Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. If I might, I certainly agree with the Senator. It isn't that difficult. In other words, this is what our system is all about. Our system of private enterprise, our system of limited Government, our system of allowing as much money as possible to stay in the hands of the citizens so they can invest it and create jobs, that is what our system is all about. Through the years it has been tested against socialism and big government and the government doing all these things, and throughout the world this system is the success. It is being copied everywhere. Sometimes it is scary when we see ourselves moving away from our own system that has been so successful, that everybody else has adopted. So the Senator is exactly right. That certainly is what creates this kind of an economic environment is the ability to take the risk, to invest, to work, to earn, to keep and to do things for yourself and your family.

Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate the Senator from Georgia arranging for an opportunity to talk about our agenda. After all we have just returned now from recess, just returned from a time to talk with our constituents. I spent all this time in Wyoming doing a number of town meetings, talking to people about various things they are interested in. It is time for us, of course to talk about agendas, to talk about priorities, to talk about what it is that we intend to do during what is already a relatively short work year, during an election year. The thing, of course, that is on our minds today, I suppose, is the President's State of the Union Address last evening in which he laid out his agenda, not a surprise agenda, and talked about the issues he has been talking about now for several weeks, with a new proposal each week, all put together in a State of the Union Message which had, I think, about 30 different proposals of things to do. It seems to me that what we have to do now as a responsible Congress is to decide on those items that we think are priorities to this country, that we think are priorities for success in families in this country, economically, from a freedom standpoint, how-to-govern standpoint, and really press for those. I must say that I feel rather strongly about that. I felt last evening that--the President, of course, is certainly free to have his own agenda--that was an agenda that had been put together by pollsters, an agenda that had been put together to enumerate all those things that would sound good to everyone that was listening, an agenda that I think, clearly, again the President is perfectly free to move his position, move his position back toward the more liberal Democrat Party from which he has departed in the last several years somewhat to establish more support for Al Gore when the time comes. I think that is legitimate. I don't happen to agree with that. I think we ought to be moving forward to continue to do the things that we have begun to do over the last several years, some of the things that I am particularly proud of, frankly, that this Congress has been able to do, to bring forth a balanced budget. That, after all, is the responsibility of the Congress. We have done that. We need to continue to do that. We need to continue to try and control spending so that we can move toward this idea of a balanced budget and beyond, to begin to work on the debt that is there, to begin to do something about that $280 billion we spend on interest every year to service a $5.5 trillion debt. That, it seems to me, ought to be the real focus of what we do. Our responsibility now, I believe, in the Congress is--we shall meet on Friday, our friends across the aisle will meet I am sure next week-- to come to grips with those kind of things we think are the priorities for our agenda. I don't think our agenda can be a laundry list of 30 or 40 things that appeal to the polls but rather ought to be the kinds of things that are terribly important to us. I think we ought to talk about ISTEA, for example. We ought to get out into the country to do the highway maintenance, the highway building. We didn't get that done last time because we got diverted talking about something else. ISTEA needs to be there. I think we need to continue to work on the budget. There is probably nothing more important than being responsible in the spending that we do. Again, I am pleased with what has happened with the budget over time. I am pleased for what has happened in the last couple of years on welfare reform. The Congress has moved forward, with the cooperation of the President, after a couple of vetoes. That is OK. But we need to continue to do that, to provide the opportunity to help people move off of welfare into work, which is what most people want to do, of course. We have made some progress in moving away some from the entitlement program that we have had. We have made some progress in terms of moving Government closer to people, where Government is more responsive at the State level, and do those things at the State level that we should do there. As I listened last night to the enumeration of things that might be done it seemed to me at least one of the considerations that has to be made is where do you do these things most efficiently? Child care-- everybody is for having quality child care. Everybody wants to strengthen the child care program. The question first we ought to ask is, where is that best done? What is the role of the Federal Government in child care? What is the role of the State government in these kinds of things? I happened to have the privilege last night of having my Governor accompany me to the State of the Union Message. I could sense as we went through last night's State of the Union Message him saying to himself, ``We can do that better at the State level. We can really make those things work.'' I agree with that. There are a number of other things that I personally would like to see us move forward on. One of my personal areas of interest is the national parks. National parks are a national treasure for all of us. More and more people go to visit national parks. More and more people are interested. Yet we have less resources for national parks than we need. National parks, some claim, are as much as $8 billion in arrears on infrastructure. We need to work at that. That happens to be something that I am most interested in. I think most of all we need to be sure that we are responsible, finally. Spending continues to go up. If we are going to balance the budget--why balance the budget? Because revenues have gone up. I think the President's proposal goes far beyond what is going to be available for dollars. The President says we want to keep a balanced budget and then lists 30 items that will cost billions of dollars plus additional tax deductions there that will reduce revenue. So we find ourselves I am sure with spending far beyond our income if we do those things. Those, I believe, have to be the constraints. That is what I heard from my people. That is what I heard from the people of Wyoming. They said, look, stay with that business of balancing the budget. We not only want to balance the budget, we would like to see you begin to reduce spending. This idea of the era of large Government being over is a good idea. I was disappointed the President had done a complete reversal from 2 years ago when he announced that would be his objective. This certainly was not an effort to reduce and to change the era of big Government. Spending continues to go up, 16 percent last year, 24 percent on entitlements. Over a period of time, entitlements continue to grow. Many of these programs that we talked about inevitably will become entitlements. These young people that are here on the floor as pages won't see those benefits because they will not be sustained if we continue to grow at 24 percent a year. Madam President, I think we have a real opportunity. As I said, I enjoyed the President's State of the Union Message. That is his agenda. Now it is our responsibility to have an agenda and to put our priorities there, put our philosophy there, our philosophy of a responsible Government, our philosophy of a financially accountable Government, one in which we limit size and move as close as we can to people to solve people's problems. The educational program that Senator Coverdell has recommended is one that puts the responsibility in the hands of local people, parents. That is what we need to do. Those are the kinds of things we can do here to assist in those problems. So I am excited about this year. I think we have an opportunity to do a great deal. I am very proud of having been in this Senate since 1994. I think we have made some real changes in direction. It is my hope and my desire to help ensure that we continue to move in the direction of a more responsible Government, responsive to the folks that we represent, the folks I have had a chance to visit with for 2 months and have come back with some renewed dedication to the idea that this Congress, this Government, is responsible to the people, to the taxpayers, responsible for protecting liberty, responsible for being financially responsible, responsible for reducing taxes as much as we can, to leave the money to the people it belongs to. I am excited about the opportunity. So my friend, Mr. Coverdell, I appreciate very much what you are doing in this time to talk. I think we should continue to talk about our agenda and talk about the reasons we are doing what we are doing. I look forward to that happening this year.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 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 the visitor center and museum facilities project at Gettysburg National Military Park. 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 of 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, I want to take the time that we have available this morning while we are waiting for these important closing activities--I hope closing activities--to talk a little bit about an issue that I feel very strongly about and that I think most people do, and that is our national parks and our national parks plan. I am chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, and we have spent almost this entire year working on a program to help strengthen the parks. Certainly, the National Park System is truly one of our treasures. The Park System is the custodian of some of America's most important natural and cultural resources and provides, of course, a legacy for our children and our grandchildren. The Park System today consists of about 374 units which are visited annually by millions of people. They stretch all the way from Acadia in Maine to American Samoa in the Pacific islands and provide a unique opportunity. I, of course, am particularly selfishly interested in parks because I come from Wyoming. We have the first national park which recently celebrated its 125th anniversary--Yellowstone. We also of course have Teton Park. But the whole country has a park system that we are extremely proud of. Unfortunately, that System is and has been under considerable stress. At the time that we have showed unusual interest in it as Americans, and have increased our visitations, the park has had increasing difficulties. We are believed to have somewhere near $8 billion in unfunded and unrealized infrastructure repairs of various kinds. That is a great deal of money. We also have had some stress in terms of management in many of those things. So we worked this year and intend, as a matter of fact, to have some field hearings in November; particularly we have one set for Denver and one for San Francisco, and we hope then to have one later in Florida near the Everglades, to try and bring in as much information as we can get on the issues and how they affect people. The issues are broken down, as you might imagine, into several categories. One of them is finance. That is one of the basic ones, of course. As I mentioned, we have an overwhelming amount of unfunded programs: $2.2 billion in road and bridge repair; $1.5 billion in buildings and maintenance; $800 million in natural resource management kinds of things. They are the kinds of things that are very difficult to manage in an annual budget. So we are looking for some ways to do this a little bit differently. We are looking at a number of things. One would be to extend the temporary program for fees, where fees have been raised in a number of the parks, about 100 I think out of the 375 parks. They have been very low. And it has been $10 a car at Yellowstone for a whole carload of people for a week. I think it has now gone to $20. And, frankly, we found very little resistance to that, particularly if people believe the money they are spending going to that park will be used to make that park a better place to visit. In addition to fees, of course, it will be our responsibility, Mr. President, as Members of Congress, to keep the appropriations growing some for that. We had an increase in appropriations this year. We need to continue to do that. In addition to entrance fees, we are looking at ways for people to contribute, private individuals to contribute to parks. Many want to do that. There are park foundations in individual parks. We need to find some ways for Americans who chose to, to be able to contribute more to the maintenance of parks. We are also looking at a way for corporate investment as well, without commercializing parks. We do not want ``Pepsi-Cola'' painted up on the wall of Yosemite. But there isn't any reason why there cannot be corporate donations made. For example, one of the corporations made a donation to build the walkway around Old Faithful. It is a wonderful addition. And there is a very small and unobtrusive sign there that indicates the sponsors of that. I think that is a good idea. I think we can continue to do that. One of the things we are looking at is a way for bonding. Interestingly enough, the larger parks, like Yosemite, like Yellowstone are basically small cities. They have to have sewers, they have to have streets, they have to have housing, the kinds of things that take long- term investment. And it is very difficult to do it, as I mentioned a moment ago, out of annual appropriations. So we are trying to find a way that the park could do some bonding in the private sector. I do not know whether these can be Government bonds, I do not know whether they can be tax-free bonds or taxable bonds. But in order to do that, we have a couple of problems I hope we can overcome. One is the scoring system here in the budget of the United States. As you know, we do not have a capital budget. And so if you issue 300 million dollars' worth of bonds, that would all go into the annual budget. That is a difficult thing. We will have to try and overcome that. We hope that there are some ways to do it. The other thing, of course, that is necessary to do bonding is to have a dependable and steady stream of revenue to pay off the bonds. We think we can do that. So those are a couple of the ways that we are seeking to do some things that would be good for parks. In addition, many of the larger parks, as you know, the services--let me go back and say, I think most people would agree that the main purpose of a park is to maintain the resources, whether it be cultural or whether it be natural resources. But the second and equally important part of it is to have a pleasant visit for Americans, who own those parks. To do that, by and large, we have had concessions that have been run by the private sector. I certainly support that idea. I think that is the way to do it. We have, unfortunately, kind of gotten out of sync in terms of doing the sort of contracting that is necessary. We went through a while, a big debate a couple years ago as to whether the Government ought to own the facilities. I think we have overcome that and decided that is not what we want to do. So we need to go back to longer term contracts for some very large facilities. I think there is about $700 million in gross revenue that comes from concessions in the whole Park System, which is a very sizable amount. On the other hand, parks are not all big-profit operations because Glacier Park, for example, in Montana is only opened a portion of the year. And the season is rather shortened. So we have to deal with questions like: How long should the contract be for sizable investments? Should there be the right of renewal? Should there be some sort of proprietary ownership in these facilities at the time the contract exchange comes? So we are working with those things. I am positive that we can find some solutions. I also want you to know that one of, I think, the key issues we are talking about with concessions--I mentioned to you this is a large commercial business. It is a commercial business. We think we ought to take a look at the idea of contracting with an asset manager out of the private sector who is a professional at managing hospitality things to do this. That is not really the role of a park ranger in terms of training and background. As you know, Mr. President, I have been working as hard as I can to see if we can't move these commercial functions of the Government over into the private sector, at least give them an opportunity to bid on it. So that is one of the things that we are seeking to do. I do not think that we are going to solve the financial problem out of the concessions by any means. But we ought to be able to do two things. We ought to be able to have good facilities that are kept up; and we ought to be able to have a small stream of revenue come to the parks. We think that might be one of the possibilities for doing something with the bonding revenue. We are looking at improved management. The Park Service, after all, is a large agency, I think, with some of the most dedicated employees of any agency in the country. The people you talk to that work for the Park Service are really, really dedicated to doing what they do. They like to preserve the parks. They like to work in the parks. But they did not always have the opportunity, for instance, to be trained. We are going to look at some university exchanges where folks could get some additional training and help them do their jobs. But I think more than anything it has become a large agency, and what we need is a strategic plan. Any business of that size, any operation of that size needs a strategic plan that has some forward ideas as to how to solve problems. Frankly, that is kind of why we are where we are. There has not been any plans presented to the Congress. And the Congress has not taken the initiative to prepare plans to accommodate these problems that we now have, and problems of increased visitation. The highways, for example, in Yelowstone Park are way behind in preparation and care. So we need a strategic plan in the agency. Probably at least as important then is each park, and each park manager, needs to have a strategic plan that contributes to the overall plan and one with measurable objectives and measurable goals so that you do not just have a plan that everybody thinks is wonderful but you have one that at the end of the year you can take a look at the plan and say you accomplished what you were going to or you did not. If you did not, there ought to be a reason why you did not. So we think we can do some good there. Let me tell you that we are working very closely with the Park Service. And a new park director is now in place, Bob Stanton. His background as a career park official has been that he was the head of the parks here in this area. It was the first time, by the way, that the park director has been approved by the Senate. That was just changed so it is an appointment that has to be approved. So we are working with him. The Secretary of the Interior has talked favorably about some of the changes that need to be made. Finally, one of the things we are doing is trying to take a look at the criteria for new parks. I think it is fairly well defined in terms of setting aside things that are important either historically or culturally or from a natural resource standpoint. But, unfortunately--I think unfortunately--we have continued to add more parks that do not necessarily fit that criteria. They are often recommended by Members of Congress who have an equivalent of a State or a county park in their area that they would like to have the Federal Government pay for. So they move it into the Park Service when it could just as well be a State park. And we find ourselves short of money to handle the 375 parks we have now, and continuing to increase with parks that may or may not fit the criteria. So we are not as concerned about the criteria. I believe it exists there. But we are concerned and hopefully will change the process in which the criteria moves through the Congress so that there is an opportunity to do that. So, Mr. President, these are the things that we are doing. We have purposely worked on it all this session. We did not intend to bring a bill this session, but we do intend to have one prepared for January. I think it is one of the things that most Americans are supportive of. Not everybody is going to be supportive of every proposal we have to do it, but I think there is general support for strengthening parks. There needs to be. Certainly we have more and more people wanting to participate in them. So you have to recognize that as caring. So we will be moving forward on that. I think it is something that Congress ought to undertake, and be very proud to undertake. There is great controversy over many of the environmental issues that go around. But there is not much controversy over this one. If we talk about what are the needs, are we going to try and fulfill those needs, most everybody says yes. Now, when you get to how you do it, obviously, there will be differences of view and debate. That is why we are here. But, Mr. President, I am excited about this opportunity. We call our plan ``Vision 2020,'' so that we can take a look at parks so that our kids, 20 years from now, and others, will be able to enjoy them with the same intensity that we have been able to. We look forward to having our proposition ready by January. I hope many of the Members of the Senate will join with us in seeking to resolve this important question and problem. Mr. President, I thank you for the time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1 p.m. today, the Senate begin consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2264, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. I further ask unanimous consent that there be 90 minutes for debate, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that at the expiration or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators Enzi, Kerrey, and Hagel. This legislation would extend, for a period of 3 years, certain water contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigators in Wyoming and Nebraska that receive water from Glendo Reservoir. All contracts are subject to renewal on December 31, 1998. Extending these contracts is considered a major Federal action and, therefore, subject to review of the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] and the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. Without a short-term continuation agreement, the irrigators would be responsible for the costs of the analysis and other environmental documentation. Currently, the States of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado--and the Department of the Interior--are in the process of implementing a comprehensive ``Cooperative Agreement for Platte River Research and Other Efforts relating to Endangered Species Habitats along the Central Platte River, Nebraska.'' The term of this initiative is for 3 years, with an allowable 6-month extension. Upon completion of the cooperative agreement, efforts to enact the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program can begin. This basin wide, three-State plan will help to recover the endangered whooping crane, piping plover, and least stern, and improve critical habitats in the Central Platte River Basin. I believe it is important for Congress to act on this measure and extend these contracts for 3 years, or until the cooperative agreement is completed. In that time, the needed NEPA and ESA reviews will be fulfilled--clearing the way for the program to be initiated. It is important to remember that the program cannot be implemented until the environmental studies are completed and the parties have agreed to the results. Mr. President, this bill does not avoid environmental evaluation. It merely provides some relief to the water users, while allowing the NEPA and ESA documentation to take place through the cooperative agreement process. It is my understanding that once this agreement has expired, and if the Department of the Interior and the three States decide not to pursue the program, the contract renewal process would proceed as a separate Federal action at that time. This is good and fair legislation. It will benefit the environment and the water users. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to secure its passage.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise today as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to express some concerns that I have about the nomination of Kevin Gover to be the new Assistant Secretary of Interior for Indian Affairs, the head of the BIA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I have consistently taken the position that in my experience the BIA is an agency that is in dire need of serious reform to make it more effective and more responsive to the needs of the tribes that it is established to serve. I therefore have a certain admiration for anyone who is willing to undertake this task, because it is a tough one. It is one that is difficult. Additionally, in this particular case, Mr. Gover's personal qualifications recommend him very highly for this position. He also has a Wyoming connection, which of course I am interested in. Over several years he has represented the Eastern Shoshone Tribe in several legal and legislative matters. However, it wouldn't come as any surprise to my colleagues on that committee that given William Safire's recent op-ed piece on the Gover nomination in the New York Times, some questions have to be raised and are raised with respect to his nomination. According to the Safire piece, in private practice and representing the Tesuque Pueblo of New Mexico, Mr. Gover was present at one of President Clinton's infamous White House coffees. Soon therefore, the Pueblo made two contributions to the Democratic National Committee totaling $50,000. Some time later, Mr. Gover was nominated for this position. An examination of the nominee's FBI file leads me to conclude that he committed no illegal acts. I believe at the very least they constitute an appearance of impropriety which should make many of us uncomfortable. I have no argument, of course, with the right of individuals to make political contributions to the party of their choice. That is provided by law and should be. I personally believe, however, it is a little unseemly for tribal governments to do so, to either party. It is no secret that all but two or three tribes in this country have little, if any, extra money to throw around. The overwhelming majority, even with Federal help, can hardly meet the day- to-day needs of their members--needs like shelter, health care, or education. There is a constant press for additional funding for those needs. When a tribal government can't meet the basic needs of its people, then I seriously question the morality of that government making a political contribution. Another fact that lends itself to the appearance of impropriety in this case is the special relationship between the tribes and the Federal Government. This relationship is like the relationship between a trustee and beneficiary; the United States has a unique fiduciary responsibility to the tribes and their members. Congress has turned over responsibility for day-to-day regulation of tribal affairs to the executive branch. So I can't think of many circumstances where national campaign contributions--especially to the party of a sitting President--would not carry with them the appearance of impropriety, an appearance of unseemly influence--the idea of a beneficiary influencing the trustee in its work. And what about the appearance of a government body representing members of different political beliefs--in this case a tribal government--making a monetary contribution to a national political party on behalf of all of its members, whether or not that's their political belief. We prohibit Federal agencies from engaging in any lobbying efforts with taxpayer funds because it would look unseemly. We prohibit unions from making political contributions to one particular party with members' dues. Mr. President, the question might be posed that since it appears that nothing illegal took place in Mr. Gover's case, why all the fuss? My answer, Madam President, is that oftentimes the appearance of impropriety can be just as damning as an actual illegality. The news these days is full of examples illustrating this conclusion--the subject of Senator Thompson's hearings, which just recently ended with credible allegations against Secretary Babbitt that tribal campaign contributions influenced the denial of a gaming license to a Midwestern tribe. In order to get answers to some of my concerns, I met with Mr. Gover at length on November 4. Our conversation was somewhat reassuring to me, and left me feeling that my argument is not with Mr. Gover, who as far as I can tell at this time did nothing illegal, but with a system that allows tribes to make these kinds of donations. So, Madam President, should the Gover nomination come to a vote on the floor, I do not plan to object. The BIA has been without leadership for a long time, something that Bureau can ill afford, and Mr. Gover is eminently qualified to lead it. But he can be sure while I support him, I and other Members will be watching closely to make sure he delivers on his promises to reform the Bureau, to make it more responsible and cost efficient, and to help untangle the present mess in Indian gaming. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5 or 6 minutes in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act of 1997. I am pleased to be joined in this endeavor by Senators Enzi, Kerrey, and Hagel. This legislation would extend, for a period of 3 years, certain water contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and irrigators in Wyoming and Nebraska that receive water from Glendo Reservoir. All contracts are subject to renewal on December 31, 1998. Extending these contracts is considered a major Federal action and, therefore, subject to review of the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] and the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. Without a short-term continuation agreement, the irrigators would be responsible for the costs of the analysis and other environmental documentation. Currently, the States of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado--and the Department of the Interior--are in the process of implementing a comprehensive ``Cooperative Agreement for Platte River Research and Other Efforts relating to Endangered Species Habitats along the Central Platte River, Nebraska.'' The term of this initiative is for 3 years, with an allowable 6-month extension. Upon completion of the cooperative agreement, efforts to enact the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program can begin. This basin wide, three-State plan will help to recover the endangered whooping crane, piping plover, and least stern, and improve critical habitats in the Central Platte River Basin. I believe it is important for Congress to act on this measure and extend these contracts for 3 years, or until the cooperative agreement is completed. In that time, the needed NEPA and ESA reviews will be fulfilled--clearing the way for the program to be initiated. It is important to remember that the program cannot be implemented until the environmental studies are completed and the parties have agreed to the results. Mr. President, this bill does not avoid environmental evaluation. It merely provides some relief to the water users, while allowing the NEPA and ESA documentation to take place through the cooperative agreement process. It is my understanding that once this agreement has expired, and if the Department of the Interior and the three States decide not to pursue the program, the contract renewal process would proceed as a separate Federal action at that time. This is good and fair legislation. It will benefit the environment and the water users. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and House to secure its passage.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that the oversight field hearing that has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to take place Saturday, November 15, 1997 in Homestead, Florida, has been postponed until further notice. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Committee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to briefly discuss a program presently being developed by the Library of Congress. The law librarian of Congress, Dr. Rubens Medina, briefed me this morning on the efforts the law library has undertaken in recent years to put together an international legal database containing the texts of laws of some 35 foreign countries. The data base comprises abstracts of legal material, the full authentic texts of laws and regulations, and a legal thesaurus. It is structured so that the full range of legal material including constitutions, laws and regulations, judicial decisions, parliamentary debates, and legal miscellanea can be added over time as participating countries are able to contribute the material. The material is available over the Internet in its entirety to officials of those countries who agree to participate in making their laws available on the system; in addition, a summary in both English and the language of the country of origin will be available to the general public. This network, called the Global Legal Information Network or GLIN, will enable Members of Congress and their staffs and the Library staff--as well as our counterparts in participating countries--to access the most current and authentic versions of other countries' laws, something that is increasingly important in this day and age when we deal so frequently with international trade and security issues. Congress should acknowledge and salute this effort by its Library, and be proud that it was created in and enhanced by the legislative branch and that the library is taking the international leadership role on the project. As additional recognition of the viability and importance of this project, and one that interests me as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr. Medina informed me that the Secretary of State will be proposing at the forthcoming ministerial meeting of the 18 APEC nations in Vancouver, BC, next month that each APEC country seriously consider joining GLIN and suggesting that an informational meeting on GLIN be held early in 1998. Mr. President, I am pleased to be involved in some way in this monumental project, one in which the joint efforts of the executive and legislative branches can capitalize on technological achievements to advance international cooperation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight field 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 Wednesday November 19, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon at the Officer's Club in the Presideo of San Francisco in San Francisco, California. The purpose of this hearing is to review the National Parks Restoration Plan--``Vision 2020'' and to solicit pro-active solutions and innovative remedies to build a more efficient and effective National Park Service System. The Committee will invite witnesses representing a cross-section of views and organizations to testify at the hearing. Others wishing to testify may, as time permits, make a brief statement of no more than 2 minutes. Those wishing to testify should contact Jim O'Toole or Steve Schackelton of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-6969. Every attempt will be made to accommodate as many witnesses as possible, within the time allowed, while ensuring that all views are represented. Witnesses invited to testify are requested to bring 10 copies of their testimony with them to the hearing. It is not necessary to submit any testimony in advance. Statements may also be submitted for inclusion in the hearing record. Those wishing to submit written testimony should send two copies of their testimony to the attention of Jim O'Toole, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 354 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Committee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight field 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 Monday, November 17, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon in the Rock Mountain Room at the EPA Region 8 Institute & Conference Center, 999 18th Street, Denver, CO. The purpose of this hearing is to review the National Parks Restoration Plan--``Vision 2020'' and to solicit proactive solutions and innovative remedies to build a more efficient and effective National Park Service System. The Committee will invite witnesses representing a cross-section of views and organizations to testify at the hearing. Others wishing to testify may, as time permits, make a brief statement of no more than 2 minutes. Those wishing to testify should contact Jim O'Toole or Steve Schackelton of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-6969. Every attempt will be made to accommodate as many witnesses as possible, within the time allowed, while ensuring that all views are represented. Witnesses invited to testify are requested to bring 10 copies of their testimony with them to the hearing, it is not necessary to submit any testimony in advance. Statements may also be submitted for inclusion in the hearing record. Those wishing to submit written testimony should send two copies of their testimony to the attention of Jim O'Toole, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 354 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Committee staff at (202) 224-5161. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that an oversight field 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 Saturday, November 15, 1997 at 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon at the Cooperative Service Building at the University of Florida, 18710 S.W. 288 Street, Homestead, Florida. The purpose of this hearing is to review the National Parks Restoration Plan--``Vision 2020'' and to solicit proactive solutions and innovative remedies to build a more efficient and effective National Park Service System. The Committee will invite witnesses representing a cross-section of views and organizations to testify at the hearing. Others wishing to testify may, as time permits, make a brief statement of no more than 2 minutes. Those wishing to testify should contact Jim O'Toole or Steve Schackelton of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-6969. Every attempt will be made to accommodate as many witnesses as possible, within the time allowed, while ensuring that all views are represented. Witnesses invited to testify are requested to bring 10 copies of their testimony with them to the hearing, it is not necessary to submit any testimony in advance. Statements may also be submitted for inclusion in the hearing record. Those wishing to submit written testimony should send two copies of their testimony to the attention of Jim O'Toole, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 354 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Committee staff at (202) 224-5161. subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation, and recreation

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we would like to scoot back now on to this focus on Medicare, the idea that Medicare patients certainly have an opportunity to choose, that we are able to strengthen the Medicare Program through this function. I will first yield to the sponsor of the bill and, frankly, the person who has carried the weight and continues to, the Senator from Arizona. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the time. I appreciate being joined by my friends in support of this Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom to Contract Act. Let me just review how we got where we are. During the consideration of the balanced budget, Senator Kyl put in a very simple amendment which simply said that you could have this choice that did allow for physicians to treat under a private contract in addition to Medicare. Unfortunately, the administration became adamant about it. I think they followed, as the Senator from Minnesota said, the idea of turning this back into a one-size-fits-all kind of federally controlled program. The President threatened to veto the entire budget package because of this, if this 2-year prohibition was not included. So, today I am still disappointed with the administration, with HCFA, with the President's opposition to this proposition. We are going to continue to push for consideration of this issue before this Congress adjourns so we can eliminate this bottleneck, this thing which takes away the choice of senior citizens in their health care.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been joined by our associate from Minnesota. Let me first say that this Medicare issue, of course, is one of the most important issues that we deal with. I think it is one of the most important issues to America. Certainly it is the most important issue to seniors. The idea is to keep it available over time so people who are now paying into part A and will pay into part A will have the benefits of it when they are eligible, to keep choice in it so that seniors will have some choice as they enter into this kind of health care; to keep it financially strong, which is the difficulty, of course--their costs have gone up in Medicare; they have finally narrowed down some, largely through the involvement of managed care, and there will be a committee or a commission appointed in December to take a look at the future of it--and to make it available in all parts of the country. My friend from Colorado just talked about that. We have small towns, we have towns in which there are only one or two physicians. So this choice thing is so important, that it be there. Let me now yield to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Alaska, Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), in introducing the ``Medicare Frontier Health Clinic and Center Act of 1997.'' This bill will go a long way in assuring rural families have access to emergency medical care on a 24-hour basis. As cochairman of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, it has been my priority to put rural health care at the forefront of any legislative package. Included in this year's ``Balanced Budget Act of 1997,'' is a comprehensive set of reforms that increases Medicare reimbursement rates to midlevel practitioners, improves payment levels to rural health plans contracting with Medicare and permits small hospitals to stay open even if they do not meet all of the requirements stipulated under Medicare's conditions of participation. It is this last provision that is particularly beneficial to Wyoming's health care community. For the first time, our hospitals will be able reconfigure their services and reduce excess bed capacity. The new entities will be called ``Critical Access Hospitals'' [CAH's]. They will be excused from some of the onerous staffing regulations designed with big cities in mind. In addition, they will be reimbursed on a reasonable-cost basis, which provides the extra payment needed to remain open. While the newly established CAH Program goes to great lengths to expand medical care in rural America, there is still more to do. That is where our bill steps in. The ``Medicare Frontier Health Clinic and Center Act,'' permits state certified health clinics in the most frontier areas to upgrade to CAH status. This will ensure that remote areas of the country will finally have access to hospital services. Too often, health care providers are forced to close their doors because they cannot contend with low utilization rates, costly regulations and inadequate Medicare reimbursement payments. But closing a hospital or a medical clinic is not an acceptable option in Wyoming. In my State, if a town loses its most important point of service--the emergency room--it is typical for patients to drive 100 miles or more to the closest tertiary care center. An alternative must be available. Mr. President, our bill presents communities with a viable option. It accommodates different levels of medical care throughout a state while providing stabilization services needed in remote areas. It is one in a series of measures that the Rural Health Caucus is working on designed to improve quality medical care in rural America, and I look forward to working with my colleague from Alaska to pass this important piece of legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Several of my associates and I want to take that time to talk about the Medicare Beneficiaries Freedom to Contract Act, which we think is very important to Medicare recipients and to the system. We want to talk about that. However, before we begin, and we will then share our time, I yield to the Senator from Kansas for several minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, under the order, I believe we had 30 minutes reserved.