I may proceed as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, all of us have been various places during the recess. I have been back in Wyoming listening to people and to a number of things that people are concerned about. We are back now, basically, to spend this month, I suppose, almost totally immersed in the appropriations process, which we must do. I have been interested for some time in making some changes in that process. It seems to me now to be appropriate, perhaps, while we are into it, to talk about the possibility of changing a bit. What are some of the things we are going to have confronting us now? First of all, we have talked about appropriations, in most years, for about 40 percent of the time. About 40 percent of the time the Senate and House spends in session is spent on appropriations. During this last period of time, we will be confronted with trying to move quickly to complete that work, which has to be completed, of course, for the Government to go on. And that is OK. But as part of that, we will see a great deal of nongermane amendments being put onto appropriations bills, which really have nothing to do with appropriations. They are put on there partly because the year is nearly over, and if they are going to happen, they have to happen now. Often it is easier to move an appropriations bill with an amendment than it is a freestanding bill. We will be confronted again, I suspect, by the administration threatening, where they don't agree with the Congress on the payments in certain areas and appropriations for certain areas, that they will close down the Government and blame the Congress. We have to guard against that. It is not the intention of the Congress to close down the Government--nor was it several years ago. But that is the pressure that is used. So what could we do to change that? It seems to me that we ought to consider going into a biennial budget process--a process in which every 2 years we would spend our time on the budget. We would budget for a biennial time and have the remainder of the time to do the other business of the Congress. I am persuaded that the Congress spends too much time on budget issues. One of the really important things, after the budget is completed, is for the Congress to ensure that those programs that have been funded and the money that has been spent is spent as efficiently as possible, spent in the way in which the appropriation was designed and for the purpose for which it was designed. That doesn't always happen. So oversight, it seems to me, is certainly one of the more important things Congress has to do. We have relatively little time to do that. We don't always complete our work. Since 1997, we have had 60 continuing resolutions. That means that we didn't complete the appropriations and that we simply continued what had been done in the past. As I mentioned before, we have devoted roughly 40 percent of our time to budget resolutions, reconciliation and appropriations. We have too many repetitive votes on the same issues. There are lots of things for the Congress to do and lots of things that the Congress has a responsibility to do. Many of them, I think, are neglected because we spend too much time each year on appropriations. There is not enough time for vigorous oversight. We continue to let inefficient and inappropriate programs continue. One of the other things that brings it to mind--and I am sure the Presiding Officer had the same experience at home--is when you hear about all these programs being operated in quite a different fashion than was the concept of the legislation, and that is part of our responsibility in Congress. In the last Congress, I introduced a bill that creates a 2-year authorization for appropriations and budget resolutions--partly, I suppose, because of my experience in the Wyoming legislature in which we operated with biennial sessions. Most States operate with biennial appropriations, as a matter of fact. One of the arguments against it, however, is that some of the States are going to annual appropriations. I will tell you why. They are going to annual appropriations to be consistent with the Federal Government, and there is so much Federal funding, it is difficult. If the Federal Government would do it, I think you would find these States going back to it, and it would eliminate some of the redundancy in budgeting and help to reduce the size of Government, and I think it would help put a bridle on unchecked Government spending. It would encourage agencies and executive branch agencies to plan for longer in the future. And I think it is difficult for an agency to have to plan one year at a time when they are doing longer term projects. They can be useful for them as well. They could help Government do it with Federal grantees to do it. The author of the bill, Senator Domenici, has introduced bipartisan legislation with the bipartisan support of 35 of our colleagues. It passed the Budget Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee, and is pending on the Senate calendar. Bipartisan support has been expressed by Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, leaders of both sides of the Senate, and Vice President Gore and the OMB Director have all expressed support for biannual budgets. A limited time has elapsed. I suspect it is unlikely that it will pass, which is part of what I am talking about. Now we are jammed in here for 4 weeks. The leader spoke this morning about how difficult it will be to do all of the things that have to be done. As I recall, the budget is supposed to have been pretty well done by now. It is supposed to move along on a schedule. We, of course, seldom, if ever, live by that schedule. So we are in our annual sprint to avoid a Government shutdown. I urge my colleagues to consider some reform of legislation that would change what we do. I think there is great merit in doing it. It is not a new idea. Certainly it is not a cure-all of all Federal Government ills. But it is a process that perhaps would be helpful. Processes are hard to change in this institution. And I respect that. There should be a reason to change things. I am a little discouraged when you talk about making things work a little better when the response often is, ``Well, we have always done it that way.'' That is not a very good response. I think we could save time. I think we could save money. I think we could manage better. I think we could allow ourselves to do the things that we need to do. I suspect, frankly, that one of the reasons there is opposition is that those people and the appropriators have a little more power to exert each year rather than every other year by being on this committee and helping to decide where money is spent. That is one of the realisms of it. On the other hand, there are a lot more people who are not on the appropriations committee than there are on the committee. So that should not keep us from doing it. This, as I said, would not be a panacea but certainly would be a step in the right direction of what we seem to constantly talk about, and I hope constantly seek; that is, a more efficient operation, a more effective operation by spending less taxpayers' money. It seems to me that this is one of the ways to do that. I hope we consider it. If we don't get it done this time, we ought to bring it up early in the next session. We ought to bring it before both the House and the Senate and streamline the way we appropriate the funds for the programs in Congress. Mr. President, I thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I will lay out the plan for today. This morning, the Senate will be in a period for morning business until 9:30 a.m. Following morning business, under a previous order, the Senate will begin consideration of the Department of Defense appropriations bill. All Members are encouraged to come to the floor early during today's session to offer and debate any amendments to the defense bill. The first votes of today's session will occur in a stacked series beginning at approximately 2 p.m. These votes will include any remaining amendments to the Treasury appropriations bill and possibly several amendments to the defense bill. Members should expect votes late into the evening during today's session, as the Senate attempts to complete action on the defense bill. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise for just a moment to thank the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Iowa for their leadership on this agricultural issue that we have before us. I join as an original cosponsor to the effort. It seems to me that clearly there are two areas that have to be pursued. The Senator from Nebraska talked about one, and that is seeking to reopen and to strengthen these foreign markets that are there that are critical to agricultural production. One of the areas, of course, in this matter is unilateral sanctions, of which some action has already been taken in the case of Pakistan and India. We need to do more of that. The other, of course, is to do something domestically. I agree entirely that we should not try to return to the managed agriculture that we had before, but to continue to move towards market agriculture in which our production is based on demand. But it is a difficult transition. And that, coupled with the Asian crisis, coupled with the fact that, particularly in the northern tier and in the south, we have had drought, we have had floods, we have had freezes--we have had a series of difficult things that lend to the difficulty of agriculture. So I am pleased that the Congress has taken some steps. I think this idea of moving forward with the transition payments is a good idea. Certainly we can do that for farmers. Then if we can provide a farmer savings account which will allow them to have these payments, in advance, without being taxed until they are used, is a good one. Certainly, as the Senator from Nebraska has indicated, I, too, favor the idea of reducing and, indeed, eventually eliminating the capital gains taxes. I just want to say I support this very much. There perhaps are other activities that we can undertake that will be helpful, but we do need to get started. I think this is a good beginning. I want to say again that I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nebraska. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to follow the leadership of the floor leader and the bill leader here on this one. No. 1, it doesn't belong in this area. We are taking away all these amendments. I think that is the right thing to do. The second point is those of us who have been working in this area for a very long time feel as if there is a process that is going on to make things better with China, to make our relations better. No one disagrees with doing something about religious freedom. No one disagrees with any of these issues. The question is, How do you best do it? And the best way to do it is not to refuse to provide visas to the Chinese. I urge we table this amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise for just a moment to thank the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Iowa for their leadership on this agricultural issue that we have before us. I join as an original cosponsor to the effort. It seems to me that clearly there are two areas that have to be pursued. The Senator from Nebraska talked about one, and that is seeking to reopen and to strengthen these foreign markets that are there that are critical to agricultural production. One of the areas, of course, in this matter is unilateral sanctions, of which some action has already been taken in the case of Pakistan and India. We need to do more of that. The other, of course, is to do something domestically. I agree entirely that we should not try to return to the managed agriculture that we had before, but to continue to move towards market agriculture in which our production is based on demand. But it is a difficult transition. And that, coupled with the Asian crisis, coupled with the fact that, particularly in the northern tier and in the south, we have had drought, we have had floods, we have had freezes--we have had a series of difficult things that lend to the difficulty of agriculture. So I am pleased that the Congress has taken some steps. I think this idea of moving forward with the transition payments is a good idea. Certainly we can do that for farmers. Then if we can provide a farmer savings account which will allow them to have these payments, in advance, without being taxed until they are used, is a good one. Certainly, as the Senator from Nebraska has indicated, I, too, favor the idea of reducing and, indeed, eventually eliminating the capital gains taxes. I just want to say I support this very much. There perhaps are other activities that we can undertake that will be helpful, but we do need to get started. I think this is a good beginning. I want to say again that I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Nebraska. I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.