Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I come to the floor to express some feeling of sadness, some feeling of impatience, frankly, some feeling of irritation, that we are not doing more than we have been doing. The last 3 weeks we have come in, we have talked about things, we have set them aside, we haven't been able to proceed with the country's business. I think that is a shame. We have many things to do. We have lots of opportunities to do some things that need to be done, and here we are sort of ground to a stop. We are being held up by people who insist on having it their own way or no way, their own way or the highway. That is not really what we ought to be doing here. We have an opportunity to deal, for instance, with Federal funding for highways, something that ought to be done, an authorization that expired in September, and we need to move forward with it. It has been passed by the committee. It is on the floor, but because of objections we are still here and not doing a thing. ISTEA expired in September and we need to be doing it. The stalling, of course, is basically a result of campaign finance. We voted several times not to bring McCain- Feingold to the floor. That bill did not receive a majority vote. Many in this body, including myself, are favorable to doing something in campaign finance, but not McCain-Feingold. That is where we are. We are being held up for that, I think for a couple of reasons. One is to sort of change the image of the hearings that are taking place, to switch the hearings from the potential of the allegation of breaking the law, to changing the law. Those are two different things. But we ought to be talking about whether or not there was realism to the idea that foreign funds were taken into campaigns. That breaks the law. We ought to be talking about the changing or shifting soft money to hard money. That is against the law. The allegations of laundering money, that is against the law. That is what we are talking about there. Then we ought to be talking over here about campaign reform, fine. But McCain-Feingold is not one this body is willing to accept. As a result of that, we are not doing anything simply because of complaints--well, we can't go forward unless I get my way. I think the majority leader has done a great job of trying to negotiate something, trying to put campaign finance on the menu for next March--that is the thing to do--and then come up with a bill that has some support, bipartisan support, and we can do something. But that is not where we are. Think a minute about the agenda that we might be able to pursue, the things that people really want to do. One, of course, is ISTEA, the funding of highways. Now, some say it doesn't matter, there is enough money, there is enough cash-flow, we don't need to do it until next year. And there is probably cash-flow to finish the contracts there now, to operate, but there is not the kind of money that highway departments need to plan for next year, to go ahead and let contracts and move forward as we should. We ought to be doing that. IRS reform--most people want to do something about the IRS in two areas. One, change the way the agency works, and that can be done, to make it more friendly. There are proposals out there that most people agree with. The other is to start talking about changing the Tax Code which underlies the problem, which we need to be doing. What are we doing? We just can't move forward with anything because you are not doing it the way you want to. Come on, that is not why we are were sent here. We ought to be doing something to make sure that our balanced budget agreement is ready for next year. A balanced budget means more than anything else. We need to be doing something, as I mentioned, about the Tax Code to make it simpler. Most people agree with that. We can do some things, but you can't do them unless you undertake it. You can't do it by just stalling. We need to do something about educational IRA's to give people an opportunity to set aside money for education so they can use it not only for higher education but for elementary and secondary. Those proposals are out here and are ready to be worked on. Can't do that because you don't agree to what we want on McCain-Feingold. Give me a break. We have a lot of things we ought to be doing. We ought to be talking about ways to have smaller Government, ways to bring the private sector into contracting those nongovernmental activities in Government that can be done to help small business--the main thing small business has talked about in the White House meetings for the last 3 years. Can't do that, though, because we don't have it our way. States rights. We ought to be talking about the proper role of Government, individual freedom and responsibilities. Those are the things that we are here for. Mr. President, I am disappointed that we aren't able to move forward. I am disappointed that we are not able to do some useful things while we are here. That is why we are here, why we were sent here. I have no objection to disagreement. That is part of the system. Certainly not everybody is going to agree. In the first place, we have different philosophies. That is kind of why we have two parties; we represent different philosophies on things. That is perfectly legitimate. Whenever anybody has a bill, there are reasons why others don't agree. That is why we have a system to vote to decide how they will work out. There is no problem with debate, no problem with argument, no problem with disagreement. But we need to move beyond that. We need to move beyond that and do some of the things that we were sent here to do--and there are so many. As people begin to look at next year's election, the issues begin to identify themselves, as they should, and we ought to be doing something with them. We ought to be doing something with them. Mr. President, we will have an opportunity, I guess, this afternoon to move forward. Perhaps we can move on. At least we have six more appropriations bills to pass to keep the Government operating. We have had to extend the time twice because we haven't been able to get to them. It would be interesting at some time to have everybody in this body write down the 10 issues that they think are most important to this country and to set about to do them. Wouldn't that be interesting and useful? We can do that. Mr. President, I hope that when we come together this afternoon to vote, we will also bring together the Interior appropriations bill and move forward on that. There will be things we don't agree with. I can tell you one I don't agree with procedurally. You will find on the appropriations bill--it was put on there--a $400 appropriations dealing with endangered species, the jumping mouse. Well, I don't have any particular objections to jumping mice, but I do have an objection to someone putting it on the appropriations bill when it is in the conference committee, has never been talked about in either House, and they put it on there and you don't have any chance to do anything about it. That's wrong. It's the wrong procedure. We should not do that. But I am not going to try to hold the thing up because of that. It ought to go forward. So should the other things that are before us here in this conference. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I probably will not use 30 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues for just a few moments with respect to the question that we are addressing this morning, that question of global warming, but more particularly the specifics with respect to it. I am sure you already heard, but let me say again, there was a measure adopted by this Senate 95-0 that expressed two main points: One, the United States should not be signatory to any treaty that would ``result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.'' And, No. 2, that mandates developing countries to have specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the same compliance period. So we have been working at this for some time. We have had several hearings in our Committee on the Environment and Public Works and also in Energy. We have had representatives of the administration there. This goes clear back to Rio, I think, in 1992. It goes back more specifically now to Geneva about a year ago, in which promises were apparently made at that meeting with respect to what the United States would do. We called the Assistant Secretary to our committee to talk about that. He indicated, no, that wasn't true, there were no commitments made. In fact, I think there were. Now we move on to the meeting in Bonn, which will go on almost immediately, and then the Kyoto meeting to take place something over a month from now. So this is the result of a good long time in planning and a good long time in difficulty in trying to bring together the issues as they relate to developed countries, as they relate to developing countries. The President has finally made somewhat of an understandable statement. We have not had that before. Just 2 weeks ago we had another hearing in our committee, brought the Assistant Secretary on Global Affairs to talk to us, asked specific questions about what they had in mind without any specific answers. There was no response from the administration's witness. So now the President has come forth with statements. That is good. We should have had them some time before, statements which he indicates-- and I quote--``Would be painless and even economically beneficial.'' Of course that is what he would say. Many people disagree with that, including myself. I cannot imagine that whatever we do that is meaningful is going to ``be painless and economically beneficial.'' But specifically, of course we have not had time to analyze the full thing. It talks about reaching 1990 levels by the year 2010, emission levels that occurred in 1990, reaching back to those by 2010, with some cap by 2008. And then to move below the 1990 levels by 2020. He calls that a fairly modest proposal. Interesting how often these things are set out. I think if you go back, you find that the air quality statutes were given a great deal of time before implementation, so the argument was, ``Don't worry, don't worry about some regulation. Don't worry about the cost because it's way out in the future.'' I do not think that is a good recommendation. We should worry about what the impacts are on the economy, what the impacts are on costs, what the impacts are on our ability to compete in the world and worry about them regardless of the fact that they are out there. China, on the other hand, and some of the other countries that are developing countries, ask for a 15 percent reduction from the 1990 levels by 2010, a 7.5 percent reduction by 2025, 7.5 below 1990. Remember, the President said we will not reach 1990 until 2010. The Chinese and their group also want a 35 percent reduction from 1990 levels by the year 2020. The problem, of course, is, as we go into this negotiation--and those who are involved say, ``Well, they've set the parameters, somehow the results will be between these two.'' That is kind of scary. The President is saying, this is where we are. They are saying, we want to be way up here. And probably they will end up somewhere in between. I go back to the action of the Senate which 95 to nothing said we will not accept a treaty that does the kinds of things that we have already talked about. So, Mr. President, I know this is a difficult problem. But I agree with my friend, the Senator from Idaho. We have done a good job of emissions. I have been to China several times, and I can tell you, if you want to look forward to where the emissions problems are going to be, it is going to be there in those developing countries. I think we need to make the changes that we want to have happen in our country, encourage others. But I am very concerned about us going to this meeting in Kyoto and coming out seeking to agree to the kinds of things that have been set forth by the developing countries who wish not to have any containment put on theirs. So we are looking for a fair agreement. We are looking for some kind of an arrangement that will allow us to continue to do what we have done and we are proud of doing. I think, Mr. President, that you need to be more specific than you have been with this idea that we want you to do some things, and then we will decide later what the reimbursement is going to be, we will decide later what the incentives are going to be, which I understand is what the President said yesterday. So I think we need to continue. And I want to say to my friend from Nebraska that he has done an excellent job of holding hearings, taking positions, following this issue, which is one of the most important issues to the future of the country. And I commend him for that and join with him. I yield the floor.

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 unanimous consent to be permitted to speak for 5 minutes in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I came back this week after our recess very enthusiastic about moving forward on ISTEA. The people in my State are very anxious about it. It is an important issue to us, the funding of Federal highways. Our State, of course, has lots of highways and not too many people. I must tell you I am disappointed we are not moving along a little faster on something I think is probably the highest priority that we have now before we adjourn for the fall, the funding of our Interstate Highway Program in the ISTEA. I hope we do find a way to move forward with it. It seems like it is discouraging to us, discouraging to the American people, when we find ourselves in gridlock here in the Senate, not able to do the kind of things we want to do, the kind of things that people want us to do, the kind of things that we came here to do. In the meantime, however, I did want to give my thanks to our chairman, Senator Chafee, and our ranking member, Senator Baucus, for the work they have done to bring this bill to the floor. It is a bill that is not easy to manage, certainly, because it affects everyone. Everyone has a little different idea of what the formula distribution ought to be. I understand that. But they have, with the support of their committee, come to this floor with a bill that is, I think, a very good bill. It is one of the things that has changed America, this idea of having an Interstate Highway System. The current ISTEA has made some important changes through the years on surface transportation, but now we are moving forward into another changing time. The President has used for several years the metaphor of a bridge to the 21st century. This is, literally, a bridge to the 21st century. This is literally a movement through our transportation system to the 21st century. No one would argue this bill is perfect. It does not fit everybody's view of what it ought to be, but none do. This one is good and it is close. It will create some new rules of the road that I think serve the national interest and will help us to build highways and bridges to the 21st century. First, ISTEA is what it says, a national interstate transportation system. That means that it goes clear across the country. That means a great deal to the people in Wyoming. We are what you call a bridge State. We are between the east and the west coast. We are between the heavily populated areas. Of course, to get from here to there, you have to go through Wyoming, or Kansas, either of us which is a great treat. Interestingly enough, Wyoming taxpayers contribute more to the highway trust fund per person than any taxpayers in the country--it is because we do have lots of roads--nearly $200 per person. Yet we have, as do others, a deteriorating highway system, and roads and bridges that are, at best, in fair to poor condition. We are not satisfying national needs, either. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports this country only invests about 70 percent of what it needs to be investing in the infrastructure to maintain it. These shortfalls hurt us all as taxpayers. What we need is a set of efficient and well-maintained roads that interconnect cities. They are as important as cities. They are a part of how we export our goods and transfer business throughout the country. ISTEA makes smooth movement of people and merchandise throughout the year. We have a couple of areas that are difficult. One, of course, is to find the level of spending that is correct. We have, through the years, not spent as much on Federal highways as we take in in Federal highway funds, for obvious reasons. One is to help balance the budget. There will be arguments about that, and certainly we would like to spend more money, take more money out of the fund and put it into the place for which it was taxed. It will be controversial. And part of the problem is maintaining our commitment to a balanced budget. The other is the formula through which the dollars that are spent are allocated throughout the country in various States. Each of us seeks to do the best we can for our State. I understand that. This bill, I believe, achieves a fair funding formula. It recognizes a national system. There is an area which I have special concern that I intend to raise during the course of this and that is our Federal parks. We have considered Federal lands, and in the bill they are considered, including Indian reservations, including BLM lands, and it includes forest lands. I have to tell you the one that I think stands out the most are the national parks, for several reasons. One reason is forests and BLM get some cooperation and coordination with counties and States to help build roads in those areas, but the national parks do not. National parks are responsible for national park roads in national parks. They belong to all the people of this country. In addition, those who drive in the parks, and there are many miles there, each of them are taxed for every mile that goes into the Federal program. About 40 percent of existing parks and roads and bridges are in poor or failed condition. There is approximately $1.8 billion backlog in national park needs for roads--$1.8 billion. Yellowstone Park, the largest park in our State and indeed the country, has road needs of $250 million. It will receive only $8 million under the current law. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Park Service estimate that a minimum of $161 million annually should be spent on park roads. So we take a small step toward resolving that problem. I think we need to take a larger one. I hope we will give some consideration to that. I expect to explore those opportunities. ISTEA II as it exists, however, will streamline the program structure that we have, give State and local governments more flexibility. I think that is extremely important. This is a very diverse country. Each of our needs are much different. The needs for highway construction in Montana and Wyoming are much different than they are in New Hampshire, Florida, and New York. So we need to give to the States the flexibility to use those dollars to the best advantage. The bill consolidates five major programs into three. I think that is useful. It is efficient. It saves money. It provides more flexibility in the safety program, and I think that is very important. It will always ensure that taxpayers get more for their fuel dollars. We need to do that. I am very excited about ISTEA II. I think if we can get it on the floor as we should it will get great support. It is my feeling we should pass this bill through the Congress. I am not enthusiastic about the proposition of a 6-month extension. I think State highway departments need to have security and knowledge of what will happen in the future so they can make the contracts that are necessary to implement ISTEA. I particularly thank Senators Warner, Chafee, and Baucus for their leadership. They have done an excellent job. I intend to support the bill. Senator Baucus and Kempthorne and I introduced earlier an ISTEA reauthorization bill, STARS 2000, and much has been incorporated into this bill. We appreciate that. Mr. President, ISTEA II maintains the integrity of the original ISTEA law and improves it by more equitable investment in taxpayers' fees and ensures people all across the country will have access to all of the country and increases the flexibility. I urge our colleagues to step aside from all the difficulties in holding up this bill for other reasons and move forward with this. There are other things that are important, of course. This happens to be before the Senate. We ought to do it. The reauthorization has expired. We need to go forward with it. This is an excellent bill. I urge we move forward with it and approve it as it is.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an addition has been made to the hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, October 23, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. In addition to its consideration of S. 633, the subcommittee will also receive testimony on S. 1132, a bill to modify the boundaries of the Bandelier National Monument to include the lands within the headwaters of the Upper Alamo Watershed which drain into the monument and which are not currently within the jurisdiction of a Federal land management agency, to authorize purchase or donation of those lands, 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 to their testimony to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 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. committee on labor and human resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, seeing no one else in the Chamber, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now stand in recess until 2 p.m.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to talk a little bit about the summit that is coming up soon--as a matter of fact, the 29th and 30th of this month. President Jiang Zemin of China will visit Washington to have a summit meeting with President Clinton. It is a good time I think for us to do two things. One is to think a little bit about our role with respect to the summit, our role as Congress. Another is that it is a good time for us to take another look at our policy and our bilateral relationships and reevaluate both of those with respect to China and its goals. As chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, this relationship, of course, and its ramifications in the future, its impact on the United States and the world is something that is very important to me. East Asia, of course, will be a source of one of our most important economic and strategy challenges as we move into the next century. China, with 1.2 billion people and an increasingly expanding economy, will continue, and increasingly, to be a center of attention in Asia. To adequately meet those kinds of challenges, obviously, why, we need to continue to articulate and develop a workable policy with respect to China and then, of course, to all of the countries in Asia. This administration has and continues to refer to our China policy as a constructive engagement, which has a nice sound, a nice ring to it, but I am not sure anybody really knows what that means. Apparently, it can mean whatever one would like it to mean. If you ask 10 or 12 different people, each of them might give you a different explanation of what it is. Moreover, and probably even more important, the Chinese do not know what constructive engagement means. Many of them are not persuaded and talk often about the idea that our relationship with China is one of containment, which it really is not. So I think it is a good opportunity to make clear what our policy is with respect to China. And it seems to me that that policy ought to reflect those things that are of concern to us, those things that are important to us, those things that will over time allow us to have a relationship with China. I happened to have the opportunity to visit there in August. Most of the leadership was at the coast because of the summertime, but I did go there and visit with the Foreign Minister. We talked a good deal about the upcoming summit and what it is that it might be. I was, and am still, a bit concerned that when you have a summit there may be a compelling interest among the administration people to be able to announce great things at the summit, which would be fine if, indeed, they are based on the kind of arrangements and the kind of agreements that really need to be made in order to have great things to announce. It would be a shame, on the other hand, if we rushed to agreement on some things and came up with unsatisfactory agreements simply in order to make the summit look as good as it should. I agreed with the Foreign Minister that, indeed, it would be better to just have a summit to help our relationships, to talk about problems, if that is all we could do, than to have some artificial arrangements made in order to make some announcements. So I think that is a little bit where we are. One of the things that I believe is important is that the Congress should be involved. In most countries like China and Indonesia that have a different system, of course, the people do not really understand that Congress has something to do with foreign policy, that Congress is involved in foreign policy. That is not the case in most countries. So I am hopeful, and I am now fairly confident, there will be some congressional involvement in this summit. One of the things I am glad has not occurred, however, as sometimes does is that--of course, we are free here and should speak out on whatever we want--often you see a whole series of sense-of-the-Congress resolutions that are not very conducive to having a good meeting--some of them saying, well, if you do not behave, we will take away your visas and all that sort of business, which may have merit but it does not seem it is useful as we come up to a summit with the intention to try to improve the relationships we have. I think those things are counterproductive, as is the case generally with sanctions; sanctions do not work. There are less than a handful of objectives that the Chinese simply can't get somewhere else. We have sanctions on something when they are bargaining with Boeing for 777's and they go to France and buy Airbuses. That is kind of the way that works. We hurt our own relationship for no positive reason. Now, I am not an apologist for China. There are many things that are being done there that we think should be done differently, many things that are being done there that are not consistent with our values, but I think probably as important as anything, if China wishes to be part of the family of business in the world, then there are some rules they have to abide by or else they are not part of the family. Countries have to stay with agreements that they have, the contracts they have. So there are many things that make it more difficult to embrace people in the international community. In the case of China, there are concerns about Tibet, concerns about human rights, religious persecution, rule of law, intellectual property rights, relationships with Taiwan. All of those things are concerns. But the issue is how do we best deal with them. Nobody denies that there are problems we have to deal with, but as in the case of most favored nation, then you say I understand the problem. The question is how do we best deal with it. Do we best deal with it by standing away? Do we best deal with it by sanctions? Or do we best deal with it by articulating a foreign policy and then saying we are going to stay with that policy? I believe that is the best answer for us. There are a number of things that ought to be talked about, I believe, at this summit. I have met with Sandy Berger, who is the President's adviser and the person I think most responsible for the meeting, who seems also to be in tune with this. There are about four real issues that I hope are talked about very candidly and talked about in depth. One is nuclear proliferation --the idea of parts shipped to Pakistan, the idea that Iran and the PRC have a nuclear cooperation agreement, changes to domestic law to prevent dual use. These kinds of things. Now, we are in the course of the President certifying that these things are not in fact happening, and I hope they are not. But we need to talk about that. We need to have an understanding. We need to be able to have visibility to see if, indeed, that is happening. Another is human rights. I think we need to continue to speak out about religious freedom. We need to continue to speak out about personal freedom. Those are our values. We are not going to be able to tell everybody else how to live, but we can promote values that we believe are important. And among those at the top is human rights. Trade. China, of course, wants to belong to the World Trade Organization, and I, indeed, hope they do. I think it would be better for us so that when you have trade problems, it is not a unilateral kind of thing but, indeed, would fall within the purview of the World Trade Organization. And some measures could be put on by other countries as well as ours. Finally, security. We have had good cooperation from the PRC with regard to North Korea. But one of the reasons that we are involved as we are in China and in Asia is, of course, to stabilize the security of this part of the world, which is terribly important to us. I think we have been relatively successful in doing that. Mr. President, as this summit comes close, I am pleased that the Congress is somewhat involved. I am actually pleased that these have kind of been four issues that at least the National Security Council has set forth. I hope we have honest, candid talks with the President of China. I hope we say in very understandable terms what our policy is in regard to human rights, in understandable terms what our policy is with regard to trade. We obviously have to open up China so that our trade deficit doesn't worsen. So we have real problems to resolve. We do not resolve them by simply saying we are going to have ``constructive engagement.'' I think we need to be specific on a relatively small number of things that are important to us and then, by golly, stick with them. If we have an agreement on intellectual property and it is not adhered to, then we need to do something about it. We should not try to run everything that everybody else does in another country, but those things that are important to us I think we ought to stay with. I look forward to the summit. I hope it is a useful one. I hope it contributes to world peace. I hope it contributes to stability in world trade and perhaps most of all the improvement of human rights in that part of the world.

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, October 23, 1997 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. 633 to amend the Petroglyph National Monument Establishment Act of 1990 to adjust the boundary of the monument. 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. committee on energy and natural resources, subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation

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 Wednesday, October 29, 1997 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. 638 to provide for the expeditious completion of the acquisition of private mineral interests within the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument mandated by the 1982 Act that established the monument, 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 Natural 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. Are we in morning business?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have spent several days recently and this week talking about campaign finance. I would like to share some of my thoughts. It is one of those issues that have become so complicated and so convoluted that it seems to me it is very difficult for a person to really bring it down to the simple basics, particularly if you haven't listened to all of it. Proponents of campaign finance reform bills will have you believe this is the top issue and in the interest of Americans, that everyone on Main Street is waiting breathlessly for some significant action that would be more important than tax relief or the balanced budget--no. I think that is not so. When I go back to Wyoming nearly every week, people don't come and talk to me about campaign finance. They want to discuss health care, they want to discuss public lands, they want to discuss taxes. This is not to say that it is not important, certainly not to say that I am against finance reform, because I think there should be some thoughtful changes in terms of campaign financing. I just don't believe that it is a catastrophic issue. I don't believe it is an issue that is the most important thing on our agenda as it sometimes is termed. The steam behind the issue, as a matter of fact, is generally that of enforcing the laws that are now on the books. That is what the hearings were about. That is what brought it up. It is not new laws that are needed--enforce the ones that are now there, not merely adding more to be unenforced. I am in favor of campaign finance reform. I have been very involved in political systems, as a matter of fact, long before I was ever in elective office, because it seemed to me over a period of years that it is pretty clear that politics and campaigns are how we govern ourselves. That is how you and I in our precincts decide the big issues in terms of government. So I just think we need to make it the kind of a process in which people can be involved, the kind of a process in which the first amendment opportunities to speak are there and are extended to everyone--not just limited to the press. On the other hand, we can't overlook the defects we saw in the last campaign cycle. The answer, however, is not to marshal the powers of the Federal Government and increase governmental intervention. We can reintroduce principle, we can introduce integrity and serious compliance into this important function of governing ourselves by strengthening and enforcing the reporting and disclosure laws, by limiting the influence of soft money on the national level, by requiring that a majority of the funds in a campaign come from the district in which the election takes place, by banning compulsory contributions. I don't think we ought to pass a bill just because we want to go through the rhetorical process, just because we want to shift the attention from not adhering to the law to writing new laws. We are talking about being home, and I hear more than anything else in Wyoming, ``Wait a minute, the issue is not new law; the issue is enforcing the laws we have.'' I think disclosure is the most important of the election issues. In that case, voters can determine where the money comes from to go to a candidate and make their own judgment as to whether or not that is reasonable. It is a simple way to bring our system of privately financed campaigns on track by strengthening and enforcing existing disclosure laws. Privately financed--I think it is a mistake to move more and more to how the taxpayers finance campaigns. It seems to me that has proven not to be useful. Candidates in parties must offer fuller and more timely disclosure of campaign receipts and spending activities. Reports must be prompt and early. Now there is a period of time between the last reporting and the election in which donations and contributions are not reported until after the election is over. That is wrong. We ought to change that. Candidates' reports are often late and partial and voters are kept from knowing what they should know about contributions prior to the time of voting. People need to be better informed. We can do that and we should. Soft money--I am concerned about the increased amount of soft money being spent on a national level. I say again, I was very involved in my party prior to being elected, and I saw us use money of that kind to do things that I thought were useful, and continue to think are useful-- party building, voter identification, voter registration, getting people to vote and participate in government. That is what soft money is for. Unfortunately, the receipts for campaigns have increased some 200 percent from the 1992 Presidential election to the 1996 cycle. That is a little scary. That is a lot. This money is not subject to the kind of disclosure requirements and restrictions in the kind of things that so- called hard money is. Voters have the right to be suspect of this kind of dough, it seems to me, since there are really not stringent accountability standards. We must develop, I think, a contribution limit on soft money. It doesn't need to be small. It can be healthy, but it should not be unlimited, and it should be for party building. We talk sometimes disdainfully about politics. Politics is how we govern ourselves. That is how you and I who live in our precincts are able to make an impact. I feel very strongly about that. Fundraising in the district--pretty evident that is the important thing. I support the idea of having at least 50 percent of the money that goes into the campaign come from the district from which the candidate runs. Now, I am the first to admit--and that is one of the difficulties with all kinds of election controls and election restrictions--there are ways to go around that. In my State there are large companies that run mines, for example, that contribute to campaigns from out-of-state headquarters. They will simply contribute from instate headquarters, and it will be the same money. But, nevertheless it is important. I think there is a great shift of money from one place to another outside of the eligible voters, simply because of interests that are somewhere else, that go to this campaign. I suggest that at least 50 percent come from the area in which the candidates come. Compulsory dues being used for campaigns I think is a real mistake. Labor unions are the only ones that really are able to do that. I think it certainly ought to be voluntary on the part of the member whether or not those dues are used for that purpose. There are some polls recently that say that is greatly supported, 4 to 1, by members of unions. I think that is right. They should not be restricted from using their money for that purpose if they choose to, but they need to choose. Mr. President, in summary, voting is one of the highest privileges of being a citizen. Not only is it a privilege, it is an obligation and a responsibility if we are to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then the people must participate, must be given an opportunity to participate. It is ironic to me, it seems to me we are in a time where we have the technical ability to have more information available to more people than ever in history. Can you imagine what it was like to vote 100 years ago? How much do you think people knew about national elections? Very little, I suspect. Now we know anything that happens in the world, and we know it in 10 minutes. Yet we seem not to have the kind of participation that we really ought to have in a citizen government. That is what we ought to be striving to have as we deal with election finance--voters being responsible, voters fulfilling their obligation, voters being knowledgeable, and voters being able to choose. One of the real meaningful ways, of course, is that individuals can contribute to that point of view that they support. We should work hard to ensure that campaign system is free of some of its current laws and yet open and free and not governed in every detail by some bureau somewhere that decides what you can say in an ad. Those kind of things are not useful and, indeed in my opinion, move us in the wrong direction. I hope we continue to work on this issue. I hope we do some things. I hope we stay away from the convoluted notion that we ought to have somebody in some bureaucracy, somewhere, manage all of the election activities. Here again, these kind of things belong in our communities, they belong in our States, they belong in our towns, they belong in our school boards. That is where they ought to be. I yield the floor.

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 Wednesday, October 1, 1997, a 2 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. 940 to provide for a study of the establishment of Midway Atoll as a national memorial to the Battle of Midway; and H.R. 765 to ensure the maintenance of a herd of wild horses in Cape Lookout National Seashore. 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, U.S. 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. committee on energy and natural resources

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 Thursday, October 9, 1997, at 2 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 feasibility of using bonding techniques to finance large-scale capital projects in the National Park System. 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, U.S. 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 will speak briefly on a subject that is part of the bill that is before the Senate, part of the bill on Interior. It has to do with the New World Mine. It has to do with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I rise to support the language that is in the Interior appropriations bill requiring that any expenditures out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to be used for the purchase of the New World Mine must be authorized by the authorizing committee. That is also true of the Headwaters Forest. There is some notion that there was an agreement during the debate on the budget with the administration that these funds would be available for authorization. I think it was clear the other day when the Senator from New Mexico came to the floor and spoke and indicated that there was no such agreement. I am here to congratulate the committee on that. First let me make a couple of points clear. One is, I oppose the development of the New World Mine. I was one of the first elected officials to oppose that. There are some places, in my view, that are inappropriate for mining. I think this is one of them. It is true they were in the middle of EIS when the agreement was made to stop the mine, but nevertheless I have opposed that long before the President signed the agreement and came to Yellowstone Park with great fanfare and stopped the development of the New World Mine. I had opposed that. So despite the rhetoric that is coming out of the White House and is coming out of the CEQ at the White House, there was not an agreement, there was not an agreement for the expenditure of this money. This is not an issue of whether you want to protect Yellowstone or whether you don't. We all want to do that. No one wants to preserve it certainly more than I. I grew up just outside of Yellowstone, 25 miles out of the east entrance. I spent my boyhood there. I understand the area. I am also chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, and we worked very hard and will continue to have a plan to strengthen the park and to save parks. So that is not the issue. That is not the issue. We will have before this Senate, as a matter of fact, at the beginning of next year, a plan called Vision 20/20 which is designed to increase the revenues that are available to parks, to do something about this $5 million in arrears in terms of facilities. So I am committed to the parks and I can guarantee you that we will have a program to do that. What this involves is a commitment on the part of the administration, a commitment on the part of the White House, a commitment on the part of Miss McGinty at CEQ who has become the political guru for White House natural resources to do what they indicated they would do. Let me read just a little bit from the agreement that was made in Yellowstone Park on the 12th day of August 1996, between Crown Butte Mines, Crown Butte Resources, Northwest Wyoming Resource Council, and a number of others and the United States of America. Objectives of the parties. As set forth in greater specificity below, the objectives of the Parties in entering into this agreement are to: (a) provide for the transfer by Crown Butte to the United States of the District Property in exchange for property interests owned by the United States having a value of $65 million; * * * 2. The United States will, as expeditiously as possible, identify Exchange Property with a fair market value of $65 million that is available and appropriate for exchange for the District Property. That is what it says in the agreement. That is what is agreed to. That is what everyone thought we were doing. The reversal now is the White House is saying well, there was an agreement that we will take cash out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund for these items. That is not what the agreement was. There was not an agreement to do that. We are saying the White House should live up to the agreement that they signed back on August 12 of this year. They have claimed no property to be found. I can't believe that. I have talked to the owners of the mine and they are willing to accept most any property that they could sell and turn into cash. So that is what it is all about. I believe the current language in the appropriations bill is correct. There is $700 million authorized in the Land and Water Conservation Fund but the expenditure is not simply left to the discretion of the administration but, in fact, the committees of jurisdiction have an opportunity, indeed, have a responsibility for the authorization. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. The business of timber and timber harvest is very important to my State. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada. I think the amendment is not about subsidies; it is about the elimination of the timber program in our national forests. The timber program is part of a healthy forest. Somehow there has to be some changes made in a forest that either burns or is harvested or is eaten by insects. This would terminate that kind of thing. Furthermore, this is a policy issue that I believe ought to be talked about in our committee of jurisdiction, ought to be talked about in the forest plan, not one that ought to be talked about here in terms of doing it on an appropriations bill. Let me just say, the Senator has suggested there are winners and winners. There are losers. Those losers happen to be schools, school districts, counties, small family businesses, and recreationists. This, I think, has been called a subsidy. It is actually not a subsidy. Purchaser credits are an accounting method used by the Forest Service. If the cost of the road was not in there, the bid, of course, for the timber would be less. If the cost that they have appropriated and allocated to it is more than it should be, that ought to be fixed by the Forest Service. But, Mr. President, let me just say finally, because I know there is not much time, that this amendment really does not have anything to do with the critical issues facing the Forest Service. It is just the opposite, by depleting desperately needed road funding while reducing essential money to county road programs and school districts, as well as thousands of jobs and recreational opportunities for all Americans. I urge my colleagues not to support this amendment. I thank you very much for your time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 1176 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I come to the floor to introduce a piece of legislation which I will submit. It is called the State and Local Participation Act of 1997. What I would like to do, Madam President, is to introduce a bill that would provide for the opportunity for State, local, and county agencies to participate in the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]. This bill is to guarantee that local agencies have an opportunity to be identified as cooperating agencies in the NEPA process, as it takes place in the various locations throughout the country. All of us know that NEPA was passed in the late 1960's, designed to provide for full study before activities are undertaken which affect the environment, and I support that idea. It has been an interesting topic over the years. NEPA, of course, is a relatively small, simple piece of legislation--less than three pages, which is unusual in this place, to have a bill that is that short. But fortunately or unfortunately, over the period of the 20 years or more that have gone since the introduction and passage of this bill, a great many changes have been made, not by amendment, not even by regulation, but in fact by court decisions. So now we have a very complicated, very expensive, very time-consuming process that is still designed, as it was originally, to make sure that studies are completed, EIS's are completed--environmental impact statements or environmental assessments, whichever is appropriate. I support that idea. But we have been very involved, in our committee, Energy and Natural Resources-- been very involved in my State of Wyoming in the use of NEPA to provide for mineral exploration, to provide for roads in the public areas, to provide for grazing, to provide for the number of uses that take place on public lands. As you can imagine, when you have a State that is 50 percent public lands, these kinds of processes are particularly important. We want to maintain them. We want to strengthen them, in fact. After 20 years of experience, there are some things that we can change. So NEPA was designed to ensure the environmental impacts of proposed actions are considered and minimized by the Federal agency that is responsible for taking the action. It is also designed to provide for adequate public participation in that decision, in the decision process that is undertaken by the Federal agencies. This sounds pretty simple. As a matter of fact, it sounds pretty basic and reasonable. And it is. Unfortunately, the regulations--have caused it to be something other than simple. For example, we had the question of exploring for gas in an area north of Casper, WY--a relatively small area. It would have made a great deal of difference to that county in terms of employment, a great deal of difference to that county in terms of tax base and all the things that affect a community. So the county commissioners felt as if they ought to be a part of this process, and I certainly agreed with them. They had more knowledge about that than any other agency, they had more caring about that than any other agency, yet this area was in their county so they also cared, of course, equally as much about taking care of the environment and the natural resources. Unfortunately the BLM, in this instance, would not make this county commission a cooperating agency. And they turned to the current law which says, basically, ``Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult and obtain the comments of Federal agencies which have jurisdiction.'' We are simply suggesting that there be added the words, ``and State and county agencies.'' So it would read, ``. . . obtain the comments of Federal and State agencies and counties which have jurisdiction.'' We think that is a reasonable thing to do. I think it is a reasonable thing to do. As a matter of fact, most people think it is a reasonable thing to do. We also had a forest study that is now underway, in the Medicine Bow Forest, in Wyoming. I talked to the regional forester. And we had another forest in the Black Hills where the counties and local people were not made a cooperating agency. So the regional director said, ``Yes, this one we will.'' Unfortunately, when it came to it, they didn't. And they put them in, in some other category, but not as a cooperating agency. And as a cooperating agency you can participate with the Federal agencies, put your comments in the report rather than just submitting them as any other citizen. So that is basically what we do with this legislation. It is designed to provide for greater input of State and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure will be known as the State and Local Government Participation Act of 1997. It will simply guarantee that States and counties are given an opportunity to participate, and participate in the decisions that affect the areas over which they have jurisdiction, whether it be in New York, whether it be in Wyoming, whether it be in Texas. Madam President, I would like also to have unanimous consent that Senator Craig, from Idaho, be listed also as a sponsor.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair very much for the time. I certainly urge my associates in the Senate to take a look at this opportunity to provide for one of the things that we talk about as much as anything in this Senate, and that is providing local input into the decisions that are made by the Federal Government. Let me tell you, that is particularly important to those of us from the West--Idaho, Nevada. In Nevada, some 80 percent of the land in Nevada belongs to the Federal Government. So the decisions that are made on Federal lands by Federal agencies have a tremendous impact on the future of those States and the future of the economy, and on the future of citizens. It is my belief, and the belief of many others, that local governments, the people that have been elected from these areas, should be participating, cooperating agencies in the determination of the NEPA arrangement. We think that is what this bill will do and we certainly urge support for it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair very much for the time. I certainly urge my associates in the Senate to take a look at this opportunity to provide for one of the things that we talk about as much as anything in this Senate, and that is providing local input into the decisions that are made by the Federal Government. Let me tell you, that is particularly important to those of us from the West--Idaho, Nevada. In Nevada, some 80 percent of the land in Nevada belongs to the Federal Government. So the decisions that are made on Federal lands by Federal agencies have a tremendous impact on the future of those States and the future of the economy, and on the future of citizens. It is my belief, and the belief of many others, that local governments, the people that have been elected from these areas, should be participating, cooperating agencies in the determination of the NEPA arrangement. We think that is what this bill will do and we certainly urge support for it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I come to the floor to introduce a piece of legislation which I will submit. It is called the State and Local Participation Act of 1997. What I would like to do, Madam President, is to introduce a bill that would provide for the opportunity for State, local, and county agencies to participate in the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]. This bill is to guarantee that local agencies have an opportunity to be identified as cooperating agencies in the NEPA process, as it takes place in the various locations throughout the country. All of us know that NEPA was passed in the late 1960's, designed to provide for full study before activities are undertaken which affect the environment, and I support that idea. It has been an interesting topic over the years. NEPA, of course, is a relatively small, simple piece of legislation--less than three pages, which is unusual in this place, to have a bill that is that short. But fortunately or unfortunately, over the period of the 20 years or more that have gone since the introduction and passage of this bill, a great many changes have been made, not by amendment, not even by regulation, but in fact by court decisions. So now we have a very complicated, very expensive, very time-consuming process that is still designed, as it was originally, to make sure that studies are completed, EIS's are completed--environmental impact statements or environmental assessments, whichever is appropriate. I support that idea. But we have been very involved, in our committee, Energy and Natural Resources-- been very involved in my State of Wyoming in the use of NEPA to provide for mineral exploration, to provide for roads in the public areas, to provide for grazing, to provide for the number of uses that take place on public lands. As you can imagine, when you have a State that is 50 percent public lands, these kinds of processes are particularly important. We want to maintain them. We want to strengthen them, in fact. After 20 years of experience, there are some things that we can change. So NEPA was designed to ensure the environmental impacts of proposed actions are considered and minimized by the Federal agency that is responsible for taking the action. It is also designed to provide for adequate public participation in that decision, in the decision process that is undertaken by the Federal agencies. This sounds pretty simple. As a matter of fact, it sounds pretty basic and reasonable. And it is. Unfortunately, the regulations--have caused it to be something other than simple. For example, we had the question of exploring for gas in an area north of Casper, WY--a relatively small area. It would have made a great deal of difference to that county in terms of employment, a great deal of difference to that county in terms of tax base and all the things that affect a community. So the county commissioners felt as if they ought to be a part of this process, and I certainly agreed with them. They had more knowledge about that than any other agency, they had more caring about that than any other agency, yet this area was in their county so they also cared, of course, equally as much about taking care of the environment and the natural resources. Unfortunately the BLM, in this instance, would not make this county commission a cooperating agency. And they turned to the current law which says, basically, ``Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible Federal official shall consult and obtain the comments of Federal agencies which have jurisdiction.'' We are simply suggesting that there be added the words, ``and State and county agencies.'' So it would read, ``. . . obtain the comments of Federal and State agencies and counties which have jurisdiction.'' We think that is a reasonable thing to do. I think it is a reasonable thing to do. As a matter of fact, most people think it is a reasonable thing to do. We also had a forest study that is now underway, in the Medicine Bow Forest, in Wyoming. I talked to the regional forester. And we had another forest in the Black Hills where the counties and local people were not made a cooperating agency. So the regional director said, ``Yes, this one we will.'' Unfortunately, when it came to it, they didn't. And they put them in, in some other category, but not as a cooperating agency. And as a cooperating agency you can participate with the Federal agencies, put your comments in the report rather than just submitting them as any other citizen. So that is basically what we do with this legislation. It is designed to provide for greater input of State and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure will be known as the State and Local Government Participation Act of 1997. It will simply guarantee that States and counties are given an opportunity to participate, and participate in the decisions that affect the areas over which they have jurisdiction, whether it be in New York, whether it be in Wyoming, whether it be in Texas. Madam President, I would like also to have unanimous consent that Senator Craig, from Idaho, be listed also as a sponsor.