Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is sort of exciting to begin to move into a new Congress, the 105th Congress. You and I and others came first here to the Senate 2 years ago with some dedication to principles that we still hold. Now, we have a new opportunity to continue to work toward the implementation of those things that we came away from the election 2 years ago thinking that people in our States wanted, and people in this country continue to want those things. So we have a great opportunity now. I think we had success, particularly in the last few months of the last session, as we moved toward doing something with health care. We did something about a couple of Federal mandates, Federal programs that were in place, such as welfare and farm programs, which have been changed now--and I think are more useful and effective--moving them closer to the States. I think that is a good thing to do. So I hope that we can continue to follow on our efforts in the 104th Congress, efforts that will lead us to a smaller Federal Government, a Federal Government that is more defined in terms of its role, a Federal Government that is more efficient and effective in delivering services, one that is closer to the people that are governed, closer to the people who receive the services and benefits, more efficient in the delivery of those services, less bureaucratic and more accountable. I think that's what all of us would like to do. These are principles that most of us agree to. I am pleased that the President has, in the last year, as well as in his inaugural address and other statements, indicated his support for a Government that has a balanced budget, that is financially and fiscally responsible not only to taxpayers now, but, maybe even more important, to our children and grandchildren in the future. The President has spoken of the era of big Government being passed. I think we would find a lot of agreement to that in the country and here in the U.S. Senate. It is very easy to talk about those concepts, and it is something else to do it. It is something else to put it into place. We have seen and will continue to see--and, of course, I understand that this is the place of great debate, and frankly it is a place of differences of view. That is what the system is all about. That is what elections are about--to put out there alternative choices and voters choose what they support. So we will see that here, as we should--and I think we will debate, I hope, more civilly than we have sometimes those differences and come to an agreement. We will not have unanimous agreement, of course. But this place wasn't designed to have unanimous agreement. That is why we vote. That is what the system is all about. But it is very easy to talk about concepts, and, yet, you will see everyone say, ``Yes, I am for a balanced budget. I want a balanced budget except for * * * '' and then find many reasons why we can't do it. So it is very difficult sometimes to move beyond the rhetoric, to move beyond the general principles and put it into place. That, I think, will be our challenge, and we are starting now to do that. So the challenge is, if these are the principles, if these are the philosophies, let us just do it. That is what I would like to talk about a little bit today. I would like to talk about doing some things within the Government that we have had as a policy for many years and really have not done, and that is more contracting in the private sector; some privatization of those kinds of functions of the Government that could well be carried on in the private sector. Last year I introduced a bill called the Freedom From Government Competition Act. We supported that. As a matter of fact, the Senate voted 59 to 39 on an amendment which was offered as part of the Treasury-Postal bill which required, in the instance of activities that were not inherently governmental, that agency to test the alternative of doing it in the private sector and seeing if that would be cost efficient and cost effective. The bill was not considered last year, but we intend this year to put it back in again. It will be something that I believe will move us toward the broader concepts that we are looking for. We can help save money. We can balance the budget. That is what it is all about. It will help eliminate some of the programs that are now there by the Government and bureaucracy that will help us move toward smaller government. The privatization of the contracting often can be done on a more local level, which moves it more, of course, toward the people who are, indeed, in the private sector. It strengthens the private sector and creates a broader tax base. These are the purposes of this kind of approach. For some 40 years it has been the policy of government to contract wherever possible in the private sector. Unfortunately, that has not been done. CBO estimated that in 1987 nearly 1\1/2\ million Federal employees were engaged in the kinds of functions, the kinds of operations, that are commercial in nature. That is a lot of folks doing some things. So what we need to do is to get this principle that has been there, this policy that has been in place but not implemented, I think, in some kind of statutory language which would be fairly simple. The bill simply requires that OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, go through all the functions of government and segregate those that are inherently government--and there are some, of course, which are only properly done by the Government and the bureaucracy but many that are not--and separate those and then have a system in place so that the work in those areas where it can be done easily be contracted or at least be offered for contract. And if they can be done more inexpensively and more efficiently by contract, then that would be done. Let me add that it is a little more difficult than that in that it will take some change of culture of the agency to adjust itself to the idea of putting together specifications of bidding, the bidding process, and overseeing and carrying out of the bidding process, and it will take some changes in the agency to do that. If the agency stays the same and simply takes some of these functions and contracts, there will be nothing gained. There will just be additional things. But it can be done, and in fact is being done. The agency that probably does the most of that and does it the best is the Department of Defense. They do a number of things of that kind. This is not a new idea. It is an idea that was talked about and suggested in the Reagan Office of Privatization, Citizens Against Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Defense Science Board, and the Grace Commission. Interestingly enough, all three sessions of the White House Conference on Small Business, 1980, 1986, and 1994, listed unfair Government competition as one of the top issues impacting small business. So it is not new. We have worked during the last 6 months substantially with groups in the private sector who now are involved in this activity of promoting this bill, and we look forward to it. Lots of things could easily be done. Let me give you some examples: janitorial services, printing, map making, engineering services, surveying, and laboratory. In our Wyoming Legislature a number of years ago when I was a member there, we did this kind of thing, and the focus was sort of on laboratories. We had private laboratories that were very capable of doing these kinds of things that government labs were set up to do, and we were able to do that, and we were able to move those activities from the bureaucratic activity to a private one, which creates more jobs, creates more tax base, and creates less cost. So these are the things that we look forward to doing. So, Mr. President, we will have an opportunity certainly over the next number of months to look at the Government, to take the philosophy that most of us have and put it in place to decide how we can make some changes. Change is not easy to make, of course. There is great resistance to change. There will be resistance to this kind of change. There will be resistance largely from labor unions that represent some of the workers in the Government agencies. But I think that there is a reasonable and logical explanation and reasonable and logical reason for taking a look at saving money, smaller Government, more in the private sector, and more tax base. These are the kinds of benefits that will accrue to families and to America if we can move forward in this direction. Mr. President, we look forward to introducing the bill. We look forward to having the opportunity to implement the things that we have been talking about in general terms for the last several years. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. However, hearings by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and House Committee on Small Business have demonstrated that administration implementation of these statutes have failed to eliminate Government competition with the private sector and recent OMB action has been interpreted as encouraging agencies to market their services to other Federal, State and local government entities. Does the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee agree with this conclusion?

Mr. THOMAS. Can the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Treasury Postal Service tell me why the Thomas amendment, which passed the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 59 to 39, is not included in this omnibus appropriations bill? As you know, my amendment would have prohibited OMB from expending funds to implement any policy that permits any Federal agency to provide commercial goods and services to other government agencies, unless a cost comparison determines that government agency performance is more cost effective than the private sector.

Mr. THOMAS. Is it the subcommittee Chairman's intent that OMB should promptly issue new administrative policy and process to clarify and remedy this matter so no Federal organization unfairly competes with the private sector, particularly small business?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to express my desire to work with the National Park Service to address the issue of open space in the Teton Valley and its interrelationship with grazing in Grand Teton National Park. Since establishment of the park in 1950, a limited number of local ranchers, who had grazing privileges within the boundaries of Grand Teton Park before its establishment, have been allowed to continue to graze within the area. These grazing permits were given for the life of the designated heirs of the permit holders who were local ranchers that required the summer range to maintain their ranches. This arrangement has not only benefitted the ranch families involved, but helped support the ecology in the park and preserved open space in Jackson Valley for visitors to this unique region. Unfortunately, in the past few years, both of the designed heirs to these grazing permits have died. Although both families have expressed their interest in continuing to ranch in Jackson Valley, the Park Service may be forced to terminate these grazing permits unless a reasonable solution can be found. Without the summer range available in the park, these ranchers may be forced to end their operations and sell their ranches. If these ranches are sold, they would be immediately subdivided and developed and the open space provided by these areas would be gone forever. It is an imperative environmental issue that we work to ensure that open space is preserved in and around Grand Teton National Park. This region is truly unique and it is vital for both the wildlife living in and around the park and the environment throughout the region that open space is protected. Unless the ranchers are allowed to continue grazing in the park, the region will be threatened with development that will harm the wildlife and the ecology in and around the park. In the coming months, the Wyoming congressional delegation plans to work with the National Park Service, the ranch families, the environmental community and local citizens to develop a solution to this situation. By working together, I am hopeful we can continue to protect the open space in this magnificent region and continue an activity that has been monitored and managed by the Park Service for over 45 years. Make no mistake about it, ending grazing operations in Grand Teton National Park will be harmful to park resources, wildlife in the area and will destroy open space for visitors to this outstanding region. I look forward to working with the National Park Service in the coming months to address this critical matter.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk about a friend who will be leaving the Senate, a man whom I respect greatly, a man who--to quote a phrase he uses--is ``a friend of his friends,'' and that is Senator Alan Simpson, from Wyoming, who will be retiring from the Senate at the end of this session. Al Simpson is particularly close to me. He is from Cody, WY, a town of 10,000 or 12,000. Cody is also the same town I am from. We were both there last weekend at the Buffalo Bill Museum event. Al is a lifelong friend, a good and gracious man. He comes from a family of good and gracious leadership. The first person that I remember as a kid, who was an outstanding citizen, one of those kinds that you remember, was Milward Simpson, Al's dad. Interestingly enough, the thing I remember the most was that he is the first guy I ever saw who could simply stand up and talk without being prepared, or without needing notes, and do it so eloquently. I guess that is where Al Simpson acquires his ability to do the same thing. So many here in the Senate have known Al Simpson for a very long time, too, and are his friends. Al has been here for 18 years representing our State, battling for our State, battling for this country, and all of us feel so fortunate to have had him here. Some have mixed feelings about him leaving. On the one hand, all of us are happy that he and Ann will have an opportunity to do some other things. They have great interests, whether it be in museums, whether it be in health care, whether it be in the other historic things they have been interested in. But they have great grace and style in their personal relationships, and they will all be missed. I have had the privilege of serving on the team from Wyoming with Al Simpson for the 5 years I was in the House, and these special 2 years, the last 2 years, I have been in the Senate. I suppose we have a unique closeness in our delegation from Wyoming. As everyone else does, we have two Members in the Senate, but we have just one in the House. There are just three of us. The people in Wyoming find it fairly easy to contact the delegation when they come, since there are just three of us. We were talking yesterday about the population of Wyoming when I was presiding. There are about 470,000 people, and about 100,000 square miles for them to live. But in a State like that we become pretty personal in politics. We have an opportunity to talk. We have an opportunity to express the prejudices that each of us have, and ideas. It is truly unique. We have unique relationships. We have all been Republicans since I have been here. We have all been friends. I have known Alan virtually all my life. We lived basically up the street across the alley from the Simpson's in the wintertime. I knew him when he weighed 260 pounds, and had hair, and, as he says, thought beer was food. But fortunately Ann came along, and dressed him up. And he has been an outstanding representative of Wyoming since; frankly, not just of Wyoming. Al Simpson represents some of the best of this country; represents the kind of person who looks at an issue and takes the position that he believes is correct. Clearly in this business there is a tendency to take the position that seems to be most popular. There is nothing unusual about that. But Al Simpson has throughout his service here and in the Wyoming legislature been willing to take those positions that are not the most popular; that are not the easiest; that are not the road most traveled. And he has felt comfortable taking them. I, particularly, will miss Al Simpson. We came from the same town, and the same university, since we only have one in Wyoming. We lived in the same athletic dorm, and now served in the same Senate. So I have been around this guy a lot, and others will miss him too. He is a national figure. He tells the story about a hotel in Cody where a lot of strangers come through, and someone coming up to him and saying --someone he did not know--``Did anyone ever tell you that you look like Al Simpson?'' He said, ``Yes. Sometimes.'' The man said, ``It makes you mad, doesn't it?'' He is well known--well known because of his humor; the great skill and gift of humor that he has to make things seem a little lighter than they are. He says continuously and so properly, ``You know, I take the issues seriously but I don't take myself seriously.'' We need more of that. We need more of that. He is my political mentor and our senior Senator. I can tell you that Milward and Lorna, his parents, would be so proud. His father was a U.S. Senator as well as the Governor of our State, and president of the university and served on the board of trustees. Al and his brother have followed him in that great tradition of courage and class. Let me just close by saying not only does he have great humor, great grace, and a great partner in Ann, but he is an extraordinary legislator. You can see him working today on the illegal immigration bill, a tough issue; and, quite frankly, one that is not as important in Wyoming as it is in other places. But that does not matter. Al said this is an important issue to our country, as he has undertaken to deal with Social Security in ways to honestly change it, and has had some controversy with groups that want the status quo. He has been willing to undertake the difficult question of entitlements that, obviously, have to be dealt with but are political dynamite--the old third rail of politics that no one is willing to touch. Al Simpson has done that, and will continue to. One of his first activities following his departure here--I thought about saying ``departed friend.'' That is not right. He has his whole life before him. He is not departing. He is simply moving on to Harvard to teach at the Kennedy School of Government. It will be interesting to see the impact he will have at Harvard. I think it will be wonderful. He has taken on the media on entitlements. He has done all of those things that are not easy to do. He stands for the things that are good about this system. So I will miss our good friend and mentor--lifelong friend--who has the wisdom and willingness to take on the tough problems. Besides, I will not have anyone to join with me in the recitations of the ``Cremation of Sam McGee'' which we enjoy doing from time to time. So I want to say, ``Hats off'' to Al Simpson, and we wish him the very, very best. I know he and Ann will have a wonderful, continuous time. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to tell you that I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Hampshire. Certainly, this needs to be talked about. I have never seen anything quite like what is happening to us here at the end of this session. The idea that those on the other side of the aisle, the administration and the Democrats, would hold up progress over the last 3 weeks, as they have, by having 100 amendments to every appropriations bill, most of them not at all attached to the subject, simply to hold it up to bring us up to the edge of this business of shutting down Government, which they found to be a great political advantage last year, is absurd. I have never seen anything like this in my life. The Senator from New Hampshire is exactly right. They have extracted $6.5 billion in additional spending simply by threatening--not on the merits of the spending--to close down the Government and blame the Republicans. I have never seen anything quite like that kind of deception--the idea that, for instance, talking about reducing the deficit and at the same time increasing deficit spending by $5.5 billion, reduce the deficit only by raising taxes--the largest tax increase we have ever had--and talk about reducing the numbers of employment when, in fact, almost all of it was as a result of base closures and civilian employees of DOD, and the end of the Resolution Trust Corporation, which had nothing to do with this President. So that is where we are. I am just delighted that the Senator from New Hampshire, who has hands-on experience with this expenditure, as chairman of the subcommittee, has talked about where we are and where we need to go.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, yesterday--in my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs--I introduced into the Record a portion of a report prepared by the very distinguished ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell. The report, entitled ``Democracy: An Emerging Asian Value,'' details the Senator's recent trip to Asia. I was very interested in the distinguished Senator's observations because the countries he visited-- Taiwan, Vietnam, and Indonesia--fall within the jurisdiction of my subcommittee. I thought my colleagues would benefit by having the report readily available to them, and had a portion of it reproduced in the Record yesterday. But because of space considerations, Mr. President, only a portion could be reprinted. Consequently, today I ask unanimous consent to have the remainder of Senate Print 104-45 [pages 1 through 9] printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. In closing, I must say that it has been a unique pleasure and honor to serve on the committee with its former Chairman, Senator Pell. I appreciate his views and opinions, as well as his frequent participation in the work of my subcommittee. His departure from the Senate is a loss both to the committee and to the whole institution; he will be missed. Excerpt From Senate Print 104-45 Indonesia a. introduction Indonesia is a vast, dynamic and complicated country. It has the fourth largest population in the world and the largest Muslim population in the world; yet it remains strongly secular. The government is an authoritarian one, led and dominated by President Soeharto, a small number of his advisors and the military. There is no apparent successor to Soeharto and no tested process in place for a transition of power. The economy is increasingly open and deregulated, but subject to widespread corruption and influence peddling. There are a number of issues of interest to the United States in Indonesia. Indonesia has had an impressive economic development and an impressive increase in the average life expectancy. There is a developing middle class. The government has developed and implemented a model population control program. The focus of my trip, however, was a visit to East Timor. When I was in Indonesia in 1992, President Soeharto refused my request to visit East Timor because it was not convenient at that time. I appreciate his willingness to allow me to visit during this trip. It is important to note that there are other human rights problems in Indonesia aside from those in East Timor. Many independent human rights observer groups criticize government policies in Ache and Irian Jaya. Issues such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the right to form political parties and the development of the rule of law are all of substantial concern in Indonesia today. In response to a request by the UN, Indonesia establishes a National Commission on Human Rights to investigate human rights issues country-wide. I met with several representatives from the Commission in Jakarta and was impressed with their dedication to improving the lives of ordinary Indonesians. Their investigations are hampered, however, by a lack of funding and staff. Still, they seem to be operating truly independent of the government and I commend their efforts. That our delegation did not focus on human rights issues outside of East Timor does not mean they are unimportant or that they are unworthy of international attention. The broader spectrum of human rights concerns will likely continue to be an issue for U.S.-Indonesian relations for the foreseeable future. Time limitations of our trip caused us to focus our scrutiny primarily on East Timor. b. east timor In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, a former Portuguese colony, during a period of great political upheaval in Lisbon, which meant that Portugal was in no position to resist. The Indonesian military has committed widespread and well-documented human rights abuses in the 20 years since the invasion. The number of East Timorese who have died from violence, abuse or starvation in these 21 years will probably never be known, but there are credible estimates that they could number as many as 200,000. A particularly egregious incident took place on November 12, 1991, when the Indonesian military shot and killed over 200 people (by most credible estimates, although the actual total will likely never be known), during a peaceful demonstration. By all accounts, the protesters were unarmed. This became known alternatively as the Dili or Santa Cruz Massacre. While no events on this scale have been reported since then, widespread reports of abuse continue, including arbitrary arrest, torture, disappearances and killings. I heard several credible reports of these types of abuses while I was there. Since I have been back in the U.S., there has been yet another conflict between Indonesian troops and East Timorese youth. The most recent disturbance took place in Baucau, a small city on the northern coast, to the east of Dili. Early news reports indicated that Catholic East Timorese had taken to the streets to protest reports that Muslim Indonesians had torn a picture of the Virgin Mary. The U.S. State Department reported that roughly 80 were arrested and that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had been given access to all of them. There were additional press reports quoting East Timorese leaders saying that some of those arrested had been mistreated. Indonesia and Portugal have not had diplomatic relations since the takeover. Since 1992, the foreign ministers of each country have held talks under the auspices of the UN Secretary General on East Timor, but these talks have produced little. I met with Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas in Jakarta and was particularly pleased to hear him speak highly of Portugal's relatively-new Foreign Minister Jaime Gama. For my part I attended the inauguration of Portugal's new President, Jorge Sampaio, in April and was struck by the new Government's interest in seeking some accommodation with the Indonesians. Alatas felt that Gama showed a new willingness to listen to Indonesia's views, in contrast to his predecessor. I, too, am impressed with Gama and know his personal sense that the issue of East Timor should be resolved. Alatas told me that they could work toward a solution that would satisfy both countries and the international community as long as both sides were ``realistic'' in their position. Sadly, Alatas did not mention the need to satisfy the wishes of the people of East Timor, although, when I raised it, he agreed it was important. I encourage continued talks between Portugal and Indonesia and welcome positive movements toward a solution. But I believe that any solution which does not make the desires of the East Timorese as a paramount concern will ultimately fail. One of the most obvious issues for most East Timorese is the strong presence of Indonesian military (ABRI) troops stationed there. Government officials in East Timor, including Governor Abilio Soares and Colonel Mahidin Simbolon, the military commander, told me that Indonesia stations in East Timor 15,403 troops (including police who, in Indonesia, are a branch of the military). Government officials in East Timor and in Jakarta said that there were two primary reasons why such a force was needed in East Timor. First, they are said to be required to keep the peace threatened by rebels, known as FRETILIN, of whom, according to Colonel Simbolon, there are 188, armed with 88 weapons. Second, the military force is needed to perform public works projects such as building bridges, roads and houses. The military commander told me that not only were ABRI troops the only ones willing to go into remote villages to do such work, but that when the government did pull some troops last year, local leaders and villagers protested. He argued that it was much less expensive to have military troops do these projects than to have civilians do then. I should note that East Timorese not in the government strongly and repeatedly disputed the claims that only the military can perform these tasks and that locals would protest the removal of troops. The vast majority of these ABRI troops are not East Timorese. When asked why so few East Timorese held high level positions in the military, Colonel Simbolon argued that not enough East Timorese had gone through the military academy. He told us only eleven East Timorese had graduated from Indonesia's military academy and, of those eleven, one is a first lieutenant and two are second lieutenants. These are the highest-ranking East Timorese officers in ABRI. On the police side, the highest-ranking East Timorese is a Major, who is a traffic chief. Again, Simbolon made the argument that the East Timorese were not qualified enough. The presence of this armed, uniformed, non-Timorese force in East Timor causes immense friction and conflict. The East Timorese are ethnically different in culture and appearance from other Indonesian ethnic groups. I was repeatedly told that Indonesian military and police routinely treat the East Timorese with disdain and even contempt. Simply put, the people of East Timor feel they are subjected by a foreign army of occupation. I firmly believe that a tremendous amount of the tension and conflict which exists in East Timor could be relieved if Indonesia were to slash its troop levels there and turn over authority at all levels to East Timorese citizens. Governor Soares and Colonel Simbolon agreed that this could help the situation, but offered no ideas on how such a change could come about. Governor Soares and Armindo Mariano, head of the Golkar Party in East Timor, are both East Timorese and both stressed in our meetings that they were working to improve the ``Timorization'' of the local government. Mariano has been a participant in the All-Timorese dialogue, a forum sponsored by the UN Secretary General for East Timor--current residents and those in exile--to explore practical measures to improve the situation there. It is not a forum for discussing East Timor's political status. Both Soares and Mariano are firm in their conviction that East Timor will develop and prosper only as a part of Indonesia. When asked how many East Timorese supported integration with Indonesia, both said the majority did. But East Timorese who are not a part of the government and other observers living in East Timor quickly and insistently contradict this. When asked how a plebiscite on the issue of independence versus integration would turn out, I was told that over 90% of the people would choose independence and that number would include some who formerly supported integration. The personification of East Timorese resistance to Indonesia's occupation of the territory is Commander Xanana Gusmao, who, at the time he was captured in 1992, was the leader of the armed resistance. He remains the titular head of the East Timor-based National Council of Maubere Resistance (CNRM), which he founded in 1988 to unify East Timor's various political and armed resistance groups. Since his arrest and trial he has been imprisoned in Jakarta where, he is visited regularly by the ICRC and by all accounts is treated in accordance with international norms. Xanana, as he is commonly known, has attained a status for East Timorese similar to that which Nelson Mandela had for black South Africans while he was in prison. I was eager to meet with him while I was in Jakarta both to get to know a person who has such a reputation in East Timor and to learn his current thinking on the possibilities for a political settlement of the East Timor situation. Through I made a request of the Indonesian government for permission to visit Xanana before I left the U.S. and repeated the request in each of the meetings I had in Jakarta, I did not receive permission to see him. From East Timor I wrote him a letter inquiring about the conditions of his imprisonment and his views on East Timor's future. (A copy is printed at the conclusion of this report.) I then request the letter be delivered to him, but that request was refused. The Indonesian Correctional Authorities deemed my message to Xanana ``political'' and therefore prohibited. Whenever the possible independence of East Timor is discussed, talk quickly turns to its potential economic viability. The territory has few natural resources, but advocates of independence point out that many independent Pacific island nations also have few or no resources. One person questioned what economic independence meant in an era of increasing international economic interdependence. Florentino Sarmento, the head of East Timor's largest non- governmental organization, Etadep, and a delegate to the All- Timorese dialogue, acknowledged that going it alone would be difficult, but was convinced that a solution could be found especially with consultation with political leaders abroad. In regard to natural resources, East Timor's most valuable crop is coffee. I was able to visit a coffee cooperative started last year and funded by USAID. The cooperative, carried out by the National Cooperative Business Association, started with only 700 farming families and $7 million in USAID seed money. It now boasts 6,700 families and expects to turn a profit as early as the end of this year. Project director Sam Filiaci stressed he is not there for charity; he is developing a money-making organization that will provide lasting economic advantage to all involved, and especially to East Timorese coffee growers. On the day I visited one of their processing plants in a remote mountain location, farmers from miles around gathered. Proud of their skill and of their new facilities, these people also told stories of harassment by the military and police (who turned out in a large force for my visit) and of insistent pressure on the farmers to move out of the mountains and down to the more populous areas on the coast. c. the church's view East Timor is an overwhelmingly Catholic entity. More than 90% of the population is Catholic and the Church occupies a critical role in the lives of its citizens. The Church also plays a large role in the communication between East Timorese and those in the United States who are interested in the fate of this land. A number of Portuguese priests previously stationed in East Timor, along with a number of Timorese priests, now live in the U.S. I had hoped to meet with the Bishop of East Timor, Msgr. Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo. Bishop Belo is widely admired for his forthright objections to Indonesian human rights abuses and is a vital leader of his people. Regrettably, he was away from East Timor during my visit, through we were able to talk by phone. I was able to meet with eleven priests from a variety of East Timorese parishes in what was by far the most fruitful and dramatic meeting of my trip. Sitting in a large room with open windows, using a microphone to be heard and taping the conversation, these priests gradually and fearlessly opened up to me and told me what they had seen and heard in their parishes over the last 20 years. They spoke of military harassment of the Church that varies from obstructing their ability to meet with their parishioners to trying to create mistrust among the people of the Church. One priest told me ABRI tries to reinterpret his interest in the welfare of his parishioners as political opposition to Indonesia and integration. No one at the meeting had ever been arrested by the Indonesian authorities, but several had been detained and interrogated by them, for up to ten hours at a time. One told me of receiving a letter signed by the police insisting that he leave town for a month, although he proudly said he never left. The worst of these interrogations took place in 1991 and 1992, in the aftermath of the Santa Cruz massacre. None of the priests had been present at the 1991 massacre but one told us, with great emotion, of his experiences that day and in the months afterwards. His home is near the Santa Cruz cemetery where the massacre occurred. He had heard the shots that morning, but thought at first they were the rumblings of a storm. When he went out later, he heard from people what had happened and he went to the cemetery and tried to give last rites to those who were dying or dead. The military would not let him approach and tried to make him leave. He stayed anyway and soon saw three large military trucks approach and be loaded with corpses. Then he saw other trucks come that were filled with water and he watched them spray the blood off the ground where the killings had taken place. The wounded were all taken to military hospitals, he said. He then proceeded, without prompting, to confirm the stories I had read and been told earlier, that no one was allowed to visit these wounded in the hospitals, not even the priests. Again, he was unable to give last rites to the dying. He estimated that in the month following the massacre as many people died in the hospitals, either from poor treatment or from torture, as had been killed in the cemetery. He told of hearing eyewitness accounts of mass graves holding as many as 100 corpses in one pit. He said the month following the massacre came to be know as ``The Second Massacre.'' When asked about the type of human rights abuses that occur today, the priests argued that the fundamental human right of any people is that of self-determination. The people of East Timor have been denied that right for over 20 years and all other rights abuses follow from that fact. They asked me how far the U.S. government and the U.S. people were willing to go in helping East Timor in its struggle for self determination? They asked why, if the U.S. government says it cares about human rights and cares about human rights abuses in East Timor, it still continues to support the government of Indonesia on its occupation of East Timor? Emotions around the room continued to rise, both from those telling the stories and those of us listening to them. I was struck by the knowledge that 5 years previously this group would have risked the sudden intrusion of armed ABRI officials, as the priests systematically contradicted everything Indonesian government officials in Jakarta and in Dili had said, the people of East Timor resist integration into Indonesia as strongly now as they did 20 years ago. There is an ``ebb and flow'' quality to the resistance; the Indonesians gain the upper hand [through various forms of intimidation] and the East Timorese temporarily retreat. When Indonesia seems to lighten up a bit, and the East Timorese ``have the courage to shout,'' the resistance pushes back, but ABRI always comes back again, in a ``continuous game.'' They provided a document listing the exact type and number of troops located throughout East Timor (a translated copy of this document is attached as an appendix to this report) to show us how pervasive and strong the military is there. When asked about Indonesia's argument that it has poured more economic investment into East Timor than into any other province in Indonesia, they responded disdainfully that ``the people are not willing to sell their liberty for all the gold in the world.'' Finally, I asked the fundamental question I had asked in all the meetings: if it were possible to hold a plebiscite in East Timor, offering a choice of political arrangements from autonomy to integration, how would the people vote? This classical political science-approach to finding a solution was met with hard nosed realism: how can you even hold out this approach to a people who have suffered so much for 20 years? More importantly--and fundamentally--after over 20 years of continued resistance in the face of abuse, even torture and death, have not the people of East Timor already made their preference clear? Does not their resistance itself constitute a referendum? What more proof do you need that the people of East Timor want independence from Indonesia? To confirm this message, the acting rector of the University of East Timor, handed me a letter at the airport as we were leaving Dili, in full view of my ever-present official escort. By all accounts I have heard, I believe he was probably questioned after we left; one only hopes that his position will protect him from rougher treatment. The letter was written and signed by five university students, and asks the U.S. Congress to support East Timor in its struggle for independence from Indonesia. (A copy of the letter is printed as an annex to this report.) The end of the letter was particularly moving, as it thanked me for coming and hoped that my visit was ``independent,'' because they were concerned that Indonesia sponsored the visits of other delegations in order to ``shut their mouth and close their eyes.'' d. conclusion and recommendation By the time of my departure, it was clear to me that the people of East Timor continue to resist the often heavy handed occupation of their island by Indonesia. The resistance takes many forms and, while armed resistance and physical resistance may have diminished, it was evident that the people of East Timor practice an emotional and intellectual resistance that no amount of military pressure will ever be able to suppress. Yet it was also evident that Indonesia will not, in the foreseeable future, grant East Timor either the autonomy it clearly wants or a process for determining its own future. How, then, can U.S. policy bridge the gulf? The U.N. can both help and hurt. The U.N. sponsored talks between Portuguese Foreign Minister Gama and Indonesian Foreign Minister Alatas can bring positive results. But these talks run a serious risk of ignoring the views and wishes of the East Timorese themselves. The All-Timorese dialogue offers more hope, although for the moment the political status of East Timor is not on the table for discussion. The best outcome of these two series of talks would be the implementation of confidence-building measures such as some form of autonomy for East Timor; a reduction in Indonesian troop strength; and an increase in the number of East Timorese in leadership positions in Dili. Progress in any of these areas would, I believe, be welcome in East Timor and would ease some of the stark anti- Indonesian sentiment there. Passions could calm and economic initiatives, such as the coffee project, could develop. Then a compromise solution between the East Timorese and the Indonesians might be found. The key is that the East Timorese themselves must be a part of the solution from the beginning. A deal struck between Portugal and Indonesia or between Alatas and Boutros Ghali, or between Jakarta and Washington will not provide the solution. No true and lasting solution can come without East Timorese input; no solution that is seen as being imposed from above will work. Indonesia is one of the most important countries in the region and will grow increasingly important. It is evident that the U.S. should have close relations with Indonesia. Both countries have mutual strategic, economic and environmental interests and would benefit from increased cooperation in those areas. But Indonesia also has serious shortcomings in the way it treats the East Timorese and others of its citizens and it is important that, in our dealings with Indonesia, we not ignore or downplay the fact of these serious human rights problems. When we have an important bilateral relationship with a country in which there are human rights problems, there are those who argue that we should downplay the human rights concerns and focus, instead, on those areas of mutual interest, such as strategic or economic, which can strengthen the relationship. Their theory is that a stronger relationship might encourage more progress on human rights. I do not agree with that approach. U.S. support for human rights in other countries does matter. All the East Timorese I met told me that foreign pressure, and especially U.S. pressure, had succeeded in moving the Indonesian government. Our ability to effect changes in the human rights politics of Indonesia and other countries may be limited, but it is important for our nation to make every effort to do so. I believe we could have a better and closer relationship with Indonesia if the government would take what seem to me to be relatively easy steps. If, for example, they would switch from a ``heavy'' hand to a ``light'' hand in East Timor, they would gain improved relations with the U.S. and other countries and would, in my view, lose little. Quite aside from its policies toward East Timor, Indonesia is quickly approaching a critical point in its political development. President Soeharto's sixth 5-year term in office will end in 1998. While he has been quoted in the press as saying he will not run for a seventh term, most political analysts fully expect him to be in office for life. There is no chosen successor nor established process for succession. Indonesian citizens cannot change the government by democratic means. The government is still heavily dominated by GOLKAR, the President's party. The government appoints half the members of the People's Consultative Assembly, theoretically the highest authority of the state, and the Assembly in turn elects the President and Vice-President. The military is automatically given 15% of the seats in the National Parliament and while 80% of the Parliament is elected, there are only three legal political parties. Civil liberties, such as freedom of speech and assembly or freedom of the press, are severely restricted. Indonesia has actively worked to open its economy while keeping its political system relatively closed. Deregulation and moving away from central control has brought tremendous growth and development, of which the Indonesian government is rightfully proud. Could not the same be done in the political sphere? Indonesia has the potential to be a great nation with world-wide influence. But it will never reach that goal with the anachronistic, authoritarian style of government it currently has. There are limited signs that this system may be loosening. The Court system has taken steps toward functioning independently, but it is not yet truly independent. There are some non-government organizations that criticize government policies, but they still operate in an atmosphere of surveillance and fear of retaliation. Indonesia should follow the example of Taiwan in the late 1980s and 1990s and take strong steps toward a true democratic system. One important change it could make now would be to legalize the formation of other political parties. The region and even the world has much to gain from a democratic Indonesia. The U.S. should offer assistance and encouragement where ever possible and adopt policies that will help move Indonesia toward that goal. I hope that Jakarta will take seriously the recommendations in this report, work for a solution that is acceptable to all parties, put the issue of East Timor behind them, move toward democracy, and become the important international power it is meant to be.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr President, over the weekend I had the opportunity to read a report to the Foreign Relations Committee prepared by the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee, Senator Claiborne Pell. The report, entitled ``Democracy: An Emerging Asian Value,'' details the Senator from Rhode Island's recent trip to Asia. I was very interested in the report because the countries Senator Pell visited-- Taiwan, Vietnam, and Indonesia--fall within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee I chair, the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs. In fact, all three have been of special interest to me and have been the subject of several hearings in the subcommittee. I found the distinguished Senator's observations about this dynamic region to be particularly cogent, and believe that our colleagues--and the public at large--would benefit from having those observations accessible to them in the Record. However, since the report is somewhat lengthy in terms of it being reproduced in the Record, I am going to treat one country at a time; today, Mr. President, I would direct the Senate's atttention to the portion of the report on Indonesia. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that pages 9 to 17 of S. Prt. 104-45, the section on Indonesia, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.)

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, several of us want to continue our discussions of the upcoming election, discussions that have to do with the issues that are involved. It is election time. Of course, as evidenced by what the leader said today, the time is short. It is election time, and it is decision time. This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Therefore, there is a responsibility for all of us, as voters, of course, to participate in the election, to participate as informed voters. If we are to have self-government, then the decisions and the direction that this country takes must be the result of the composite wisdom of voters. That time has arrived. It seems almost a paradox that in a time when technically we have more information available to us than we have ever had in history-- imagine 100 years ago how much we knew in Wyoming about what was going on in Washington. Very little. If we did, it was much after the event had happened. Now we know instantly, of course. The paradox is that it seems to me it is more difficult for us as voters now to kind of weed out among all the stuff that is out there as to what the real issues are. Whether it is the fault of the media, whether it is the idea of the media picking out the emotional things, whether it is the idea of professional campaign planners who spin and intentionally blur the issues, whether it is a Congress and an administration that seek to make the choices less clear, I do not know. Perhaps it is a combination of each of those. Nevertheless, you and I have a responsibility to choose. On my way back Sunday, I had a book I have been intending to read about the Constitution. I was struck by the idea that the Constitution, and more particularly the Bill of Rights, was designed exclusively to limit the powers of Government. You do not find in the Bill of Rights, the Government will do this, the Government shall do this, the Government shall provide that. It says, the Government ``shall not.'' The great concern of our forefathers was to make sure that we limit the central Government, limit the power of central Government. Still, it seems to me, in our own way, in our own judgment, that is the choice we make. How do we see the Government? What do we think the role of the Federal Government is? Is it to provide all the little nice things we would like to have happen personally in our lives? Every day is a new program for something that is probably pretty nice. Is that the role? Or is the role more one of insuring freedom, insuring opportunity, insuring an environment in which the private sector can function, providing for strong local government, State and county? These are the decisions, and I know my prejudices are pretty well arranged. I seek to have a Federal Government that is the protector of those things, rather than a provider of those things. Obviously, there are things that are appropriate for the Federal Government to do--in interstate commerce, in defense and those kind of things. Those are the decisions that we will make. I hope each of us is prepared to do that. I happen to think we have begun to do some of those things in the last 2 years in this Congress, and, in fact, this has been one of the most effective Congresses we have had for a very long time. Unfortunately, our minority leader does not agree with that. He was quoted as saying this has not been a productive Congress. I am sorry to hear him say that. I do not agree. We will talk about a number of things that have been done, things I believe move us more into the direction of a smaller Federal Government, a less expensive Federal Government, a less regulated society. Lower taxes: In the 104th Congress, the Republicans passed a $245 billion tax cut, including a $500 child tax credit to move toward allowing families to spend their own money, to allow families to provide for their children. Unfortunately, it was vetoed by the President. Lower spending: This Congress has cut spending $9.3 billion in 1995, and $23 billion in 1996 was eliminated from 270 programs. That is good. I think that is a real movement. The administration claims to have reduced the size of Government. Indeed they have--they claim, 200,000. The fact is that most was from the base closures, civilian employees of defense; the other was the termination of the savings and loan. Nevertheless, it reduced employees, and that is good. Balanced budget: How many times before the last 2 years did you hear people talking about balancing the budget? Not very much. It has not been balanced in 40 years. Now, suddenly, everyone is for it. The discussion is not, do you balance the budget; the discussion is, how do you do that? Unfortunately, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution was defeated here. Nevertheless, we now are on the road to a balanced budget. Ending welfare as we know it: We have done that, something that has not been done for a very long time, providing the States more opportunity to do something about the entitlement aspect of welfare. Everybody wants to help people who need help. The question is, how do we help them to help themselves? That is what we have sought to do. It took three times to get it passed. Nevertheless, it is a success. Market-based health reform: Portability, availability, limited medical savings account, the end to preexisting condition exclusions, combat fraud and waste in health care. A success. Here is an interesting one, ensuring access to higher education. This Congress increased student loan volume by 50 percent, from $24 billion to $36 billion in 2002. Unfortunately, it was vetoed as part of the balanced budget amendment. Farm programs: Many of us have been involved in farm programs for a very long time. Most everyone has said we need to move toward market orientation, toward the marketplace. Finally, we have done that over a period of 7 years. Agriculture is moving toward a market-oriented economy. It needs to be done. Finally, it is done. We helped to end lawsuit abuse. Securities litigation was passed. Unfortunately, it was vetoed. Telecommunications was passed. A deregulation of telecommunications which give us some of the kind of new opportunities to communicate that we have never had. Unfunded mandates is something that local governments have been talking about for a very long time. Unfunded mandates reforms were passed this time. Regulatory reform: Unfortunately, the real broad one was killed. I think it should have been passed. A lesser one was passed. Mr. President, we have done a lot of things this time. Line-item veto: A line-item veto in 40 years has not been done. This Congress passed a line-item veto. Congressional accountability: People in this place, now, have to live under the same rules in their offices and in their conduct, the same as everybody else, in the laws they pass for others. Reduce congressional funding, small business regulatory reform, gift ban. Mr. President, I think this has been an extremely successful Congress. The choice with respect to the election is, do we want to continue in this direction, or do we want to go back to where we have been for 40 years in continuing to grow with the kind of Lyndon Johnson programs we have had? That is the choice. It is really the choice. I think, in addition, and perhaps as important as anything, this Congress has changed the culture of Washington. For the first time, I think, in a very long time--certainly for the first time since I have been here in 6 years--the Congress really took a look at programs that exist and said, do they need to continue to exist? If so, can they be done more efficiently? Could they be done more efficiently by the States or local government? These are the kind of things that need to be examined constantly. I have a bill that I hope gets consideration next year which would give us a biannual budget so we do not each year spend all of our time on appropriations bills. As you can see by the leader's comments this morning, we are still working on them, and we will not get them done at all this year. We do that every year. I hope, as most States do, we can go to a biannual budget. It is better for agencies. Then we can spend the last year with oversight, looking at programs, to see if indeed this is a better way to do it. There are a great many things we can do, a great many things we have done. Mr. President, my whole point is, in this election, we make some choices. It is not always easy. It is not always easy to determine where the choices lie, of course. We see all the advertisements, and sometimes you wonder where they are. But I think we have a responsibility to ask, to seek, to point out where these things are. Where do you stand on the balanced budget amendment? Where do you stand on less Government rather than more? Where do you stand on less taxes rather than more? I think those are the basic issues that you and I need to decide. I urge we all do that. There are other issues, of course. The issue of character, I think, is one. I think we have to ask ourselves, what do we expect of leaders in terms of character? As we look back, character has been an important factor, has been a key factor, and continues to be. Mr. President, we have some choices. The choices, frankly, are rather clear. We can go back where we were or we can continue the kinds of things that have been done in this Congress in the last 2 years, and it does need an opportunity to continue. You can't change 40 years of history and turn things around in 2 years. Despite the difficulties, it is my view that this Congress has done exceptionally well and will go down in history as one who has sought to turn the direction of this country. I hope that we continue to do that. I yield the floor. Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 2107, a bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--formerly known as most-favored-nation status--to the products of Mongolia. I am pleased to be joined by the subcommittee's ranking minority member, Senator Robb, and Senator McCain as original cosponsors. Mongolia has undergone a series of remarkable and dramatic changes over the last few years. Sandwiched between the former Soviet Union and China, it was one of the first countries in the world to become Communist after the Russian revolution. After 70 years of Communist rule, though, the Mongolian people recently have made great progress in establishing a democratic political system and creating a free-market economy. Just this year, the country held its third election under its new constitution, resulting in a parliamentary majority for the coalition of democratic opposition parties. Rather than attempt to maintain its hold on power, the former government peaceably--and commendably--transferred power to the new government. Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States on trade and related matters since its turn toward democracy. We concluded a bilateral trade treaty with that country in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994. Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trading status since 1991, and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In addition, it has acceded to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. Mr. President, Mongolia has clearly demonstrated that it is fully deserving of joining the ranks of those countries to which we extend nondiscriminatory trade status. The extension of that status would not only serve to commend the Mongolians on their fine progress, but would also enable the United States to avail itself of all its rights under the WTO with respect to Mongolia. I have another, more personal, reason for being interested in MFN status for Mongolia. Mongolia and my home State of Wyoming are sister states; a strong relationship between the two has developed over the past 3 years. Several Mongolian Provincial Governors have visited the State, and the two governments have established partnerships in education and agriculture. Like Wyoming, Mongolia is a high plateau with high mountains on the northwest border, where many of the inhabitants make their living by raising livestock. I am pleased to see the development of this mutually beneficial relationship, and am sure that the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status will serve to strengthen it further. Mr. President, Congressman Bereuter has introduced similar legislation in the House. While we both realize that it is probably too late in the legislative year to move this bill forward before we adjourn sine die, we hope that introducing the bill now will serve as a starting point to move forward with this important measure early in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 2107, a bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--formerly known as most-favored-nation status--to the products of Mongolia. I am pleased to be joined by the subcommittee's ranking minority member, Senator Robb, and Senator McCain as original cosponsors. Mongolia has undergone a series of remarkable and dramatic changes over the last few years. Sandwiched between the former Soviet Union and China, it was one of the first countries in the world to become Communist after the Russian revolution. After 70 years of Communist rule, though, the Mongolian people recently have made great progress in establishing a democratic political system and creating a free-market economy. Just this year, the country held its third election under its new constitution, resulting in a parliamentary majority for the coalition of democratic opposition parties. Rather than attempt to maintain its hold on power, the former government peaceably--and commendably--transferred power to the new government. Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States on trade and related matters since its turn toward democracy. We concluded a bilateral trade treaty with that country in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994. Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trading status since 1991, and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of emigration requirements under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In addition, it has acceded to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. Mr. President, Mongolia has clearly demonstrated that it is fully deserving of joining the ranks of those countries to which we extend nondiscriminatory trade status. The extension of that status would not only serve to commend the Mongolians on their fine progress, but would also enable the United States to avail itself of all its rights under the WTO with respect to Mongolia. I have another, more personal, reason for being interested in MFN status for Mongolia. Mongolia and my home State of Wyoming are sister states; a strong relationship between the two has developed over the past 3 years. Several Mongolian Provincial Governors have visited the State, and the two governments have established partnerships in education and agriculture. Like Wyoming, Mongolia is a high plateau with high mountains on the northwest border, where many of the inhabitants make their living by raising livestock. I am pleased to see the development of this mutually beneficial relationship, and am sure that the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status will serve to strengthen it further. Mr. President, Congressman Bereuter has introduced similar legislation in the House. While we both realize that it is probably too late in the legislative year to move this bill forward before we adjourn sine die, we hope that introducing the bill now will serve as a starting point to move forward with this important measure early in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I am also pleased that S. 1044 includes a provision requiring the Secretary to give special consideration to the unique needs of sparsely populated rural areas and to give priority to such areas in the awarding of health center planning and operating grants. These provisions will give greater weight in the awarding of grants to such factors as the severe shortages of primary care providers and geographic barriers inhibiting access to care that are characteristic of many areas in the Midwest and West.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as Senator Kassebaum knows, many areas of Wyoming, Kansas, and other rural States in the Midwest and West suffer from severe shortages of primary care providers and services. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you on S. 1044, legislation reauthorizing the community health center program, to ensure that this program is a viable option for rural communities in the Midwest and West. One solution that will help preserve and strengthen access to primary care services in rural areas is a change in the governing board criteria for the health centers. For a number of reasons related to such factors as geography and population density, rural hospitals and other rural providers have had difficulty qualifying for the community health center program because they cannot meet all of the program's strict governing board requirements. It is my understanding that the legislation we are considering today requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive some or all of these requirements if rural providers can show that it is not feasible or practicable for them to meet the requirements. This will certainly make it easier for rural hospitals and other rural providers who would otherwise qualify to participate in the program.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation that would transfer the lands controlled by the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] to the States. This bill is similar to legislation I introduced in the Senate last year, but has a number of very important changes designed to improve the measure and ensure these public lands remain in public hands. In addition, the measure also protects access to these lands after they are transferred to ensure that multiple use activities will continue on them when they become State property. After I introduced S. 1031 last year, some folks misleadingly claimed my legislation would allow the States to selloff the lands that were transferred to them and give them to the highest bidder. False claims were also made that access to these lands for hunting, fishing, and recreation would be limited. These attacks may have played well with the environmental community, unfortunately they have nothing to do with the truth about this effort. Currently, the BLM controls nearly 270 million acres of land in the United States. The agency administers over 18 million acres of land in Wyoming and much more in other Western States. This landownership pattern puts a heavy burden on the people of Wyoming and throughout the West and affects our economy and communities across the West. The bill I am introducing today would ensure that these lands remain public-- only administered by the States rather than the Federal Government. It is also important to note that this bill only deals with lands administered by the BLM. This legislation would do nothing to alter the management of our national parks, national forests, or wilderness areas. Let me be clear, I believe strongly that the State governments can do a much better job of managing the BLM lands in their States. Transferring these lands to the States is a common-sense approach to bring public management of these areas closer to local people. However, I also feel strongly that these lands should remain public and available to folks for a variety of uses. The key is to allow local people to make decisions regarding management of these public resources rather than bureaucrats in Washington, DC. The principle behind my efforts to transfer the BLM lands is to give local people the opportunity to have real input into how these areas are managed. It has never been the intent of any supporters of this legislation to privatize or restrict access to these public lands. Although the opponents of this bill use every scare tactic imaginable, the real issue regarding my legislation is whether you believe land management decisions can be made better by folks in Washington or Cheyenne? This is not a question about making public lands private, this is a question about fairness and who can do a better job of listening to the concerns of local people. I trust the people of Wyoming and the other States to make the proper decisions for themselves. Hopefully, the legislation I introduce today will allow us to begin focusing on the real questions in this matter, rather than the attacks and half-truths used by the opponents of my bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation that would transfer the lands controlled by the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] to the States. This bill is similar to legislation I introduced in the Senate last year, but has a number of very important changes designed to improve the measure and ensure these public lands remain in public hands. In addition, the measure also protects access to these lands after they are transferred to ensure that multiple use activities will continue on them when they become State property. After I introduced S. 1031 last year, some folks misleadingly claimed my legislation would allow the States to selloff the lands that were transferred to them and give them to the highest bidder. False claims were also made that access to these lands for hunting, fishing, and recreation would be limited. These attacks may have played well with the environmental community, unfortunately they have nothing to do with the truth about this effort. Currently, the BLM controls nearly 270 million acres of land in the United States. The agency administers over 18 million acres of land in Wyoming and much more in other Western States. This landownership pattern puts a heavy burden on the people of Wyoming and throughout the West and affects our economy and communities across the West. The bill I am introducing today would ensure that these lands remain public-- only administered by the States rather than the Federal Government. It is also important to note that this bill only deals with lands administered by the BLM. This legislation would do nothing to alter the management of our national parks, national forests, or wilderness areas. Let me be clear, I believe strongly that the State governments can do a much better job of managing the BLM lands in their States. Transferring these lands to the States is a common-sense approach to bring public management of these areas closer to local people. However, I also feel strongly that these lands should remain public and available to folks for a variety of uses. The key is to allow local people to make decisions regarding management of these public resources rather than bureaucrats in Washington, DC. The principle behind my efforts to transfer the BLM lands is to give local people the opportunity to have real input into how these areas are managed. It has never been the intent of any supporters of this legislation to privatize or restrict access to these public lands. Although the opponents of this bill use every scare tactic imaginable, the real issue regarding my legislation is whether you believe land management decisions can be made better by folks in Washington or Cheyenne? This is not a question about making public lands private, this is a question about fairness and who can do a better job of listening to the concerns of local people. I trust the people of Wyoming and the other States to make the proper decisions for themselves. Hopefully, the legislation I introduce today will allow us to begin focusing on the real questions in this matter, rather than the attacks and half-truths used by the opponents of my bill.

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 Oversight and Investigations, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to examine the NEPA decision making process in the federal land management agencies, including the role of the Council on Environmental Quality. The hearing will take place Thursday, September 26, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. Those wishing to testify or who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Kelly Johnson or Jo Meuse at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I feel like we are coming back into a familiar discussion. I do not know how many times just in the last 2 years I have heard the same thing. Fortunately, the Senator can use the same charts, and that is good. That is a saving. Let me tell you a little bit about the Sun family, ranchers in Wyoming. There are about 20 members of this family. They have several places they live on. They run more than 2,000 AUM's. However, when you divide it up by the number of family members, they run about 168 head of cattle per family. That is hardly the millionaires the Senator talks about; characterizes as the West being full of corporations. I want to tell you, come to Wyoming, come to Wyoming and show me all those corporations. Let me tell you a little bit about the Red Desert Grazing Association. These are a number of ranches that go together in association and their lease is one lease; and they have more than 2,000 animal units. But when you divide it up by the families involved, what you are talking about are families, who make up the bulk of this industry, trying to make a living with public lands. This idea of trying to characterize it as being all these big corporations simply is not accurate. It is not accurate. We have been through this before. Let me tell you, No. 1, this is an appropriations bill. We talked about this when we talked about the bill of substance, the grazing bill, which raised the price, which the Senator opposed. We talked about that in the authorizing committee. That is where it is supposed to be discussed. And the grazers--we were willing to raise the price when you change some of the conditions under which grazing takes place. No, now we are going to do it on the appropriations bill, where we do nothing to change the conditions, but we will raise the price; raise the price on family ranchers who make a living in this country. Quite different than in the Senator's State, these lands were homesteaded. The homesteaders took up the river bottoms, they took up the water, they took up the shelter, they took up the winter feed. What we are talking about here are the residual lands that were left, the residual lands left out, away from the creek, the lands they can use in the summer only if they develop the water, which is not true on your land, Senator. So you cannot compare this with the private land in Arkansas. Come out to 7,200 feet in Laramie, WY, and take a look at it. It is a little different, a little less valuable. Come out and see who takes care of the fences. Do you take care of the fences, Senator, on your farm? I think so. You do not take care of the fences on the public land. Do you provide water on your farm, Senator? I think you probably do. You do not provide the water in the West. The guy who leases it provides the water. It is not the same. It is not the same. The Senate already voted on a very similar amendment earlier this year; same thing. We are back on it again. Grazing on public land and private land cannot be compared. Productivity--there are places in my State where it takes more than 100 acres, for 12 AUM. It is very unproductive land. It takes transportation there; you have to take care of the livestock when it is there, you have to ride, you have to take care of predators. Those are differences. Those are differences, and they show up in the costs. Obviously, the price of cattle is very low. These rates that you refer to, which we wanted to raise, are tied to the price of cattle. That is why they are as low as they are. They were higher than that when the price was higher, and they will be higher again. They will be higher when our grazing bill passes. You indicate the grazing bill is done. It is not necessarily so. The things go together. You cannot pick out the price and say let us leave the rest of this stuff, leave it the way it is, but we will raise the price. I do not agree with that. I think it is wrong. There is a major difference between private and public land. Private land pastures tend to be self-sufficient. They have water, grass, fences. They are close enough so everyone can watch them. There are no predators there. Public lands are quite often dependent on privately-owned water. They are not year-round pastures. You have to have private land to take care of them in the winter; you have to have feed, you have to the water, you have to have all these things. You cannot compare that with private lands. Private lands tend not to be intermingled; public lands quite often are. They are also multiple use, you have to provide for hunters--and you should. There is access for hunters, gates are left open. It is not the same. There is a report that was put out by Pepperdine University, which is not exactly a bastion of western grazing, that said a number of things. They concluded at the university: Montana ranchers who rely on access to Federal grazing and forage do not have a competitive advantage over those who do not. Livestock operators with direct access to Federal forage do not enjoy significant economic and financial advantages by using that. As a matter of fact, the Pitchfork Ranch in Meeteetse, WY, has some grazing. What do they get in return? They also run their pastures in the winter, their hay in the winter. That is something of a tradeoff. It is not unusual. They are not the same as private lands. The study also showed that these Montana operators, compared to those who used all private lands, realized less gross revenue per animal unit month, incurred virtually the same operating costs, are subjected to the higher costs of borrowed capital. There are a number of other differences between public lands and private lands. A lot of the public lands have very burdensome Federal requirements, NEPA requirements, land use planning processes. Basically, the States are quite different as well. They look to the lessee to manage the land. It simply is not accurate to say these lands should be the same. They are not the same. There is a good deal more flexibility in private lands or State lands in terms of the management than there is on Federal lands. On Federal lands they tell you how many you can graze, when you can graze, when you are off, when you are on, how many head of livestock we will run. There is an additional fee if you happen to run leased livestock. It is not the same. So, even disregarding the price level, I tell you there are a couple of things that are not accurate. No. 1 is these are not corporate ranchers by and large. No. 2, it is not fair to compare private land leases with public land leases. There are a number of things that ought to be changed. We worked very hard this year to make some changes in Bruce Babbitt's grazing requirements. I want to tell you something. Grazing is part of western agriculture. Livestock is the largest endeavor in Wyoming as it is in most of the Western States. Very many of the ranches there are not independent, without public lands; nor are the public lands able to produce without the private lands that go with it. It is not a matter of just saying we will lease this, we will lease this--these lands are interlocking. These lands do, in fact, go together. We have tried very hard and will continue to try, and we will succeed, in making some changes in grazing. But this is not the way to do it. This is the annual ritual, going through this idea of corporate welfare. I suppose the thing to do would be to start through everybody's corporate welfare. I think there are a few instances that could be talked about most everywhere. I do not think this is corporate welfare. I cannot imagine that term being used in this instance. Madam President, there are an awful lot of things that need to be talked about, but we have talked about them many times. I am not sure it is productive to continue to go on and on about the same things. Let me just make a couple of points in closing. No. 1 is that if we are to talk about grazing and grazing fees and grazing regulations, we ought to talk about the package so that we can make those changes that do need to be made. And almost everyone agrees that they should. No. 2. If you are going to make price comparisons, price comparisons need to be made on the relative value of the product and not on a comparison to something that is not comparable, and that is what they are seeking to do here. No. 3. We ought to deal with it in a committee of substance, a committee that has jurisdiction. The Senator is on that committee. He has been through this argument in the committee and is unable to get support. He has been through this argument on the floor and unable to get support, but we keep coming back. It is the fall ritual. Finally, if we are going to try to deal with family farms and family farmers--that is what we are in Wyoming, that is what we are in the State of Texas, somewhat different in some places. Fifty percent of our State belongs to the Federal Government. Arizona is even more; Nevada, 87 percent. I don't think that is the case in Arkansas. So you need to take into account the fact that our economy depends on the kinds of decisions that are made with respect to policy of public lands. Bruce Babbitt has more to do with the future economy of Wyoming than any person living in the State. That is a shame. I am sorry for that. So when we talk about changes we want to make, I hope you will take into account these are family farmers, these are ranchers just like yours, just like New Hampshire, trying to make a living, not wealthy, not corporations, but trying to have multiple use of those resources so that they do yield not only for them but for the communities that they support. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, as they have in the past, and continue to work for better ways of multiple use of resources, but keep in mind they should be multiple use. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are going to move, later today and tomorrow, to the Department of Interior appropriations bill which is very important to me and to my State of Wyoming. I wanted to talk just a couple of moments about something that is very important to me and very close to my heart. That is the National Park System. Wyoming, of course, has two of what I think are the crown jewels of the Park System, the Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park, as well as several others in our State. Selfishly, they are very important. But more than that, national parks are, I think, a part of our heritage. They are part of our past, they are part of our future, they are part of our economy, and something that I feel very strongly about. Of course, they are funded in the appropriations bill for the Department of Interior. I spent a considerable amount of time in August in the parks, both Yellowstone and Teton. Part of the problem we talked about while I was there is a financial one. It is big business. Yellowstone National Park has an operating budget of somewhere over $20 million, and with other income, more than a $40 million budget. It is a large activity. We will be talking in this appropriations bill about priorities. Mr. President, over time, the idea of priorities, the idea of funding, will become even more difficult. We will have to set those priorities. We will have to set priorities among land management agencies, Yellowstone Park and the Park System, the forest and the wilderness, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM. All of these competed, frankly, for funding. So we have to talk about priorities. Certainly my highest priority in that process is the National Park System. Part of it is my own personal history. I grew up just outside of Yellowstone Park between Cody and Yellowstone. So it has been part of my life. The question, of course, is how we manage these parks. Frankly, we have some problems. We have some problems short term and we have some problems, in my judgment, long term. A part of the short-term problem, of course, we will be facing today and tomorrow. But part of the longer term issues, I think, will be discussed over a period of time, and properly so, because there needs to be some fairly significant changes. Specifically, there is funding for Park Service operations, and in the Senate bill is $1.1 billion. The House is somewhat less than that. This will be about a $75 million increase over last year for the operations of the park. I support that. I hope that we maintain, when the bill is finally passed, the additional funds that the Senate has put in. This is a good first step to deal with some of the problems that we have. But it is a short term solution. What are some of the other solutions? One of them is what was done last year in this appropriations bill, and done again this year, in terms of extending a pilot fee program. One of the ways that, obviously, we can deal with funding for parks is to do something about the fees. Yellowstone Park, I believe, is $10 per car per week. Compared to other recreational activities in this country, that is a very low price, one that has not been changed for a very long time, and one that we ought to take a look at. We have an opportunity to do that now in the pilot fee program that was passed by the Congress, which allows the parks to take a look at their fees, to temporarily extend and increase these fees, if they want to, on a pilot basis, and to keep in the park some 80 percent of the increase. This has been one of the problems for parks like Yellowstone. Much of the revenue that comes in there doesn't stay there. It goes into the pot and is redistributed among all of the parks. So this gives an opportunity, on a pilot basis, to raise the fees, if that seems appropriate, and then to maintain these fees where they are collected-- 80 percent of them--in that particular park. I think it is an excellent opportunity to do this as a pilot program. The problem is, they have had an opportunity--the Park Service--to do this now since early last winter and haven't done it yet. They haven't moved on this program yet. I am disappointed in that. It is not a function of the local parks. First of all, originally, 50 of them were designated to participate in this pilot program. Now the Senate has increased it to a hundred. None has been designated by the Park Service. On the other hand, the Forest Service and, I think, BLM both have already moved on this program and are making some progress with it. When we go to Yellowstone and talk about their needs, the park superintendent there is for it. I called the Director of the Park Service. He is for it, too, but it hasn't happened; it hasn't happened because the Secretary of the Interior hasn't authorized it. That is too bad because that is part of a demonstration, a short-term solution to this issue. Now, I don't think that it's the long-term solution. There needs to be some other things done, some fairly major things. We have talked about them for some time. One of the problems, as you can imagine, is the continuing authorization of more and more Federal parks. Without a definition of what a Federal park really is, I have to suggest that I think a number of the parks that have been authorized in recent times have been parks that, under most circumstances, could just as well be State parks or local parks or community parks, but Members of this body and others want them to be national parks so they are paid for by the Federal Government. So now we have a $4 billion backlog in the service of taking care of facilities that need to be brought up current, but we continue to authorize more and more parks, without being able to fund the parks we have. So that is one of the things that needs to be done, it seems to me-- at least to develop a criterion as to what really qualifies as a national park, what characteristics ought to be involved to qualify as a national park. Another is concession reform. For a long time, we have been seeking to do something about concessions. Now, the concessions are not there to fund the parks, necessarily; they are there to provide services for visitors. But it is true, I think, that we need to revise that. First of all, the concession contracts cannot be removed because we haven't passed a bill that does it. They are operating on a short-term basis. Second, there are instances in which the park should be receiving more money than they are from the concessions. Third, those concession funds probably ought to stay in those parks. That is another thing that we need to talk about and need to change. Many of these changes are acceptable to the people who manage the park, but the Department hasn't moved, and indeed the Congress hasn't moved. There also, of course, needs to be some management changes, as well. GAO has done a study. One of the notable things was that the money that has gone to parks has not gone to the resources that the parks themselves say are the highest priority. That is one of the management problems that needs to be changed. When you set priorities in planning, then it seems to me the funding ought to coincide with those priorities. So there needs to be a lot of things done. I am here to support national parks. I think they are a very, very important thing. I think they have a great future. I think we, as citizens, are willing to pay some more, particularly if we are certain that the fees we pay in the particular park stay in that park to enhance the resources of the park that we like to see. The other is that management, of course, is expected to be good. I think they should implement programs that give it the opportunity to do it, like the pilot program. We are going to need, over time, to continue to set priorities. I have argued from time to time that there is a difference in the public lands. Some of them, like parks and forests, have been withdrawn by the Federal Government for a purpose. There were unique characteristics, and they were withdrawn from the public domain because they are and were unique. Lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management were simply residual lands. Wyoming is 50 percent owned by the Federal Government. The State of the Senator from Idaho is more than that. Nevada is 87 percent owned by the Federal Government. Many of those lands were never withdrawn for a particular purpose. The parks were, the forests were, the wildernesses were. So we will have to set some priorities, over time, on that. So, Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk just a little bit about something I think is very important, and to encourage that the funding for operations of parks, which is in this bill we will be considering, ought to be maintained, despite the fact that the House is somewhat lower. I think that is a move toward the short-term resolution, and then I hope that my associates and I can work toward resolving some of the longer-term solutions over the next 2, 3 years, so that we can make these national parks, cultural institutions, fiscally sound. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I realize this is the time that is under the control of the Democrats, but since there is no one here, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed as in morning business for 6 or 7 minutes.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Georgia for setting up some time to talk about the issue that most of us talk about all the time, and that is taxes. It is an issue we should talk about. It is an issue that cuts very deeply into our lives. We spend an average of nearly 40 percent of our income on taxes at various levels. So it is something we ought to talk about. I think part of the focus today--I talked about this earlier, as a matter of fact--is on the philosophical idea of taxation, whether you have less or more, whether you have smaller government or larger government, and that is a choice. But, more specifically, I think this hour was to look a little bit at simplification, to look a little bit at the difficulty of collection, to look a little bit at some of the debates and discussions that go on with respect to the IRS. Many people are very disillusioned with the IRS, and I do not defend that agency particularly, but I do tell you basically you have to have a simplification of taxation if you are going to have simplification of collection. Probably there is nobody here who would disagree with that. But it never seems to happen. Every year we talk about simplification. Every year we talk about making it easier. But we keep going on. The current tax system is a mess. It is extremely difficult. It is a result of probably 80 years of debate and discussion and, frankly, abuse, by lawmakers, by lobbyists, by special interests--perhaps unintentionally. But, in any event, I think no one would argue with the fact that we have, now, a tax system that is extremely difficult, extremely cumbersome, extremely ineffective and unfair. It is certainly too complex and much too costly. And of course the tax system itself punishes the idea of investment, punishes the idea of incentive, punishes the idea of saving. And all those things go together. I have already mentioned the figures. We pay nearly 40 percent. That is an astounding figure, really, in terms of a working family who--most families are working families--has to work until late May to pay their taxes.