Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004. Agenda S. __, Reauthorization of Vocational Education Act. S. 2158, Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2003. S. 2283, State High Risk Pool Funding Extension Act of 2004. S. 2493, Drug Importation. H.R. 3908, to provide for the conveyance of the real property located at 1081 West Main Street in Ravenna, Ohio. S. Res. 389--A Sense of the Senate that physicians inform prostate cancer patients of the benefits and limitations of prostate cancer screening and treatment options. S. Con. Res. 119--a resolution declaring the week of September 19, 2004, as Yellow Ribbon Suicide Awareness and Prevention Week dedicated to raising awareness about suicide and suicide prevention programs. Presidential Nominations To be a Member of the Board of Directors of the National Board for Education Sciences: Jonathan Baron, of Maryland; Elizabeth Bryan, of Texas; James R. Davis, of Mississippi; Frank H. Handy, of Florida; Eric Hanushek, of California; Caroline Hoxby, of Massachusetts; Roberto Lopez, of Texas; Richard Milgram, of New Mexico; Sally Shaywitz, of Connecticut; Joseph Torgesen, of Florida; and Herbert Walberg, of Illinois. To be a Member of the National Council on the Humanities: Herman Belz, of Maryland; Craig Haffner, of California; James Hunter, of Virginia; Tamar Jacoby, of New Jersey; Harvey Klehr, of Georgia; Thomas Lindsay, of Texas; Iris Love, of Vermont; Thomas Mallon, of Connecticut; and Ricardo Quinones, of California. To be a Member of the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace, Maria Otero, of District of Columbia. To be Assistant Secretary of Labor, Veronica Stidvent. To be a Member of the National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board: Juan Olivarez and William Hiller. Public Health Service Nominees: PN 1632-2; PN 1633-8; PN 1634-652; and PN 1511-224.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 2 p.m. in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on pending legislation to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending Committee matters, to be followed immediately by a hearing on S. 519, the Native American Capital Formation and Economic Development Act of 2003.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 10 a.m., on ``An Overview of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226. Witness List Panel I: Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: Helen Bandley Houghton, San Antonio, TX; Jeffrey Thompson, San Antonio, TX; Jeffrey Thompson, Jacksonville, AK; Rita Torres, Surprise, AZ.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families and Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Personnel be authorized to meet for a joint hearing on The Needs of Military Families: How Are States and the Pentagon Responding, Especially for the Guard and Reservists? during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, 2004., at 2 p.m., in SD-430.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 21, 2004, at 2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on how States have responded to military families' unique challenges during military deployments and what the Federal Government can do to support States in this important work.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 21, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 738, to designate certain public lands in Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Lake, Napa, and Yolo counties in the State of California as wilderness, to designate certain segments of the Black Butte River in Mendocino County, California, as a wild or scenic river, and for other purposes; S. 1614, to designate a portion of White Salmon River as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; S. 2221, to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange certain National Forest System land in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes; S. 2253, to permit young adults to perform projects to prevent fire and suppress fires, and provide disaster relief on public land through a Healthy Forest Youth Conservation Corps; S. 2334, to designate certain National Forest System Land in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and S. 2408, to adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in the State of Montana.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following resolution is added to the agenda for the Subcommittee on National Parks hearing for Thursday, July 15, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. S. Con. Res. 121, a concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the World Year of Physics. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Sarah Creachbaum at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Utah. Certainly, the impact of the economy on all these things is a little hard to determine and easy to make political. I hope we can understand and stick with some of the economic elements that are there and then deal with the political ones that go with it. First, let me say I am a little disappointed in the way we are moving in the Senate, frankly. We don't have many days left to deal with a number of issues. Frankly, I think we have about four or five issues that we ought to be dealing with. One, of course, is the difficult one called the budget. Some people out there say: Why do you fool with it? You don't pay any attention to it anyway. That is not true. It is a way to protect spending within the limits of the budget. If you don't have one, that makes it difficult. Appropriations, of course, must be done by the end of September in order to continue to deal with the things we must do. I believe our energy policy, where we are going in the future, ought to be laid out. That is one of the most important issues we have before us. And as the Democratic leader said this morning, the highway bill has the most direct impact on the creation of jobs of anything we could do, and we have completed all the efforts on that for some time. I am certainly hoping that we can move forward. Unfortunately, we have been held up by this idea of having unrelated amendments to every bill. We ought to fix that issue. When we are on an issue, we ought to stick with that issue and have only amendments that are pertinent. But that is not the case, of course. We use every bill as an opportunity to bring up something totally unrelated, and that has been a problem. In any event, I will discuss a little while this morning something that is related to what we are talking about on the Senate floor. It isn't part of the bill, nor do I expect to put it in as an amendment, but I think it is something that is quite important to the legal system, particularly as it affects decisions vis-a-vis public lands. Of course, being from Wyoming--the Presiding Officer being from Alaska--a large percentage of our States is public lands. So how decisions are made with respect to those is very important. Furthermore, we find ourselves with an increasing number of lawsuits. Unfortunately, we almost have ourselves in a position of managing through lawsuits as opposed to managing based on good decisions. I would like to talk a moment about venue shopping. We have been steamrolled in Federal land issues by judges who are thousands of miles away from the area where the question is raised. Specifically, these courts have systematically denied access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. We have national parks to protect them, and at the same time, so that people can enjoy them and have access to them. Those are the important things. Special interest groups that have different feelings about it like to search out over the country for a venue where they think they can go that will give them the best opportunity to succeed in the lawsuits that they have filed. Environmentalists tend to go to a venue in Washington, DC, for a more sympathetic court than those courts they are closest to and deal with the issues that are there. This action, of course, is contrary to the system of circuit courts, judges thousands of miles away from disputes involving certain impacted areas. Those lawsuits should be tried in the courts of primary jurisdiction because they are the courts that are there. We have had a real problem in Yellowstone National Park. The district court judge here in Washington decided to move back again on something that we thought was resolved. The Park Service had asked for relief from Judge Sullivan's December order because it would have left an impossible decision. It then moved back to a Wyoming court where it belonged, a Federal circuit court, of course. So now we find ourselves with 2 years of indecisiveness which means we have not made a decision. People don't know whether they can go into Yellowstone Park in the winter. I have introduced legislation that would limit the ability of individuals to venue shop. Federal land issues arising in a particular State ought to go to that circuit court in which the Federal judges there are involved. These Federal judges have the same qualifications as anywhere else, and that is what Federal courts are for. That is why we have different venues. So it is important. Access to public lands is very important to our State and certainly we need to exercise the system that has been set up. The Federal judiciary is a system of circuits. Wyoming is in the Tenth Circuit. Unfortunately, this system now allows people to go around the Tenth Circuit and go to another place where they think they will have better success. My friend from Montana is here. I hope and I am pushing for a bill that says you ought to go to the circuit in which the problem arises for the Federal court jurisdiction. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the implementation of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, Public Law 106-181. The hearing will take place on Thursday July 22, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact: Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Sarah Creachbaum at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 15, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1852, to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin; S. 2142, to authorize appropriations for the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trial Route, and for other purposes; S. 2181, to adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado; S. 2374, to provide for the conveyance of certain land to the United States and to revise the boundary of Chickasaw National Recreation Area, OK, and for other purposes; S. 2397 and H.R. 3706, to adjust the boundary of the John Muir national Historic Site, and for other purposes; S. 2432, to expand the boundaries of Wilson's Creek Battlefield National Park, and for other purposes; S. 2567, to adjust the boundary of Redwood National Park in the State of California; and H.R. 1113, to authorize an exchange of land at Fort Frederica National Monument, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Sarah Creachbaum at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to engage with the distinguished Senator from Virginia regarding some of the measures included in this very important bill. First, I want to commend the Senator from Virginia for his tireless efforts in managing this bill. He is always very fair and considerate, and his outstanding leadership is appreciated. Mr. President, I am concerned that some amendments adopted by Unanimous Consent may have a negative impact on the President's Competitive Sourcing Initiative, and ultimately adversely impact the President's ability to administer the bureaucracy of the Department of Defense. As a longtime supporter of a more accountable and responsible federal government, I strongly support President Bush's competitive sourcing initiative which seeks to improve the way federal agencies operate. However, I recognize how critical it is in these times of war that we move this bill quickly and not allow it to be held up further by partisan politics. So I do not object to accepting these measures in the larger interest of getting a Defense bill through the Senate. Every president for the last 50 years, Republican and Democrat alike, has endorsed the elimination of commercial functions in the federal workforce, but their plans were not vigorously implemented or enforced. As a result, nearly half of today's civilian federal workforce is doing work that could be done more efficiently by the private sector.

Mr. THOMAS. That's correct. The Clinton Administration did the first inventory and found that more than 850,000 Federal employees out of 1.8 million were in jobs that were commercial in nature. The federal government was paying individuals to do jobs that could also be found in the Yellow Pages. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration did not follow up. These positions should have been reviewed and solutions explored to return these jobs to where they belonged--the private sector. Unfortunately, there were no follow up reviews. It was only when George W. Bush was elected that a program was implemented to actually do the reviews of these 850,000 positions. Competitive sourcing could then be employed to see if it would be more effective and accountable to have these activities performed by the private sector. Contrary to misinformation by some of our colleagues and labor unions, competitive sourcing is not about eliminating or privatizing federal workers. Simply put, competitive sourcing, which relies on the A-76 Circular for public-private competitions, is a useful tool that allows federal agencies to evaluate whether or not commercial functions should be performed in the future by federal employees or the private sector. As it is now, many federal employees who work in commercial functions are stuck in inefficient bureaucracies performing activities that are non-inherently governmental. The competitive sourcing process is good government. As numerous independent reports to Congress have shown, competitive sourcing saves taxpayers between 10 to 40 percent--regardless of who wins. The record is that every position reviewed by competitive sourcing shows savings regardless of whether that position stays in-house or gets contracted. Federal employees win an overwhelming majority of the competitions. But clearly, the taxpayer is the real winner in this process. Inefficient monopolies that waste taxpayer dollars and divert much-needed federal resources from our government's most pressing programs should always be examined. There are activities which are inherently governmental, and should be performed by the government. No one would argue this. However, government should not be engaged in activities which are already offered in the private sector. As we look for ways to reduce its size, cost and scope, we need always remember that government should be the provider of last resort with the free enterprise system being the provider of the first choice. To do otherwise is a disservice to the American taxpayer. Would the Senator from Virginia agree with us?

Mr. THOMAS. I do. The amendment offered by Senators Kennedy and Chambliss would all but eliminate use of the streamlined process contemplated under the revised Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. This process applies to competitions of 65 or fewer full-time equivalents. By making the use of A-76 competitions arbitrary, as opposed to strategic, the Department of Defense's necessary flexibility in procurement is removed. The amendment also includes provisions designed to give in-house employees unfair advantages over the private sector in the competitive sourcing process and makes it difficult for small businesses to be competitive in job contests. Unfortunately, with the country at war, I'm afraid that these measures would be very counterproductive, costly, and present unnecessary hurdles for the Department in this very crucial period of time. In fact, the Administration, in a statement of administration policy issued by OMB, has declared its opposition to any final defense measure that limits DOD's competitive sourcing flexibility. The White House has, in fact, threatened to veto this bill if it contained these provisions. I am sure the distinguished Senator from Virginia is well aware of the importance the President places on this issue.

Mr. THOMAS. I think it is very important that we revisit these proposals. In the interest of moving this defense bill in a time of war, we have forgone an important debate. So I thank the Chairman for his attention to this matter and again say to him that I appreciate his strong leadership. Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 24, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2543, to establish a program and criteria for National Heritage Areas in the United States, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Sarah Creachbaum at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I was very pleased to hear about the leader's trip to Iraq. Having been there several months ago, I think things have changed some, certainly. I think they are even stronger there than they were and things are better than we hear about here. So I say to the majority leader, I am delighted you were there.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are faced now with a relatively short period of time to finish our work for this year. We are down to a certain number of weeks--not very many--to do many things. We have a short time to finish the jobs that need to be finished. So I wish to comment a little on some of the things I have been thinking about in terms of the broader aspect of what our responsibilities are in the Senate. In the Senate, we are faced, of course, with many and varied issues. We have to deal with all kinds of things that happen and all kinds of issues that are brought up which are very legitimate. I guess this is my point: Our job is also to define the kinds of issues that are appropriate to be handled in the Senate, to be handled in the Congress, to be a part of the Federal activity. Sometimes I think we find ourselves having all kinds of issues come up in this Chamber which one could question as to whether this is the role of the Federal Government. Of course, our basic decisionmaking comes from the Constitution. But the Constitution is obviously fairly broad in its terms, so there is always a different kind of feeling, a different definition for what are the appropriate roles, the appropriate issues in which the Federal Government should be involved. I guess I am sometimes reminded that the Federal Government is only one of the functions that we have in this country to carry out the leadership and the activities for our country. It is the United States of America, so that the Federal Government's role is to bring together those things that affect a number of States, and the States to do those things that are involved in their State. They are closer to the people in the State. We also, of course, have county governments. We have State governments, and we have city governments. We have nongovernmental units. We have voluntarism. We have all kinds of things that are there. One of the elements of our work is to decide what should be treated as legitimate Federal issues and the kind with which we should be concerned here. I think we are challenged every day with that kind of definition. I am not going to try to cite all the different ones that come up, but I can tell you there are things that come up that you would have a hard time saying: Hey, that is the role of the Federal Government to decide. It is particularly appropriate to bring this up, after having spent the weekend celebrating Ronald Reagan's work as President and the job he did in leadership. His basic thought, you remember, all through his whole involvement was less government rather than more and wanting it to be more efficient rather than less efficient. So it does seem appropriate that we talk about those kinds of things as we go about our struggle. We are involved now, for instance, with the establishment of a budget. Frankly, a lot of people say: What do you want a budget for; you don't pay any attention to it anyway. That isn't true. The budget is kind of that definition of where we are going, and the Federal Government has some control in that if you go beyond the budget in the appropriations process, which often happens, then there is the defense mechanism that you can raise a point of order where it takes 60 votes to get it passed. So it is interesting to me that now we are having time for the budget. In fact, time for the budget has actually passed. Remember, this is the fiscal year that ends at the end of September, and we are supposed to have all of our appropriations finished by that time. To do that, you really should have a budget. And we are here on the cusp of having a budget, yet with some fairly insignificant differences why we are held up and don't have one. I was struck the other day by reading a little quote from James Madison. He said: In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. That is difficult, a large event like we have in the Federal Government, to control the size and the activities of the Federal Government. So I think in many ways it has grown beyond what most people would have envisioned in years past. Whenever there seems to be a problem here, now we have continued to create the notion that you need some money for this, you need some money for that on the local level. Let's get the Federal Government to pay it. Then, on the other hand, we say: taxes are too high. Why should we be paying this much? So there is this built-in contradiction that is always there. But we need to take a look at the dollars spent. We need to take a look at the size of the Federal Government, the number of employees in the Federal Government, the number of agencies we have, and more difficult than anything else is to kind of keep track of the number of programs that are funded by the Federal Government. It is difficult sometimes. One of the difficulties is programs become established, and they continue. Times change. What was appropriate to do 10, 15 years ago may not be appropriate now, but it seems to be very difficult to ever do anything about the programs that exist, that sort of perpetuate themselves. So I think it really is interesting to deal with this issue and, again, to think about the role of the Federal Government. We are doing something in the committee that I chair, the Parks Subcommittee, where we have more and more heritage areas. We find ourselves having heritage areas most everywhere, and you get a little advantage locally. I understand that. But we are trying now to put down the definition of what a national heritage area ought to be. There are State heritage areas; there are local heritage areas; and then there are national ones, each of which has different characteristics. So these are the kinds of things at which I believe we have to continue to look. As we have grown, I wanted to bring a little exhibit. I asked the general services office to make for me a list of all the programs that are federally funded. This is the book of federally funded programs. I am not saying they are not all excellent, but I am saying this thing continues to get bigger, continues to get larger, continues to have more and more programs and not much of an effort to go back and evaluate them to see if they are still appropriate, to see if they need to be changed, to see, indeed, if they need to be there. We don't really evaluate as closely as we might the new programs that are thrown out there, whatever they may be, to see, is this an appropriate thing for us to do at the Federal level or, indeed, should it be done somewhere else. So I have been feeling fairly strongly about this point. I am not sure we all recognize the size of the things that we do have. For example, how many employees do you suppose there are in the Federal Government? Quite a few? Yes, about 1.9 million. It has gone up the first part of this administration, and now it went down by about 29,000. Now it is 1.861 million employees. And they are good employees, I understand that. I am not critical of the employees. But I am saying this is the size of the Government. We try to do some things to hold down the size, to hold down the spending. Maybe even more importantly is to keep Government as close as can be to the governed. I think we see this regionally quite a bit. I happen to be from a State in the West, a small population State. The kinds of programs, the kinds of administration, the kinds of governmental activities you need in our State are quite different from what they are in New York City or in Philadelphia. So having it closer to the people allows for the kinds of changes that need to be there. We are concerned about spending. Indeed, we should be. We spent, last year, about $826 billion on discretionary programs, not defense and those others. As a matter of fact, nonmilitary spending last year was up 8.7 percent over the last 2 years. So that is an awful lot of dough. At any rate, I just couldn't resist the idea of saying, let's take a little look at each of these programs, and let's see if they are still current, if they are still doing the job they were designed to do, if they are appropriate to be done on the Federal level as opposed to some other level of government, and what can we do to make them even more efficient. I was very impressed over the weekend with all of our recognition of President Reagan, his efforts to sort of do some of these things, keep them as small as possible, keep them as appropriate as possible. I think it is a job that we have as well, and one that I hope we will take up with more vigor. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to join other colleagues in talking about President Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator, the great humanitarian. I will lie down and bleed awhile, and then I will rise and fight again. Ronald Reagan quoted Sir Andrew Barton's words after returning home from campaigning against Gerald Ford. Poignant words for a man who just 4 years later was elected the 40th President of the United States. The Nation and the world have lost a great treasure. Ronald Reagan was a master wordsmith, an international diplomat, a man whose genuine humanity gave Americans and people around the world a new sense of self-worth. He loved America first and foremost, so we stood behind our leader, our captain, our coach--to win one for the Gipper. Ronald Reagan held a deep devotion to principle, sought peace through strength, and encouraged everyone to believe in their convictions. He had a keen intellect, but he was underestimated by his critics. He disarmed many naysayers with his quick wit, crooked smile, thoughtful words, and a jar of jelly beans. He will forever be remembered by ending the cold war. His words ``Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall'' echo in our mind's eye. Known as the Great Communicator, his philosophies changed the political direction this country was taking. His domestic policies gave us a smaller government rather than a larger one. These are just a handful of changes that will be the legacy left by Ronald Reagan. Certainly, we can all be very proud of the leadership he has given and follow the example he left behind. Beneath the steely smile, Ronald Reagan was a cowboy. Westerners remember Reagan for his love of horses, his Wrangler jeans, his cowboy hats, something we all appreciated out West. In fact, in 1968, Ronald Reagan came to Wyoming to speak to the Wyoming Republican State Convention in Cheyenne. Clarence Brimmer, now a U.S. district judge in Cheyenne, remembered the cowpoke from California who delivered a motivating speech. He said recently: He was really outstanding, not just as a speaker, but in a cowboy suit he was really sharp. He wowed all the ladies. The passing of Ronald Reagan has brought about a great deal of grief for all of us in the country and throughout the world. But through his dignified leadership, universal diplomatic skills, and his energetic persona, Ronald Reagan established a legacy that will live for generations to come. We should take pride in his life, in his accomplishments, and recognize what he left us--the great dawning of a new America. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 5 or 6 minutes in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take a minute this morning to talk about an issue that has been of some concern for us in Wyoming, as the Presiding Officer knows, for some time; yet we have not been able to move forward on it. It has to do with work permits that allow people to come and work for a seasonal time, for a relatively short time, in our case, generally, for the tourism around Yellowstone Park. In that business, they have offered these jobs to anyone, of course, over the years, but they have been filled largely by people coming from other countries--mostly Mexico--for a fairly short period of time on what is called an H-2B visa. This is a category of visa that allows for seasonal and temporary nonagricultural workers to come. These workers are employed in all kinds of industries that include fisheries, timber, hotels, restaurants, and others. Even ice skating shows have been talked about recently. Businesses must file a petition with the State department of labor to certify that no local workers are available. They have always done that, of course. Workers are certified for a specific period of time. When that time has expired, they must return to their home country. I think this program has been in place for a good long time. I think it is one of the unique ones where there has been a record of returning. One of the problems is--and this has come up as a problem, of course, in the last several months or a year--there has been a lot of conversation about illegal immigrants in this country, and properly so. There has been a great deal of conversation about outsourcing and paying less because you can get people to come from other places. Those things are true, but they are not applicable in this particular instance because, No. 1, these people are certified to be here. They go back when the time is over. In the past, they have been able to come back on the same permit over a period of time. It has kind of worked that way. The wages have been reasonable wages paid in these particular areas. It is a fact and it is true that the jobs are not always the kind of jobs that a lot of young people want in our country. They are working in hotels and motels; nevertheless, they are jobs that are available and reasonably paid. I think, though, because of the situation we have had and other kinds of problems with immigrants and illegals, this has become a more realistic issue than it would have been otherwise. This year, the number of H-2Bs was capped, and the number happened to be 66,000 per year. The fact is, this is really the first time that cap has been enforced. It is the first time people have ever thought in terms of a cap. Much of it had to do with the timing. People were talking, as our folks do in Jackson, about the summer season. They had not worried too much about doing this until the spring when they have traditionally done it; and it turns out that because of the cap, those numbers had been reached in other places. Therefore, it excluded the involvement of any more H-2Bs. This is not an issue that is unique particularly to Wyoming. Other States, such as New Hampshire, Maine, Alaska, Virginia, Ohio, and North Carolina, have specifically spoken out as we have about the problem that exists in Wyoming. Last year, they had petitions roughly for 1,800 workers in Wyoming. About 1,600 went, as I mentioned, to Jackson Hole. So we tried to find a solution to this situation because it seemed, more than anything, to be a question of timing. If we are going to have a limit, that is fine, but the limit ought to be known so that people, if they are going to need workers in the summer, can make application at an appropriate time earlier in the year so that the timing is not an issue. That is the way it has been this year. So for the last number of months, since we all heard about this--the first was in March before we even knew about the limit--the Senators and staff have been working to address this issue in a fair and consistent manner, to make good immigration policy. None of us are looking for illegal immigrants who are trying to extend illegal opportunities. This is a program that has been in place, has been useful, and has been legal. These are legal people who come and then they return, so the question of illegal immigration doesn't really fit in here. So I need to make the point that this is something that we could proceed with. As a matter of fact, there have been opportunities in the Senate to move forward, and many suggestions that have been made are reasonable. I am trying to emphasize the fact that we need to move to do this and not simply write off the 2004 season. I will have to admit it is now very late and people are looking for other ways to fill these spots, and some of them can be, and that is fine. I was in Wyoming this weekend at a place where they have similar seasons. They had set up a parking lot beside this motel where people could bring their trailers and their travel vehicles and stay there during the summer. These were older folks, pretty much retired, who wanted to work part time in the summer, and they would bring their trailer and stay. Some of the jobs can be filled that way, and they are. The fact is, businesses are going to be hurt if we don't do something. Certainly, we need to do that. There are some propositions that have been put forward on the Senate floor. We have had a couple folks objecting to them, so nothing has been done. I think it is time. If people want to change the proposition, they can do that if they are comfortable with it. But we ought to move forward with the problem, which we can fix or require to be fixed or ask to be fixed, so that there is a reasonable opportunity for people to continue in the business of doing the same thing they have been doing, where now they are prohibited because of the timing proposition. So I am hopeful we can continue to take a look at it. If it is too late for this year, I am sorry, but we ought to fix it now. But if we are not able to fix it this year, we will know what we are faced with for the next year. I understand the system in the Senate, but it is too bad when we have something that affects most people, and it can be held up and not allowed to even be discussed and moved forward. I think this is under the leadership of the Senator from Utah. Mr. President, I wanted to share some thoughts on that issue instead of waiting and letting this continue to be a problem in another season. Perhaps there is still time in some cases to be of assistance in this season. It is a plan and a program that has been in place and has worked over the years. We need to continue to allow people to participate in that plan. I urge us to move forward and address the problem and make some kind of solution and not let it just die out and impact visitors, as well as employees and employers, in places such as Jackson, WY, and other places where people come for the summer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 931, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to undertake a program to reduce the risks from and mitigate the effects of avalanches on visitors to units of the National Park System and on other recreational users of public land; S. 1678, to provide for the establishment of the Uintah Research and Curatorial Center for Dinosaur National Monument in the States of Colorado and Utah, and for other purposes; S. 2140, to expand the boundary of the Mount Rainier National Park; S. 2287, to adjust the boundary of the Barataria Preserve Unit of the Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in the State of Louisiana, and for other purposes; and S. 2469, to amend the National Historic Preservation Act to provide appropriation authorization and improve the operations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Sarah Creachbaum at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to take some time in morning business to talk about one of the things that impacts us all, that we all see as we come to work each day or whatever we do in our day, and that is the cost of energy, particularly gasoline. It has an impact on all of us, certainly, something that affects not only you and me in our cars trying to get to work, but also the cost of other services and merchandise we buy, because there is an additional cost to development of all those things when gas is as high as it is right now. It is a difficult thing to deal with because it is an item that over time we have expanded in our use, and we have begun to use a good deal more than we have in the past. We have increased our consumption, but we have not done the same thing with the kind of support facilities necessary to meet those increased demands. Again, one of the issues is not only gas or electricity, but it is the whole issue of energy in a broad sense, certainly, and energy policy that has to do with the long- term availability of energy to meet the demands we have. Again, I point to the fact we have not been able to move an energy policy in the Senate in order to deal with the future. We will hear a lot of complaints, probably today, about something that ought to be done. The real important thing is, we ought to do something about the policy so over time we can make some of the changes that need to be made to change the whole situation with energy over time. Obviously, there are a number of activities that need to be done. A lot of factors affect fuel price and supply. One of them, obviously, is the cost of oil. Crude oil is at historic highs right now. In the past, we were accustomed to seeing crude oil at about $22 a barrel. We talk about it when we make plans. It is now nearly $41. It has increased a great deal over the last several months. It is very important to understand that the cost of oil represents almost 50 percent of the cost of gas at the pump. There are other costs, of course, but this is the major cost. Interestingly enough, the cost of crude oil, plus the taxes, represents a little over 70 percent of the cost of gasoline. So when we talk about these costs, of course, that has to be one of the factors. Also, there are less refined gasoline imports, as gas, not as oil, because of sulfur regulations. Over the years, we have had a reduction in the number of refineries. It seems strange, doesn't it; as demand has gone up substantially, the number of refineries has gone down. It is true that capacity has not changed that much because the refineries have gotten larger, but they have not increased the capacity over time. In the late eighties, we were using about 85 percent of capacity of refineries. Now it is about 94 percent of capacity being used, and the demand, of course, has gone up over that time. There has been a continual closure of refineries over the last 23 years, and so the system is now very tight. In addition to capacity, we have had a lot of different regulations and different kinds of additions to gasoline in different parts of the country so that refining has been made much more expensive and much more difficult to market in that they have to have this kind of reduction here and another one for this State and so on. It has been very difficult. The reality is that there are a number of components to the price of gasoline. We have to review those in context. We will be hearing probably soon that the Government ought to be taking oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is there to be a reserve and has been put together over a period of time. The fact is that the daily input into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is about 170,000 barrels a day, and the consumption in this country is almost 9 million barrels a day. It is a relatively small amount. There may be some merit in diverting the daily input into this reserve, but I certainly think it would not make a lot of sense to extract from it. It will be interesting to see what happens with respect to this issue. The fact is that the current price, when adjusted for GDP or growth in the economy and inflation, is not at a record high. In the 1980s, as a matter of fact, given the same economics, the price of gas was higher than it is today. However, since it has gone up from $1.50 to $2, that is a sudden impact. The 1981 price, if it is measured against today's economy, would be over $3. We have to be realistic about where we are. The most significant factor, of course, that affects gasoline prices is the cost of crude oil. As I mentioned, it represents almost 50 percent of the cost of a finished gallon of gasoline. Crude oil prices have increased about 60 percent since April a year ago. That is a great increase. The other point is that we have become more dependent on imported crude oil as opposed to domestic production. We have, interestingly enough, less control over that production. The high demand in Asia and the U.S., plus OPEC activities, has restrained production over the years. It is the most important factor affecting prices. Another key factor is increased gasoline demand, and that continues to go up. We can see that each day on the street in the number of cars and SUVs that are using more gasoline per mile than they did in the past. It is interesting; as we are moving in one direction in use and consumption, we are moving in another direction in providing the supply. We have had a crazy arrangement. We have had very little growth in the U.S. in refining capacity. Currently, there are 149 refineries with a capacity of 16.8 million barrels a day. In 1980, there were 321 refineries with a capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day. That has been a conflict in our situation. Of course, there are a number of reasons for that situation. There have been no new refineries built since 1976, and unlikely due, of course, to political considerations, including siting costs, environmental requirements, industrial profitability, and, most importantly, the ``not in my backyard'' attitude which we seem to see in energy. We have over here demand and consumption, we want this service, but over here we say: Oh, yes, but we do not want refineries in our midst, we do not want transmission lines, we do not want the things that are elements of energy, but at the same time we want more of the product. These are some of the problems. They are not easy to resolve, but they are resolvable. We need to take a look at a policy for the future and begin to provide incentives to do what needs to be done, to take another look at some of the environmental controls we have put in place. That is not to say we do not want to protect the environment, but there are ways to do it that are less intrusive on production. There is no doubt that environmental regulations have played a part in increasing the cost of fuel. No one believes we ought to sacrifice the environment. That is not the issue. The question is how can we do it in a more environmentally secure way without putting limitations on production. The environmental and energy policies are interlinked. We must remember, when we are considering new regulations and policies, what impact it is going to have on the result. We do not seem to consider those two issues at the same time. We put on regulations saying we are going to help the environment, not thinking about what impact it has. Now we are at the point where the impact is affecting us, and we say: My gosh, what have we done? What happened here? Why do we have these increased costs? It is pretty clear we need to do some things that are different from what we have done in the past. It is fair to say that many of the folks from the Northeast and California complain about the high prices; however, their delegations over time have supported unilateral disarmament of our energy security by refusing to accept the balance that has to be created. They have opposed offshore drilling, coal-fired plants, nuclear-fired plants, the development of ANWR, leasing and development of minerals on public lands, and hydro relicensing--just a few of the things that have to do with domestic production and transportation of energy. I guess we have to ask, Where do they think energy fuel comes from? It does not come out of the sky. We have to produce it. It is kind of like that attitude that one thinks milk and eggs just come from Safeway. There are some animals behind it. We have to consider the consequences when the Federal Government mandates a certain environmental equation such as a 2-percent oxygenate that is put into gas. We have to be sensitive and realize the consequences so that the decisions we make with regard to those issues have to be balanced with what we need. I hear all of this complaining about it but then we do not seem to recognize the link between Federal regulations and the higher price of gas: the phase-out of MTBE, the tier II gasoline sulfur standards, diesel standards, regional haze. All of these Clean Air Act requirements are going to raise the price of gasoline. There are some things we can do. We have to do something about conservation. We have to find ways that we can use energy more efficiently, and that is possible. It is starting to happen even in automobiles. I come from a State where SUVs are necessary. Sometimes we need a four-wheel drive to get to my house. Where I stay in northern Virginia, pickups and SUVs are all over the place. I do not think they need four- wheel drives very often, but that is fine. We can still make those more efficient. We can take a look at it. We have to do some things over time to fuel cars with other things-- hydrogen, for example. In our energy policy we have the opportunity to take a look at more research and more opportunities to provide alternatives. Gas and oil are not going to be there forever at the same degree they are now. They will be for a good long time if we treat them properly, but there comes a time when we have to look at other kinds of things, and that is what this policy is about. That is why we need to be looking at more than just next week or next year. We have to take a look at what we are going to be doing. We have to modernize our energy structure to make it more efficient than it is now. We have to talk about renewables, whether it be electricity, wind energy, or Sun energy. These are things we need to be doing. We know how to do them in small amounts now, but we have to find out how to do them in volume. We have to find out how to do them in a reasonable and bearable cost, but we can do that if we focus on doing it. At the same time, we can protect the environment. My home State is one of the States where we have a great deal of energy production. We are the No. 1 producer of coal, for example. Well, in order to do that, we have to change things somewhat. We have to do some more research to find out how we can have clean burning coal, because it is the largest fossil fuel available to us. We also are a producer of oil and gas. We have natural gas, of course, which has many uses as energy but we ought to be using coal or nuclear for the electric generation because natural gas is much more fluid. It can be used in other ways and for many other things, where coal cannot. The point I am trying to make is that these are things that are out there in the future but they will not come about until we decide we are going to emphasize a policy with regard to energy and the impact it will have on us over the years. The bill that we have is available to do these things. Unfortunately, we have had some problems of obstruction in getting it done. We need to work on that and acknowledge where we are and where our consumption is. Right now, it is reaching beyond where we are in terms of having a product to provide. So it seems to me it is pretty clear that is the direction we need to move and it is the direction we can, indeed, move. We have a greater opportunity to do that now. I will now take a second to look at some of the highlights of the energy policy bill that we do have. As far as oil and gas, we permanently authorized the Strategic Reserve. We have incentives for producing from marginal wells. As my colleagues can imagine, when wells produce a great deal of product each day everyone is interested in that. When they become marginal, there needs to be some incentives to continue to do that. We have some royalty relief for deep water wells and for our greatest opportunity for these products offshore. We need to take into account the environmental status that we want there. We have to do something about a gas pipeline from Alaska where some of our greatest reserves of energy are. I already mentioned clean coal and certainly there are opportunities for us to ensure that the largest resource, fossil fuel, is available without being harsh on the environment. Indian energy, we have not allowed the tribes to be doing something on the reservations, which many of them would like to do. A lot of people resist nuclear energy. The fact is, we want clean generated electricity. Nuclear is probably the best opportunity that we have to do that. The section is also there on renewables so, again, we can make some progress in terms of being able to utilize some renewable energy sources that will take some of the pressure off of the kind of production that we have now. We have a great challenge. I think it is a challenge to this body to move forward on an energy policy and stop finding reasons to not have one and object to having one. It is the same people who complain about not having affordable energy, and that is kind of where we are. We can indeed change that. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I wish to take a moment to talk about another topic that I think affects us all. I just came back from my home in Wyoming. I heard a great deal of conversation about highways and the highway bill and the fact that we have not yet been able to pass a highway bill, both in the House and the Senate, and get together. The highway bill, of course, under which we have lived for the last 6 years, has expired, and we are doing a month or two extension of time. The fact is, that does not work very well. With some issues I suppose we could continue to do extensions. Building highways and upgrading highways is all done by contracts. The people responsible for highways need to know what their resources are going to be into the future so they can make those long-term decisions for highway construction contracts. We are unable to do that now. The highway bill is one of the issues before us that is time imperative. The Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, has the primary responsibility for putting out a highway bill. We worked on it for a long time. We brought a bill to the floor, and it was passed by this body. It is a very good bill. It is a larger bill than the one that passed out of the House, and it expends more money than the bill from the White House. The fact is, it is based on the money that is available, that is paid in taxes for highways. We find ourselves in a strange situation. One of the issues about which all of us continue to be concerned, with a good deal of success, I might add, is working on creating jobs. There is no short-term passage of any bill that would provide more jobs than the highway bill, and these are contracting jobs, of course, in the private sector. It would be helpful for us in terms of getting those jobs in place. The other is infrastructure. Again, there is nothing more important to the overall economy. Think about what it means in each of our lives, whether it is simply driving home, whether it is the business you are in, whether it is moving products all around the country. All we do is impacted by transportation and by highways. It seems that this issue of highways is more imperative than most anything before us, and yet we have not been able to move it and get it out where it belongs--out to the States. I am becoming more and more concerned about the fact that the Federal Government is getting itself involved in a lot of issues that should not be the focus or the role of the Federal Government. I am going to start pressing to see if we cannot develop a criteria as to what the role of the Federal Government ought to be. That is sort of what the Constitution does, but we stretched it out. In fact, I am gathering up a list to talk about one of these days of all the various funding programs in the Federal Government. All of us will be amazed when we see the numbers and the size of the book involved in listing all those programs. Nothing could be more a function of the Federal Government, since the Federal Government charges a tax on every gallon of gas that we buy, than building an infrastructure system across the country, much of it Federal interstate highways. It is clearly a role for the Federal Government and one for which we are responsible. As we do that, we need to allow the priorities to be set by the States. I do not agree with the House procedure of assigning all the different specialities before it goes out of here, but rather we ought to decide the formula for the allocation among the States and let the States then set their priorities, along with the Federal Government on Federal highways. Obviously, highway systems perhaps in some ways are more important in rural States, such as Wyoming where we have one of the lower populations but have more road miles than any other State. So highways become very important. In other words, when those of us who work in Washington, DC, have to face the traffic, that becomes very important as well. In different ways, all of these needs are out there. We have an opportunity to do a great deal. We have the bill ready to go, but we cannot get the bill to conference so that we can begin to work out our differences. As I mentioned, there are differences among the Senate, the House, and the White House, but that is not the first time that has ever happened. There is a system for putting that together. The system is a conference committee. We cannot seem to get the contractors. The State workers and local governments deserve to be able to move forward and deserve to have a final bill out so those decisions and that movement can be made and so those jobs can be created and our system can be strengthened. The conferees need to be appointed so we can get on the bill. That is all that is necessary now. I know some of us would like to have things differently. Naturally, there are disagreements on bills of this kind, particularly when getting into formulas for the distribution of dollars, but that is true with almost everything and that is what conference committees are for. So we can move forward with that. The benefits that could come from it are second to none. Pretty clearly, we have to continue to have improvements in the system. We find ourselves with more congestion. As time goes on, we will find ourselves with more safety problems. We need to do these things, as well as stimulate the economy. So we need this bill. We need it for safety. We need it for the country. We need it for the energy. We need it to be able to conserve energy by having more efficient highways. We need to move forward on a number of the things that are there. Unfortunately, we have some obstruction going on on the floor. Much of it has to do with seeking to make a point about the election that is coming up. Obviously, caring about elections and politics is not a brandnew thing, but we ought not to have obstruction to moving forward with a system that has been in place for years, a system that does work, a system that does reconcile differences which we always have. We are held up on the energy policy, one that is very important to us. We are held up on class action reform. We are held up on asbestos legislation. We are held up on the approval of qualified judges. We are held up on medical liability protection. All of these issues are so very important. So it really hits home to us when we find ourselves in this situation. As we go about talking to people at home, health care insurance, medical liability being part of that, is one of the issues we hear about, as well as the idea of improving education and highways. Those are the issues in which people are interested. So I urge that we move forward with the system. We have done the work we have to do. In order to get it completed, we have to move on to a conference. We have to move on to reconciliation with the House and with the White House. It is just the system. There is just no reason to hold it up. We need to move forward, and we need to move forward quickly. So I hope we can do that. I suggest the absence of a quorum.