Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am hopeful that today we will come to some conclusion and come to an end in the tobacco controversy that has gone on for a very long time now. I think there are several things which seem to have a consensus. One is that we should make effective efforts to reduce teenage smoking. After all, that was the beginning. That was the purpose. That, to me, is still the overriding objective of whatever we do in terms of tobacco. I think there is a consensus that the tobacco companies should be held accountable for the kinds of advertising that they do, for the things they say. The FDA rules should accomplish that. I think that most people believe we should enforce the laws against the purchase of cigarettes by teenagers. I think there is also consensus, quite frankly, that we have talked quite long enough about this issue. It is time to come to the snubbing post, and do something about it. I hope we do. I am discouraged, frankly, with the direction that this bill is moving. It is no longer focused on the real issues for which it came to public attention, teen smoking and public health. Instead, it has become a platform for talking about all kinds of things, such as replacing one tax with another, such as increasing programs over the next 25 years to the tune of maybe $800 billion, programs that will almost surely become entitlements, and when this funding has run out, will have to be replaced by other funding. Those are not the reasons we began to do this. There are things in the bill that I don't think anyone has even thought about or talked about. For example, $1,700 per year in college tuition for tobacco farmers and their family members, including brothers and sisters and stepbrothers and stepsisters and sons in law and daughters in law. I doubt that is what we talked about. Providing $7.5 billion to help American Indians stop smoking, or about $18,000 per person--those are not the kind of initiatives we had in mind. Secondly, I am opposed to the tobacco industry's marketing techniques aimed at teens, either through regulation, through law or through public opinion. That should stop. My position has been clear on these issues. But to expand the size of our federal agencies or create new ones--some reports indicate--as many as 17 new agencies will be established by this bill, is not what we had in mind, is not where we began. Unfortunately, we find promoters of the bill accuse those who are not enthusiastic about it of being against doing something about teenage smoking. That is not true. Everyone is for curbing the use of youth smoking. Everyone wants to do that. So we ought not to be confused by such accusations. After all, one of the real philosophies and overriding efforts in this Congress ought to be to reduce the size of the Federal Government and uphold States rights. Those things are very important. Instead, this bill goes the opposite direction, creating new government boards, guaranteed annual spending increases and a wide range of State mandates--just the opposite in terms of the principals we support. Fortunately, there will be two alternatives. We will have an opportunity to vote on substitutes if that is the choice of the leadership. One will be offered by Senator Gramm and Senator Domenici. That is sort of a basic bill aimed at the purpose of controlling teenage smoking. Again, that should be our primary purpose. The second one, of course, is sponsored by Senator Hatch and Senator Feinstein which goes back pretty much to the original agreement. So I am not going to extend the tobacco debate any longer than it already has been for 3\1/2\ weeks, but I do just simply want to say that we ought to focus on the issue for which we began. We ought to do something about teen smoking, get away from this idea of bringing in everything that we can possibly think of in terms of taxes, money, and bureaucracy. It is time to deal with the issue and move on. We have a great deal to do before this session ends. We haven't even begun to discuss the appropriations bills. We have the Armed Forces authorization bill to finish. We have sorts of other legislative matters that are just as important. Mr. President, I simply wanted to express my view in terms of the fact that I think it is time to come to some consensus, to some conclusion, and move forward. I think this can be achieved if we would only focus on the real issue--curbing teenage smoking. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Further, I ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1415, the tobacco bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Friday, June 12. I further ask that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the following exception: Senator Baucus for 20 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator is on her way. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there being no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Collins.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. and begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. Following morning business, we will resume consideration of the tobacco bill. It is hoped that Members will come to the floor to offer and debate remaining amendments throughout Friday's session. The Senate may also consider the vocational education bill, the Higher Education Act, the NASA authorization bill, the drug czar office reauthorization bill, and any other legislation or executive items that may be cleared for action. As a reminder to all Members, the majority leader has announced there will be no rollcall votes during Friday's session. Therefore, any votes ordered during Friday's session will be postponed, to occur on Monday at a time to be determined by the two leaders, but not before 5 o'clock.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate resolution 247 submitted earlier today by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and a statement of explanation appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kerry amendment No. 2689 be further modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senators Murkowski and Bumpers and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of calendar No. 397, S. 1693.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered read and agreed to, the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be considered read the third time and passed, the amendment to the title be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senate for approving S. 1693, the ``Vision 2020 National Parks Restoration Act.'' This is the culmination of over two years of work and reflects a lifetime of concern I have had about protecting our nation's parks. America's park system needs attention and it needs our help soon. I believe this bill will provide it. When we began this effort more then a year ago I came to the floor and challenged Senators to imagine for a moment an America without national parks. How would we feel without Yosemite, Independence Hall, or Grand Canyon protected for public enjoyment? How much of our national identity reflected in these icons--the Statue of Liberty, Yellowstone, or the National Capital Mall--would be lost? How much would be missing without the rugged, adventurous American spirit embodied in Glacier Park or Denali? That was the challenge. The U.S. Senate has risen to answer that challenge by passing this bill today. I'm profoundly proud of what we have accomplished. This effort has been on behalf of the millions of park visitor that flock to the wide open spaces or the rich historic sites. It's for taxpayers who expect the very best return for their money. And it's for the future generations of people, for whom we've worked hard, to preserve the very best of our public land heritage. I want to express my deep appreciate to the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Chairman Murkowski, as well as Senator Bumpers and Senator Bennett, who have labored long in this area of parks support, and I thank them for all of their hard work in this legislation. The compromise we developed in order to pass this measure is in the finest tradition of the Senate. The negotiations were tough, and nobody got everything they wanted in the bill. However, we have put together a good piece of legislation that will make a positive and proactive change to help our national parks. I also want to recognize the hard work of the staff, particularly Dan Naatz of my staff, and Jim O'Toole of the committee staff. Over the last two years, we have spoken to dozens of groups interested in preserving our parks. We have traveled across the country and listened to the concerns of folks ranging from the motion picture industry to natural resource experts. We have heard the suggestions as well as the criticisms of our colleagues and worked to evaluate areas where we could make positive improvements for our parks. Throughout all of these meetings and hearings, one message came through loud and clear--the value of national parks is one of the cultural constants for Americans. The Vision 2020 bill provides a systematic approach to addressing the needs of the National Park Service. The restoration bill takes a broad approach, with eight titles covering the compromise bill. Mr. President, the Senate can be proud of passing this landmark piece of legislation. As Americans, one of the finest legacies that we can leave our children and grandchildren is the National Park System that is healthy, vibrant and alive. We have an obligation to strengthen our outstanding system of parks, the system that over 100 other nations have modeled after ours. Finally, I want to recognize the important contribution of the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, in developing this compromise bill. As folks know, the Secretary and I don't agree on all issues. However, to his credit, the Secretary recognized the important work we are doing and dedicated time and manpower of his agency to help. I thank the Secretary for his help. Today is a good day for our parks. It's a good day for the U.S. Senate. Our commitment is to leave our children and grandchildren these wild and historic places healthy and whole. Today we are one big step forward toward achieving that worthwhile aspiration. I once again want to thank the Senate for passing S. 1693 and urge the House of Representatives to take up this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaties transmitted to the Senate on June 11, 1998, by the President of the United States: 1. Extradition treaty with Austria (Treaty Document No. 105-50. 2. Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Treaty Document No. 105-51). I further ask that the treaties be considered as having been read the first time; that they be referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's messages be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 245, and further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and a statement of explanation appear at this point in the Record.

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. The hearing will take place on June 18, 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. 469, a bill to designate a portion of the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers as a component of the National Wild And Scenic Rivers System; S. 1016, a bill to authorize appropriations for the Coastal Heritage Trail Route in New Jersey, and for other purposes; S. 1665, a bill to reauthorize the Delaware and Lehigh Navigation Canal National Heritage Corridor Act, and for other purposes; S. 2039, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro as a National Historic Trail; and, H.R. 2186, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance to the National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming. 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 Darlene Koontz of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-7555 or Shawn Taylor at (202) 224-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs I submit S. Res. 240, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to democracy and human rights in Laos. In 1975, the Pathet Lao party supplanted the legitimate Lao government and the Lao Royal Family, and established a ``people's democratic republic,'' in violation of the 1962 Declaration on the Neutrality of Laos and its Protocol, as well as the 1973 Vientiane Agreement on Laos. Since that time, Laos has been under the sole control of the communist Lao People's Democratic Party. Although the present Lao Constitution provides for human rights protection for the Lao people, is a signatory to international agreements on civil and political rights, and has become a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations--which calls for the creation of open societies in each of its member states by the year 2020--the State Department's ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1997'' notes that the government has only slowly eased restrictions on basic freedoms and begun codification of implementing legislation for rights stipulated in the Lao Constitution, and continues to significantly restrict the freedoms of the press, speech, and assembly. Mr. President, would-be opposition political leaders in Laos continue to be jailed in horrible conditions solely because they espouse democratic ideals. While Laos recently conducted the country's most open elections since 1975, that is not to say that the elections came close to meeting even the minimal norms for what we would consider free and fair; Laos is still a one-party state and all of the candidates for election were vetted by the party. And the Hmong and Yao ethnic minorities continue to face discrimination and, in some cases, persecution. In addition, on January 30 of this year, a group of 44 people, including five foreigners, were arrested at a Bible study meeting in Vientiane. Charged with creating divisions among the people, undermining the government and accepting foreign funds to promote religion, a Laotian court sentenced 13 Christians from the group to prison on March 25. Eight were sentenced to three-year prison terms, including five Lao affiliated with Partners in Progress (PIP), a U.S.- based evangelical humanitarian aid organization. Lao authorities had prevented the prisoners from meeting with their families until the sentencing. Last month the Lao Foreign Ministry accused the group of making negative comments about the government and interfering in the internal affairs of the country by insulting the reputation of Lao leaders. A foreign ministry spokesman added that the three Americans, all PIP workers, had taken advantage of their non-governmental organization status to ``promote the worship of Christ'' to Lao nationals. Mr. President, Laos doesn't receive a lot of attention from the outside. It is a land-locked, impoverished country of just slightly over five million people, where only three percent of the land is arable. Subsistence farming accounts for more than half of the GDP, and provides more than eighty percent of total employment. It has few roads, no railroads, and electricity in only a few scattered urban areas. Needless to say, it is of little strategic or economic interest to the rest of the world. But Mr. President, that does not mean that we can or should turn a blind eye to the human rights situation in that country. We need to urge Laos to respect international norms of human rights and democratic freedoms for the Lao people, and fully honor its commitments to those norms and freedoms as embodied in its constitution and international agreements. The resolution calls on the Lao government to issue a public statement specifically reaffirming its commitment to protecting religious freedom, and to fully institute a process of democracy, human rights and openly-contested free and fair elections in Laos, and ensure specifically that the National Assembly elections--currently scheduled for 2002--are openly contested. I hope they get the message. Mr. President, before I close I would like to thank my good friend from Minnesota, Mr. Grams, for cosponsoring--indeed, for inspiring-- this resolution. Senator Grams has significant Lao and Hmong populations in his state, and has been active in getting their message heard in Congress; I've attended several meetings, including one with members of the Lao royal family, which he sponsored. I would also like to thank my friend the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, for his cosponsorship; there is a large Hmong population in Portland, and I know Senator Smith has followed events in Laos closely.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to speak on this highway bill. Seeing there is no one else here, I will not limit time. But I want to, first of all, congratulate the chairman of the committee and the Senator from Montana, the ranking member, at having done what I think is an excellent job with a most difficult issue, an issue where you take a vast amount of money that comes in from gas taxes and seek to put it into a formula that is fair to all the States, and yet adheres to the purpose of the thing, which is an interstate highway program that runs from coast to coast, that runs from Mexico to Canada, and that does all the things that an interstate program is supposed to do. So there does need to be some adjustment, in terms of the dollars, with respect to the various States. It is most difficult. I am here to support the bill. I think it is well done. Also, to remind Members that this committee has been working in this area for more than a year. This bill was brought to the Senate more than 2 months ago and passed, I think almost unanimously, and this proposition that comes before us today is very similar to what was passed here in the Senate. One of the difficult parts, procedurally, of course, is that something quite different was passed originally in the House. In order to get this done, there has to be some conference. There has to be some communication. There has to be some allocation of differences between the House and Senate, and they were extreme, those differences, particularly in the area of the so-called demonstration projects, all above the formula line. So it has been a very long process and one that has been tedious, one that has been difficult. I sympathize, I think, with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in his feeling of not having been as involved as he would have liked to be. I suspect that is probably true of all of us. This is a large bill. It will be out here soon. We are saying, my gosh, we are being asked to vote in an hour or two on a bill of that kind? But the fact is, the real issues have been known for some time. The real issues have been talked about. The real issues have been in the daily reports. The real issues have been done by our staffs. So it is not a surprise. Of course we don't know all the details, and unfortunately I have to say: How many of these bills that are 18 inches high has everybody read on the other issues? But the principles are there. And the principle is to try to spend about the amount of money that comes in on gas tax for highways; that is fairly reasonable--or for transportation. The idea of guaranteeing that each State will have 90.5 percent of what they paid in, that is pretty basic. We know that. We have some things in there that I think are very important to all of us. We have increased the money that goes to national parks. All of us have national parks. And certainly if we don't have them in our State, we all use national parks and enjoy national parks. They have no other source for funding, and that is good. For Federal lands, of course, to the Presiding Officer and I, representing a State that is 50 percent Federal ownership--and some others are substantially higher-- Federal land money is very important. So these are the principal things that are there. These are the things that we know about. I think we have to remember that the deadline for reauthorization has passed. It passed last January. We had a temporary bill that went into place until the first of May. This is something that makes it impossible, if we do not have a bill, for States to go ahead and plan. And that is particularly true for those of us who live in the northern part of the country where we have a relatively short construction time, and States need to know what kind of money they will have to deal with. So I think it is vital that we get into this bill, that we find out the basic points that we need to be informed on, and that we move forward and, frankly, do this before we go on this recess. I guess, as a practical matter, we can go on the recess and we will not know a great deal. The issues will still be about the same when we come back. The issue is not so much a matter of understanding as it is a matter of not everyone is going to be perfectly happy. In Massachusetts, for example, they had a huge allocation before, for a special project, so their formula this year looks a little strange because they don't have that huge project in. So there is an effort to make it that way. So I hope we move forward. We have really been through this business of talking about whether we are going to spend the gas tax on highways or not. We went through that. We voted on that. We are ready to move forward. This is a very complicated program. I believe it is a good one. I believe the committee has done very well, and I urge my friends in the Senate to move forward and complete this discussion today. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise to talk not so much about this bill but the bills that have been talked about here that passed in the House last year. Many of them were referred to the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I happen to be chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Rim. These were not heard because the committee did not choose to hear them. Now we find ourselves having a hearing this morning on China. We find the President preparing to go to China. So this bill, of course, as the Senator pointed out, was referred to Banking. I am not familiar with that one. I am here to tell you that I don't think this is the appropriate procedural place to deal with these bills. There are committees that have jurisdiction over them. They have been referred to those committees. They can be referred to those committees, and, in my view, they should be referred to those committees. So if we are going to extend the length of this debate by having each of 10 bills discussed here and voted on, then I think we need to prepare ourselves for a rather long time. Furthermore, I think we talked at great length this morning about China and about these kinds of issues. The point of the matter is that nobody disagrees with some of the issues that are to be done here; the disagreement is how they should be handled. To send the President off to China with language of this kind doesn't seem to be a proper thing to do. They were talking about it when Jiang Zemin came here last time. So I am prepared to talk about these bills if that is what we are going to do. But, procedurally, it doesn't seem to me that this is the appropriate place to deal with the bills. We can go on for a very long time if that is what is going to take place on this authorization bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I simply send the amendment which will deal with the findings of this bill and eliminate them in a second- degree amendment. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to amendment No. 2387 to the desk.