Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will discuss a subject other than what is before the Senate, but before I do that I am pleased we are moving forward with the highway bill. I am on both committees, the Environment and Public Works Committee, as well as the Finance Committee, and we have spent a great deal of time on this. Taking care of our infrastructure and seeking to provide more jobs in a short period of time is one of the most important issues we have. I certainly hope we can move forward and do so quickly. Endangered Species Act Today I will comment on an issue in which I have been very interested, and as a matter of fact, I have a bill pending regarding the Endangered Species Act. I suppose most everyone favors the idea of protecting endangered species. That is something we all like to do. However, it has been in place now for more than 20 years, and frankly it has a different impact in different parts of the country. I come from a State where 50 percent of the State belongs to the Federal Government. We have a lot of conflicting issues, both with the Federal Government and with the State government. It becomes quite difficult from time to time. Like many programs that are in place, I wish, when we pass them, we would say it has to be reviewed again in another 8 or 9 years to see if it is working and make necessary changes. This program needs some changes. It has not worked the way we would like to have seen it work. We need to review programs after there has been time to try them out and see how they will work. What has happened, to a large extent, the emphasis has been on listing, rather than the recovery aspect. As a matter of fact, we have listed nearly 1,500 various species, plant and animal. We have recovered about 12. So the idea and emphasis ought to be, it seems to me, on the recovery of these species and not simply on the listing of them and letting them go on forever being endangered and having to be managed in that way. Part of the problem, of course, has been the idea that anytime somebody is making decisions or regulations with regard to natural resources--in this case, endangered species--they end up in court. Instead of doing it on the basis of science and what is the best decision to be made, we end up in court and then letting the court manage it. It becomes a very difficult situation. I sympathize with those people who are involved in the management of these programs. In everything they do, they can think about what is good for the program--in this case, what is good for endangered species--but, wait a minute: We have to take a look over here to see how we are going to get by the court. I might add as an appendix, one of the difficulties in our case is, we are in the Tenth Circuit Court, and when things happen in Wyoming or Yellowstone Park, or wherever, then they go to court in Washington. There ought to be some sort of limitation to where the issue can go. If the issue occurs in a particular circuit, that is where the judge ought to be, that is where the court case ought to take place. At any rate, that, again, is one of the problems. One of the other problems for States such as ours, where we have lots of public lands--and we have some unique problems that follow along the Rocky Mountain Ridge; and there are 10 or 12 States that have a lot of things in common. And I understand if you are on the east coast or even on the west coast, you don't have much interest in what is happening in our area, but our issues are sometimes unique, so there needs to be a good deal of local input into these kinds of issues to make them workable because there are different kinds of circumstances that appear. One of the listings we had some experience with recently is the so- called jumping mouse in part of the southern part of our State and part of Colorado. It turns out, after about 5 years, that they really did not have the scientific basis for listing these critters at all, and they were not even in the same family of mice that they thought they were. Now we are in the process of going away from that whole thing after this whole problem of people having to manage their lands differently. So obviously there needs to be something done differently. One of the issues we are dealing with at the moment is grizzly bears. What you generally do with an endangered species listing is you try to figure out how many there are, and then you put forward some goals as to how many you would like to achieve in the recovery. We have passed the recovery numbers for almost 10 years in Yellowstone Park--and, of course, the grizzly bears do not stay in Yellowstone Park--but still we have not gotten them delisted. It just seems as if it takes forever to do this. Actually, however, the current specie we are dealing with is the gray wolves. Wolves, of course, were there years ago; then they were not there for a while; and they came back in the 1990s. There was a reintroduction of wolves from Canada into Yellowstone Park. Again, nobody would have guessed they were going to stay in Yellowstone Park, and surely they did not. So now we are in a circumstance where the wolves have moved into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, as well as the park, and there finally has come a time when they have exceeded the numbers substantially to where there is a plan in effect, and hopefully moving into effect, where the three States would set up their own management plan, and then the wolves would be delisted and managed by the States, with certain agreements in there. What we have now is Wyoming has put together a plan--as have Idaho and Montana--and they have been really very tough to deal with. I think last year we had 47 cattle that were proven to be killed by the wolves and at least that many that were suspected to have been killed by the wolves. But the Fish and Wildlife Service does not agree with the plan Wyoming has, so now we are waiting to see if we can get some agreement on that. As a matter of fact, part of the plan was passed by the Wyoming Legislature, but it does not seem to be acceptable. We have met with the Secretary and with the head of the Fish and Wildlife Service to see if we can find some flexibility there, and it is mostly over the semantics of what is in the plan. But the fact is, we do need to get them delisted so the State can have control over their management. That is really where we are. I guess my point is, we have a program that all of us would like to maintain. We like the idea, but it is not working very well, and yet it seems to be very difficult to do anything about it. Sometimes it seems to me when we pass a bill, we ought to say it ends in 5 years and has to be renewed so that we can take another look at it at that time. First of all, times change; secondly, sometimes it is not managed properly and it could be changed. Anyway, we have not done that. I have a bill introduced--introduced for several years, as a matter of fact which we have not been able to move. Oversimplified, it simply says when you list a critter or a species, you have to have scientific information. You have to have a real basis for doing it, and the people who list it have to provide some scientific data so that a jumping mouse is really a jumping mouse. And the second part is that at the time of listing, there also has to be a plan for recovery. That really has become the problem. It is easy to list. People can send in recommendations for listing, and suddenly it happens, but there is no real plan as to how the recovery is going to take place, there is no area that it is designed to cover, and those kinds of things, and it becomes really very difficult to get this done. I am going to push once again to get this done. Senator Craig and Senator Hagel are cosponsors of the bill. We are going to try again to see if we can get this done. This is designed not to do away with the Endangered Species Act but indeed to strengthen the program so that it will work in more places than it does now. So that is an issue in which I am very much involved. In closing, we have a lot to do this year. It seems a little frustrating sometimes that we have difficulty in moving forward. I wish we could really take a look at where we are, to try to set some priorities as to the kinds of issues with which we want to move forward. We end up with endless debate, which really keeps anything from happening. We end up with unrelated amendments being put on bills that keep us from moving forward. I think everyone here would say: Hey, our job is to accomplish some objectives. I understand there are different views, and that is why we vote. But the idea of just simply resisting moving forward, the idea of resisting going to conference, for example, certainly is not a good way to manage here in the Chamber. Of course, politics in this place is not a brand new idea, but we have gotten so that everything we talk about is related to the 2004 Presidential election. Well, that is not really why we are here. We have different views. We ought to reconcile those views or at least decide what the majority seeks to do here and do that. Also, I think most of us generally have the notion that we ought to try to make the Federal Government smaller rather than having it growing. Yet that does not seem to be what we do. We resist talking about competitive outsourcing, doing any of these kinds of things. We need to have some rules related to our spending so we are limited in what we do. We are facing a deficit now that none of us like. I think it is justifiable because of all the emergency things we have been in, but now is the time to do something about that. We need to do something about adding issues to bills when they go to conference committee that have not been passed by either House. This is not the way things ought to be done. So I hope--and I know our leadership is working on this--we can see if we can move forward some more on the priorities of things we ought to be doing and ought to have done. We are in the midst of one now that everyone agrees we need to do. We need to move forward and do the things that are before us that we all want to do, and that is to make this a stronger country, and not have an overbearing Federal Government but have an equal division of responsibility in determining what the role of the Federal Government is as opposed to local and State governments. So, Mr. President, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak as in morning business. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Missouri. I am glad this conversation is going on. Certainly there isn't anything before us that is more immediate in need and more important than this highway bill. Not only is it a matter of infrastructure, of course, that we necessarily need, but it is also a matter of providing more jobs more quickly than anything we can possibly do. Someone said this morning at one of our meetings that they will wait until next year to use the money. Not at all. I think many of the highway departments similar to Wyoming where I am from are ready to go. They are ready to contract. They can move very quickly. I think it is terribly important that we move forward on this. I hope before we are through that we have a thorough discussion of the bill. But I hope we don't get off into a bunch of irrelevant amendments that really do not belong in here but are simply trying to be used as a carrot and a stick. That is not the way it ought to be. In any event, this is a very large bill and it is very detailed. We have talked a lot about the details. I want to talk a little more generally about it. This bill, of course, has gone through several committees. The EPW Committee, of which I am a member, is the basic committee where a great deal of work was done. This is the same committee that dealt with the previous bill 6 years ago, a bill, as it turned out, that worked very well. There is a great deal of detail here, but the detail has to be done in committee, and we need to now talk about the principles and to move forward with it. The bill as reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee would authorize $255 billion over 6 years beginning in 2004 to fund the Federal aid for highways, highway safety programs, and other transportation projects. The last surface transportation authorization was the Transportation Equity Act, called ISTEA. We are moving forward one more time. As I said, it replaces an older one, and indeed actually even before that in the early 1990s, we had this same kind of approach with a gas tax. Each of us pays 18.5 cents a gallon of Federal gas tax when we buy gas. That goes into the fund for the purpose of upkeep of the infrastructure. This bill makes significant progress in streamlining the environmental review and delivery process which, as always, is part of the problem. It encourages communities and project sponsors to consider environmental concerns earlier so things can go together and it comes out as a manageable package. It increases the oversight on the expenditure side. There is a great deal of money here. The highway funds are spent by requiring project management plans and annual financial plans of Federal programs. That is as it should be. Accountability is necessary. Actually, when the Finance Committee then received the bill, the funding from the gas tax was not complete enough to cover what we hoped to do. It happened to be about a 6 percent reduction that had to be filled after it came to the Finance Committee. So we have heard a great deal about that, and I understand most want to fund the highway bill with funds that come from related sources instead of the general fund. I will say a few words about how we are paying with that in the highway bill. The Finance Committee reported out a mechanism for paying for this bill. This mechanism retains the integrity of the highway trust fund. These are truly transportation-related taxes that are now deposited in the highway trust fund. Some of the taxes were previously deposited in the general fund. In other words, the general fund was getting support for transportation-oriented taxes. The Finance Committee finally righted the wrongs. The taxes should have been funding this trust fund for years. Now they will be. In addition, there are exemptions enjoyed by certain taxpayers that diminish the taxes that would otherwise be deposited in the trust fund. These are exemptions that are subsidies that have nothing to do with highway policy. The impetus behind the exemptions was energy policy and tax policy. Since they are not highway policy, why should they have the trust fund bear the burden? No one is taking issue with these exemptions of subsidies but rather the funding structure behind them and who pays. The Finance Committee made changes that the exemptions are allowed, allowing for the highway trust fund to legitimately receive the taxes that have been due for a very long time. The exemptions of subsidies will stay in place but now appropriately become the burden of the general fund. In addition, the Finance Committee went a step further to authorize new taxes to take up the slack in the general fund. The result is that the tax necessary for the highway fund is there and those funds are replaced by new ones in the general fund so there is an equity. I heard several Senators talk about funny money and shell games when describing this mechanism. The fact is that all highway tax money will be paid in full into the highway trust fund--no exemptions; no gimmicks. Any subsidy that certain taxpayers enjoy will stay in place but will be paid from the general fund. Any losses to the general fund will be covered by new offsets that have been identified by the Finance Committee. We are taking some things that should have been going for years into the highway fund--gasohol, gas guzzlers, interest on the trust fund balance, these kind of things that should have been going there--now we put those in the highway trust fund. The general fund does not receive them. To make up for that, we have certain other changes, including the corporation governances, Enron tax shelters, that have been going into the general fund will now be an offset. We are still, then, as a matter of fact, funding this highway fund from those kinds of taxes that were set in to do the job for highways. Certainly nothing is more important than highway and transportation infrastructure in this country. It is very important to everyone. Each State has a little different approach to it. Smaller population States, such as mine, that have large areas, have fewer people per mile and therefore the cost per person is higher to keep up the infrastructure. But it is a Federal and national system so it needs to go across to Wyoming, Nevada, as well as across Pennsylvania and any other State. These are the kinds of tasks that we have undertaken and that have been resolved in a reasonable manner. Obviously, not everyone has the same view. I mention again, certainly in terms of jobs inspiring more development in States and having the jobs come about quickly, nothing could happen more quickly than in the highway fund. These are some of the details that will be talked about here. The fact is, as I mentioned, they have gone through three committees and have been given a great deal of attention. Now we should take a look at where we want to be when this highway bill is through to see if we can move forward in our States to strengthen this infrastructure. I yield to my friend from Colorado.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is one of the most important issues we have had before us. As we look to a year with relatively short time to work on issues, with a large number of issues out there, I think it is important for us to deal with this and to deal with it promptly. I am delighted that we are going to have it up to date and be able to work on it over the next week or so. I have not heard all of the discussions. I am sure I understand what most of them have been because I have been on the Finance Committee. We have finally come to an agreement as to what the funding level will be and what the sources of funding will be. It follows very closely what we came out with in the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which I am also a member. So I am very pleased with what we are doing. Does it suit everybody? Of course not. There are all kinds of discussions about funding source. The funding source is not entirely the gas tax. But the way we work it out, all that additional funding does come from something related to transportation, so I think it is a justifiable way to put this in a spending arena that will help accomplish the things we need to do. I cannot think of anything more important. We have been in a CR since September. I don't know what you heard from your transportation departments at home, but they feel as if they can't move forward, can't do contracting, can't plan on what they need to be doing in the future until they get more assurance of where we are. So it is imperative that we do something here. I can't think of anything more important to our lives, unless it is energy, than transportation. To be able to go with our families, do our work, protect our country--all these things are related, of course, to travel and the highway bill. The interstate system is 50 years old. The Senator from Arizona was talking about the little bill that passed 50 years ago. Times have changed substantially and I believe there is a more comprehensive approach to travel that combines the spending of all levels of Government, which amounts to over $100 billion annually, when you talk about all of them put together. So our share is not the largest, but it is more than we have had in the past. It is a critical time. It is a critical situation. We need to move. As I said, I know there are different views and I understand that. There are decisions that have to be made in this bill in terms of distribution of funding, not only among States, but what is used for mass transit, what is used for pathways, and a number of other safety projects and things of that kind. But, really, our responsibility is to come to an agreement and move forward here and then bring it to the House and get this done. I think, of course, it is also one of the big economic features before us. It creates lots of jobs immediately. But more importantly, it strengthens the whole economic structure so we can develop with other kinds of jobs. I know there is the case about there being donors. Let me talk about a larger State that does pretty well. We have thousands of miles of roads, 27,000 miles of roads, and relatively few people. But lots of people who do not live with us are going through. This is a Federal highway system and it has to move throughout the country. So the decision as to appropriating and adjusting the money among the States is not an easy one. Certainly not everybody agrees with how we are going to do it. In any event, I am not going to take more time. We have learned a great deal about it. Again, one of the most important aspects we have to deal with is the funding that is related to the tax that is assessed on gas. We made some changes on some of the others. I urge Senators to pass this bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS. We have passed a bill there to bring it to the floor. The funding is very close to what the chairman used in our Environment and Public Works Committee. As we said, the direct amount from gas funding was somewhat short, but we used some other things, dollars that were related, and scooted them over from other expenditures into this bill so we are offsetting the costs. We find ourselves with the amount of money pretty much as laid out by the chairman and the chairman's committee. I appreciate very much what he has done and certainly hope we can move forward.

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, February 5, 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: H.R. 1446 and S. 1306, to support the efforts of the California Missions Foundation to restore and repair the Spanish colonial and mission-era missions in the State of California and to preserve the artworks and artifacts of these missions, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1521, to provide for additional lands to be included within the boundary of the Johnstown Flood National memorial in the State of Pennsylvania, 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 Pete Lucero at (202) 224-6293. permanent subcommittee on investigations Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs will hold a hearing entitled ``DOD Contractors Who Cheat on Their Taxes and What Should Be Done About It.'' The Subcommittee's hearings will examine Department of Defense (DOD) contractors who are abusing the Federal tax system by either failing to file tax returns or not paying their taxes. A recently completed General Accounting Office review of DOD contractors found that 27,100 contractors owed $3 billion in back taxes. The purpose of the hearing is to identify the corrective actions that can be taken to ensure that DOD contractors pay the taxes they owe the Federal Government. The hearings will take place on Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 342 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Raymond V. Shepherd, III, Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, at 224-3721. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Under our agreement, we will slip over to that side and then Senator Hatch will be next.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will react to some of the comments, particularly the fact there is emphasis in this bill for help for low income Medicare Beneficiaries. As we move forward, certainly in Medicare the costs obviously are going to get higher as more and more in this generation move into the category of Medicare eligibility. This conference report contains a generous drug benefit for the dual eligible. There is no donut for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. They talk about people being less well off because of this. That is not the case. This bill guarantees all 6 million dual eligibles, the people eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, access to prescription drugs. Under the conference report, dual eligibles will have better access through Medicare, especially since State Medicaid Programs are increasingly imposing restrictions on patient access to drugs. Further, States have the flexibility to provide coverage for classes of drugs, including over-the-counter medicines not covered by the Medicare Program. This bill ensures appeal rights for dual eligibles. Under this arrangement, duals will maintain appeal rights like all those in the Medicaid Program. Dual eligibles are a fragile population, certainly, and are well taken care of in this bill. The conference report recognizes and provides generous coverage for those 6 million beneficiaries. It is time for the partisan rhetoric to be put aside and we approve this bill.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. THOMAS. Without objection.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, first let me thank the chairman of the committee who has worked so hard in bringing this proposal to the Senate floor. Not only has this been a part of his activity lately, but also the Energy bill. The Senator from Iowa deserves a great deal of support for what he has done. I am very pleased to support this first real opportunity that we have had to modernize and strengthen Medicare, the first time in over 30 years. I am a little surprised at how negative some of our friends are in terms of being able to take this opportunity. Nobody suggests everything is perfect in this bill, but there is a lot of good in this bill. It is our opportunity to move forward and put in a program for the future. Congress has no greater domestic challenge than strengthening and modernizing the Medicare Program and providing seniors with access to prescription drugs. Remember that the House and the Senate both passed a Medicare prescription drug bill earlier this year. It has taken Congress years to get to this point. This bill is not perfect, but I don't think we should miss this opportunity to take some good steps in bringing Medicare into line with modern medical practices. We can't allow the opportunity to pass that will give us a chance to provide seniors with prescription drug access. We can't let that slip through our fingers because of partisan politics. Access to new technologies in Medicare currently takes an act of Congress. That is no way to run a program that cares for our elderly. We need to have a modern program in place. We need to improve the quality of care for our sickest seniors and ensure they have access to appropriate medications. The current Medicare Program is outdated and inefficient. There is absolutely no effort to coordinate care for seniors with chronic illnesses with the most expensive prescription drug needs. Over 90 percent of Medicare dollars are spent caring for folks who have already gotten sick, the most expensive type of care. We only spend 10 percent of Medicare dollars on preventive medicine. We need to focus on those folks as 6 percent of the seniors account for 55 percent of Medicare costs. Private plans are already making progress in implementing coordinated care programs. Medicare needs to catch up. This is our opportunity to not only allow for that but to provide for that. It doesn't make sense that Medicare today will pay for extended hospital stays for ulcer surgery at a cost of about $28,000 per patient but will not pay for drugs that eliminate the cause of ulcers, drugs that cost about $500 a year. Another example how out of step with modern medicine Medicare has become is that it will pay many of the costs to treat a stroke which can be as high as $100,000. Yet Medicare does not cover blood thinning drugs that could prevent strokes that cost less than $1,000 a year. We need to strengthen the Medicare Program and provide seniors with the ability to choose the type of health care plan that fits their individual needs, protections against catastrophic health costs, and assistance in purchasing necessary prescription drugs. We also have to ensure rural seniors have access to the same choices as urban seniors. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan has proven to be a good model for giving folks the same health plan choices no matter where they live. I plan to monitor the implementation of the new Medicare Advantage plans, PPOs, to ensure that rural seniors have access to the same type of choices as urban seniors. While it is true this bill currently fits within the $400 billion that has been set aside in the budget for Medicare, we all have concerns that it will cost more money than we anticipate. It is important that we monitor spending carefully or we will be placing a huge burden on our children and grandchildren. There are specific cost containment provisions that do the following: Trustees are required to notify Congress when general revenues are used to fund 45 percent of the Medicare Program. If this situation is reported 2 years in a row, it is called Medicare funding warning. After a Medicare funding warning is issued, the President must submit a proposal to respond within 15 days of submitting his budget. An expedited legislative process is then laid out. So it has taken years for Congress to agree to spend this $400 billion in Medicare. It could easily take another decade for Congress to learn how to control Medicare spending.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. As I said, I happen to be cochair of the Senate rural health caucus. We have worked on provider equity issues for a very long time. We have introduced over time several pieces of legislation with our rural colleagues that comprehensively address the payment disparity in the Medicare Program for rural providers, hospitals, physicians, ambulances, home health agencies, and rural health clinics. The majority of our health care plan has been incorporated into this Medicare prescription drug plan that is now before us, thanks very much to the chairman and ranking member. I am extremely pleased with the rural health provisions and thank Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus for their work. The rural hospital provisions in the Senate Medicare bill will make the equalization of the standardized amount permanent to hospitals; it will equalize Medicare disproportionate share payments. These payments assist hospitals where a large number of uninsured patients show up; it will lower the labor-related share from 71 to 62 percent. Hospitals with fewer than 800 annual discharges will receive a 25- percent increase. It strengthens the Critical Access Hospital Program. In my State, for instance, many of the small towns cannot afford full- service hospitals, and we are moving toward critical access. This does a great deal with that issue. The bill provides flexibility within the 25-bed limit for acute care and swing beds. Not only is this a general movement forward with regard to Medicare and pharmaceuticals, but it does level the playing field for urban and rural areas. I ask my colleagues to keep the big picture in mind as we debate this legislation. Seniors need assistance with prescription drugs now. Also, our rural health care delivery system cannot afford to wait for Congress any longer. This bill is not perfect. No one said it is. We have concerns about the cost, but as I stated, we have plans to monitor the PPOs, to monitor the costs, to ensure seniors in rural areas have choices. I do not believe we can walk away from the opportunity that is now on the table and its importance to seniors and providers. For these reasons, I strongly support the proposal before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Utah for 3 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we have agreement we would yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Utah and then 5 minutes to the majority whip.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, my understanding is that the Senator from New York will be next. Following that, because we have taken shorter times, we will have two speakers in a row--the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, could the Chair tell us how much time remains on each side?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman from Iowa.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am excited about the opportunity we have today to finally, after a number of years, come forward with a broad, encompassing policy for energy. We ought to give a little thought to where we will be in the future as individuals, as families, think about the energy we use, the energy we need, where it will come from. Our demands go up, yet we do not really have a policy. Nothing is more important to the economy than having accessible energy and jobs. This bill creates a great number of jobs. It is a policy on conservation. It includes the types of equipment we use. It includes renewables, with a good many dollars spent for renewables. We talk of alternative fuels. We talk of hydrogen. We talk about domestic production. It does not roll back the economy despite what is being said on the floor. It does conserve. We have conservation methods included. What is most important in terms of the environment is a good deal of research for coal development so we can have energy from our largest fossil fuel, coal, and do it in a way that is clean for the air. We will hear that it amounts to politics regarding MTBE, which is a very small aspect of this. We need to have an energy policy for our country. We must have an energy policy. Now is our opportunity to have an energy policy. Certainly we ought to at least be able to vote to have an up-or-down vote on this issue.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the final conference report to the FAA reauthorization bill, I would like to take a moment to thank Chairman McCain and subcommittee Chairman Trent Lott, for their assistance regarding a provision that is very important to my home State. For years, I have been working with the FAA and the Jackson Hole Airport to reduce the noise that is produced by older private jets. As some of my colleagues know, the Jackson Hole Airport is the only commercial airport that is located in a national park. Since 1983, the Jackson Hole Airport has operated under a ``land use agreement'' with the Secretary of the Interior. This agreement requires the airport to implement technological advances to reduce aircraft noise. However, the FAA has prevented the airport from instituting a Stage 2 restriction on older ``noisy'' private jets even though the Air Noise Capacity Act of 1990 includes a provision that allows folks to enforce pre-existing noise control measures. Currently, only a small portion, 2.6 percent, of the airport's operations are conducted by older noisy jet aircraft. However, these old noisy jets have a disproportionately high noise impact on Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge. Because the FAA has failed to recognize the grandfathered status of the Jackson airport, I offered an amendment to the Senate version of the FAA reauthorization bill. On June 12 the Senate unanimously agreed to my amendment. I am thankful for Senator McCain's and House Chairman Don Young's understanding regarding the need to protect Grand Teton National Park and the National Elk Refuge from the high levels of noise that older private jets produce. The provision is supported by the Jackson Airport Board, Grand Teton National Park, the Town of Jackson, Teton County, and U.S. Department of the Interior. Mr. President, the Jackson Hole Airport is a commercial service airport located on Federal land within Grand Teton National Park. It operates under a long-term lease agreement with the Department of the Interior. That agreement contains noise control measures, including cumulative and single event noise limits, and requirements for an airport-adopted noise control plan. Section 825 of the conference report authorizes a commercial service airport that does not own the airport land and is a party to a long- term lease with a Federal agency, such as the Department of the Interior, to restrict or prohibit Stage 2 aircraft weighing less than 75,000 pounds, to help meet the noise control plan contained in its lease. It is my understanding that the conferees did not intend to limit application of section 825 to only those noise control measures that are expressly referred to as ``plans,'' but intended the term to refer to the range of noise control requirements and standards imposed by these Federal lease agreements.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take some time on this bill. I think we should perhaps divide the time up a little bit here.