Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I understand we are on energy.

Mr. THOMAS. We need to talk a little bit about energy. I think that is what we are on. That is what we are doing this week. I must confess, I am a little disappointed that we seem to get off on other things that are unrelated when it seems to me that doing something with an energy policy to try and look ahead in this country as to where we need to be on energy is among the most important things that we could possibly do. I understand there are different views about how you do that, and that it is legitimate to talk about those, but I do feel badly when we move off on something that isn't related when we are trying to get this done. I think it is important that we do it. We are obviously ready to move on to health care and Medicare and pharmaceuticals the week after next. But we have been over this now. Last year we worked very hard trying to do something with energy. We passed it here. I think the process that was used was not conducive to a successful finish and, indeed, we didn't have one. But this year we went through the committee. We have already discussed all these issues. We have argued back and forth. Obviously, not everyone agrees, but I think it is hard not to agree that energy is one of the things that affects most of us more than almost anything else that we can do here. It affects whether we have lights. It affects whether we have heat. It affects whether we have an opportunity to use our automobile. And, more importantly, it has a great deal to do with security for this country. So I really feel strongly that we should get on with it. We should come up with an energy policy out of the Senate. We should go into conference committee with the House. Remember, one of the first things that the President and the Vice President did when they came into office was to outline an energy policy recognizing how important that is. Since that time, we have, of course, had more and more unrest and more and more war and terrorism in the Middle East. We have allowed ourselves to get into a position where 60 percent of our oil comes in on imports. We are that dependent, which is very risky. We have seen it move up and down and have different effects over the country when different things happen with regard to energy. Yet we seem kind of lackadaisical about trying to deal with it in terms of policy. Let me emphasize that is what we are talking about here is a policy. In my view, a policy normally indicates that you are trying to look ahead at what you think the situation ought to be in the future with regard to that issue, what it means to your family and to your community and to the country, to try and get a vision of where we want to be in 10 or 15 years with respect to energy. And having established a policy of that kind, obviously, then it becomes much easier and more effective and more useful to measure the things we do in the interim as to how they affect the accomplishment and the realization of that vision and policy that we have seen. I must confess that I am a little concerned from time to time that vision is not always something that has a very high priority in the Senate, and that really ought to be our major concern--seeing what we can do here to accommodate reaching certain goals in the future. So we are talking here about an energy policy that has been drafted, a rather general, wide energy policy that I think is very important. We are talking in this policy about conservation, about ways to save on the amount of energy we have and the needs we have. We are talking about finding alternatives so that we can have access to different kinds of energy than we have had in the past. We are talking about research so that we can do things such as have more clean coal, so we have better air quality with respect to generating electricity. We are talking about the possibility of converting some of our fossil fuels to things such as hydrogen so that we are able to move them about easier, able to have a cleaner environment. And we are able to do all of these things. Of course, very important among all of these is to increase domestic production. We have great opportunities for production in this country. Much of it lies in the West. I happen to be from the West. Our State is 50 percent owned by the Federal Government. Many of these resources are on those Federal lands. Now, we have to do that carefully so that we have a balance between protecting the environment, on the one hand, and using the resources for energy, or whatever, on the other hand. We can do that. It is our responsibility to be particularly careful. We have the largest resource of fossil fuel for this country in the future, which is coal. We have an opportunity to do a great deal with coal. We met this morning in the Environment Committee on finding new ways to set standards for SO2, and for other air quality standards, including mercury. We can do those things. That is what part of this bill is about--moving us forward in being able to produce energy and, at the same time, protect the environment, which all of us want to do. But we need to move forward to be able to do that. We need to have easier access to public lands and multiple-use lands, and have all the other uses as well for energy extraction. Certainly, we won't want to use some lands for that. We will set them aside as wilderness and special use. We have more wilderness in Wyoming than in any other State in the country--except perhaps Alaska. In any event, these are the kinds of issues with which we are faced. They are not insurmountable. As a matter of fact, they are problems to which we have the solution, but we seem hesitant to move forward and get this job behind us. So I hope we will. We have to modernize our infrastructure. Many things have changed. It is not as if energy production remains the same over the years. In years past, in the matter of electricity, you had a distribution area where an electric company generated the electricity for everybody. Now we are finding more and more that we generate electricity one place and the market is somewhere else. So you have to have transmission. We can find more efficient ways for transmission with the kind of research that we do and take the same transmission line and make some changes in it, and it has much more capacity. But you have to move to do that. We find that almost all the generation plants built in the last several years are oil fueled. The fact is, if you really want to look at the future, there are many more uses for oil than for coal. We ought to be using coal for the generation of electricity and oil and gas for other kinds of functions. That makes a lot of sense. But we fail to set the incentives to cause ourselves to be able to do that. After all of our needs for electricity, we find that absent hydro, which makes it about 7 percent, the renewables represent only 3 percent of our electric supply. People keep talking about renewables. The fact is that until we do some more research, making them more efficient, they are not going to be able to have a significant impact. But there is a possibility of doing that. That is what this policy is all about. That is what we need to be doing, is moving forward to find some ways for transmission and to do those kinds of things. We really have a lot of opportunities to move forward, and I think we can do that. As I said, I come from a place where we have probably the richest source of coal. We provide about 14 percent of the coal now of the United States. We are seventh in oil production and fifth in gas production. Those are challenges. And there is really kind of an exciting opportunity to do some more with hydrogen. Take coal and manufacturing hydrogen, which can be used for cars and homes and for many things--probably the cleanest energy we have talked about. There are some opportunities to do a better job with nuclear power. We have States in which about 30 percent of the energy is produced by nuclear power. We have to be able to do more work and research, particularly on waste--probably the cleanest resource for the production of electricity. I am simply trying to say that I understand there are different views about how some of these things are done. Obviously, that is legitimate and we ought to talk about that. But we ought to move forward and get the idea that this matter of energy policy is one of the most important things we can do. We have done something on taxes, and we are going to do something on health care. If we can do something on energy as well, we will have one of the most productive periods we have had for a long time. We have a great opportunity to do that. So I certainly urge that we take a long look at what we are doing and find a way to move forward. Everyone should be given the opportunity to put in their amendments. That is fine. But you cannot keep waiting for days and days to get all the amendments in. We have been talking about this for several weeks, yet we keep hearing, ``We have not drafted our amendment yet.'' If you are serious about an amendment, get it drafted and get it out there. Let's deal with it and move forward in accomplishing the goal we have before us, which is a great opportunity to move forward in this country economically, to create jobs, and to do more for security and make our life better over a period of time, which is something we all seek to do. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Rural Provider Equity Act of 2003'' with Senator Harkin and other members of the Senate Rural Health Caucus. This legislation comprehensively addresses the Medicare payment issues of rural physicians, rural health clinics, ambulance providers, home health agencies, community health centers, mental health providers and other critical mid-level clinicians. The current Medicare program has many payment formula disparities that are biased against rural providers, which result in them being paid significantly less than their urban counterparts for the same services. The geographic inequities that exist within the Medicare program continually put rural providers at a disadvantage and adversely affect seniors; access to a quality health care in these communities. Many physicians are being forced to limit the number of Medicare patients they serve because of poor reimbursement rates. The ``Rural Providers Equity Act'' is necessary to adequately pay physicians to they can continue caring for the elderly. In addition to establishing a work geographic index of 1.0, physicians practicing in federally designated Health Professional Shortage Areas will automatically start receiving the Medicare ten percent bonus payment to which they are entitled. In recognition of the difficulties rural and frontier communities face in recruiting and retaining primary care clinicians; this legislation includes a provision providing tax exemptions to National Health Service Corps, NHSC, loan-repayments. The NHSC provides scholarships, loan-repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in nationally designated underserved urban and rural communities. In the current NHSC loan program, recipients are given money to offset their tax liabilities. If this money was made available, more clinicians would be able to participate in the program and care for the underserved. Home health care agencies and ambulance services are critical elements of the continuum of care in rural areas. These providers face unique circumstances in the distances they are required to travel to provide services. The current Medicare payment system does not make adequate adjustments to reflect the reality of rural and frontier health care. The ``Rural Provider Equity Act of 2003'' recognizes the situation of these providers by increasing their Medicare payments to better cover their costs of providing services to seniors. By caring for folks in underserved areas, rural health clinics and community health centers are a key component of the rural health care delivery system. As not every small town can sustain a hospital, we need to ensure these types of facilities are paid adequately and are provided enough flexibility to meet the health care needs of the communities they serve. The ``Rural Providers Equity Act of 2003'' also permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for services provided to seniors. This will result in an increased choice of mental health providers for seniors and enhance their ability to access mental health services where they live. Rural seniors are often forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a mental health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today--compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists are able to bill Medicare for their services. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming has 174 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 263 clinical social workers for a total of 474 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of this provision will more than double the number of mental health providers available to seniors in my state with the addition of 528 mental health counselors and 61 marriage and family therapists currently licensed in the state. Health care in rural America is at a critical juncture, and Congress must act now so providers receive this down payment towards Medicare equity to ensure rural seniors continue to have access to the health care services they deserve. I urge all my colleagues interested in rural health to cosponsor the ``Rural Provider Equity Act of 2003.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, although it is morning business, I will talk about the energy policy we will be considering later today and for the rest of the week. I am delighted we are going to work on that. We have been working on an energy policy for some time. We worked on it last year and passed it in the Senate and the House. Unfortunately, the system we used did not produce results and did not go through the committees; therefore, we had problems when we got to the conference committee. This year, we are back again and more committed to complete our work than we were last year. We should be. When we think about life, work, and the economy, what is more important than energy? Whatever we are doing, wherever we are, whether we are driving, riding, reading, cooking, energy is consumed. It is certainly something we need to think about, how it affects our lives and what impact we can have on energy. What we are talking about is an energy policy. It is important to remember that. We are not talking about an issue that needs to be resolved, a part of the energy issue that needs to be resolved this week or this month. We are talking about an energy policy. As we talk about it, I am hopeful we can try to see a vision of where we want to be in the future, what is necessary to be successful in the future, and that we can set this policy in terms of what we need to do 10 or 15 years from now. As we move toward that and make immediate decisions we can gauge whether or not these decisions are useful in achieving the goals we have set for ourselves. I think it is very important that we take a look at all the aspects of energy. We have gotten ourselves into a position where we have to rely about 60 percent on imports of oil from an area in the world that is very unsettled. So I think it is important that we take a look at conservation, that we look at alternatives, that we look at research, that we look at domestic production, so we can find a policy for the future. As you will recall, one of the first things President Bush and Vice President Cheney moved toward when they came into office was to set an energy policy, to begin to look ahead at what we need to be doing. They still, of course, are very involved in that. To achieve the kind of lifestyle we want in the 21st century, we have to have reliable energy and a clean environment. These two needs are not necessarily conflicting. We have to deal with them so they do fit together. They can. We need to modernize conservation. We obviously use more energy than is necessary. Sometimes we could make those changes just by our use. We can make changes by using different kinds of equipment. We need to modernize our infrastructure. Energy production has changed over the years, whether it is gas that is produced in the West and the markets are in the Midwest or in the East, where you have to have a way to get it there. We see more and more energy produced by merchant generators, ready for markets a good ways away from the generator, where you have to have transmission. We have to increase our supplies. We are going to be using more and more energy, of course. That includes renewables. Excluding hydro, now renewables only amount to about 3 percent of our total energy use. That is not very much. There are great opportunities to do more. As we do it, we need to upgrade and increase our improvements for the protection of the environment. Of course, the thing that has become much more apparent to us lately is the need for security. So as we talk about energy, we have to look at security. We have to achieve energy independence for our economy. Certainly we will feel much more comfortable if we are less reliant on importing what we use. Oil and fossil fuels produce about 85 percent of the energy used in the United States. As I said, if you include hydro, then renewables get up to about 7 percent, but it is still a relatively small amount. There is more we can do about that. We have needed a policy. I come from a State that is sort of a foundation for much of the energy we use, particularly fossil fuels, gas and coal. Wyoming is a place where there is a great deal of that. We are third in the Nation in coal reserves. We provide 14 percent of U.S. coal. We rank seventh in oil production. We have reserves as well for oil and gas. So we have to do some things a little differently than we have. For instance, coal is our largest resource of fossil fuel. If we are going to use it increasingly, as I think we should, particularly for the generation of electricity, then we need to continue to work to make it clean. We need to have clean air. We need to have clear skies. We can produce cleaner-burning coal or in some instances we are looking at ways where perhaps you take coal and produce hydrogen. That makes it a little easier to transport. It makes it cleaner. Those are things we have to look forward to, and that we can do. Regarding the carbon that escapes into the air, we are looking at ways of carbon sequestration, putting it back in the ground. We can do that. But we have to have more experiments; we have to have more research. We have to have goals as to where we are going. In terms of infrastructure, I mentioned if you are going to move electricity, you have to have transmission. I understand that often transmission is not what people like to have in their backyards. Nevertheless, it has to be there. We had a good example of the problems with that in California a couple of years ago, where you knew the demand was there, the supply was somewhere else, and you had to get it to the market. As I mentioned, our attempt last year to move into some of these areas did not succeed. We did not go through the process as we have this year. We have had hearings. We have had committees. I thank Senator Domenici for keeping us on the right track to do that. So what kind of policy? We need to have some fuel diversity. We need to have different kinds of fuel. We are looking at hydrogen; I suppose we are looking at solar; we are looking at wind power. Many of those are available but, frankly, they are not economical at this time. We have to do that. We have to strike a balance, as we move forward, with the environment. So there is much that can in fact be done. In this energy policy we will be considering, we have a title on coal. That is mostly to do some experiments on how that can be used cleaner or how it can be transformed. We are going to do something with Indian energy so the reservations can produce more energy than they have in the past. Some people kind of freeze up when you talk about nuclear energy. The fact of the matter is, in some States, 30 percent of their electricity currently is generated by nuclear. It is probably the cleanest fuel we have. We have to work on the storage of the waste from nuclear, of course. We have great opportunities to do some things with renewable energy. I think we need to be a little careful in setting mandates that we are going to be at a certain place at a certain time because that can turn out to be very expensive and difficult. Regarding fuel efficiency, we can work on that in cars or whatever, and make them much more efficient than we have now. I mentioned hydrogen. The President indicated he thinks hydrogen is one of our best opportunities for a movement of alternative fuels. He has put money in his budget for hydrogen work. I am very hopeful that we do commit ourselves to coming up with some solutions with regard to energy policy. I am a little concerned it is sort of on the base here and we will be moving off to other matters. I hope in this 2-week period this becomes our highest priority, that we continue to stick with it until we have accomplished the goal we set out to accomplish, and that is to have an energy policy for the Senate. Second, I hope it can be a policy, not a great number of details, but a view in the future as to where we are going to be, and then do the things that are necessary for us to get there. I am delighted we are going to be moving forward in this area. I yield the floor and 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: June 3, 2003 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. 268, authorizes the Pyramid of Remembrance Foundation to establish a memorial in the District of Columbia and its environs to honor members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have lost their lives during peacekeeping operations, humanitarian efforts, training, terrorist attacks, or covert operations; S. 296, to require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress regarding the requirements applicable to the inscription of veterans' names on the memorial wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; S. 470, to extend the authority for the construction of a memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr.; and S. 1076, to authorize construction of an education center at or near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. 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. committee on indian affairs

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. June 10, 2003 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. 499, to authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish in the State of Louisiana a memorial to honor the Buffalo Soldiers; S. 546, to provide for the protection of paleontological resources on Federal lands, and for other purposes; S. 643, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the University of New Mexico, to construct and occupy a portion of the Hibben Center for Archaeological Research at the University of New Mexico, and for other purposes; S. 677, to revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; S. 1060 and H.R. 1577, to designate the visitors' center at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona, as the ``Kris Eggle Visitors' Center''; H.R. 255, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to grant an easement to facilitate access to the Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center in Nebraska City, Nebraska; and H.R. 1012, to establish the Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site in the District of Columbia, 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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the hard work they have done. We can go into great details. We have been doing that for weeks. The point is, we have a problem with the economy. Our purpose here is to do something to stimulate that economy. This bill will do that. We have been through all the details. We have been through it in committee. We have been through it on the floor. We have been through it on the conference committee. Now we are back. It is time to do something to create jobs in this country. This bill will do it. I thank the leadership for their help.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. No objection.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South Dakota has merit. I support the amendment. However, the adoption of the amendment to the resolution will require it to be sent back to the House, which would delay the increase in the statutory debt ceiling and jeopardize the payment on time of benefits such as Social Security and Medicare, as well as meeting Government obligations. Ironically, it probably has more threat to payments on Social Security than not doing it. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn, that upon the passage of H.J. Res. 51, the withdrawn amendment be considered offered as an original resolution, that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of the resolution, that it be deemed to have been read three times and, without intervening debate or motion, the resolution be deemed agreed to and the motion to reconsider be deemed to be laid upon the table.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the fact is, it is great to talk about all the options, but the Treasury faces a payment obligation in late May. That cannot be met without an increase in the statutory debt limit. If we amend the resolution, we will have to go back to the House of Representatives and possibly require a conference that would delay it until June. We cannot wait until June. The Secretary made it clear. He has taken all prudent and legal steps to avoid reaching the statutory debt limit. Treasury will only provide room until May 28, as I have said, next Wednesday, in the middle of the Memorial Day recess period when Congress will be out of town. Failure to act puts in jeopardy over $40 billion in Social Security and Medicare benefits the first week in June. I repeat, we have no choice. We must act today. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I move to table the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. I have just a couple of remarks. I think we need to understand where we are. I think most of us do, as a matter of fact. We have heard from the Secretary of the Treasury, of course, on the final action by the Treasury to provide room for the debt limit. It has to be done by May 28, which is very soon. The House has acted. The House is no longer there. I think the amendment we will soon hear about would tide us over until maybe August, instead of doing it for another fiscal year, so we know where we are. There is a very big difference between public debt and the debt held by the trust funds. I will wait until the chairman comes back to go into that in detail. I think those who are proposing these amendments ought to explain how this is going to work, since the House is not there and they have already acted. Of course, it just ruins the system we are in now. The fact is, we need to go forward. I suggest we move on with the amendments. I have to say to my friends that I hope we reject these amendments because it doesn't make sense not to go ahead with what has been passed in the House. We know we have to do it. It has to be there. Then I will be interested, as we go through time, in talking about spending with the Senator from Montana because that has not been something that has been under control on the other side of the aisle. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, can we make sure people know this is a 10- minute vote?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have one comment. The fact that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot meet the bills before we come back is pretty good evidence, and I hope we vote that way.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield back our time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask before the next vote that we have 10-minute votes in the future. I ask unanimous consent the following votes be 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. THOMAS. I object.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. THOMAS. Are we talking about the time limit? I objected to the time limit.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we yield back our time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Recreation Fee Authority Act of 2003. This legislation modifies the congressionally created Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The issue of user fees on public lands is a difficult one. As you know, our Nation's parks and recreation areas are in serious trouble and have significant maintenance and infrastructure needs. The National Park Service alone has roughly a $5 billion backlog in maintenance and infrastructure repair. There are a number of reasons for this funding shortage, including poor park management, congressional inaction and apathy from the American public. Currently, the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program allows the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service to collect and expend funds for areas in need of additional financial support. Agencies collect fees for admission to a unit or site for special uses such as boating and back country camping fees and are able to use 80 percent of the receipts for protection and enhancement in that area. Fees are typically used for visitor services, maintenance and repair of facilities as well as cultural and natural resource management. The remaining 20 percent is used on an agency-wide basis for parts of the system, which are precluded from participating in the Recreation Fee Demonstration program. The legislation I am introducing today allows permanent authorization of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program for national parks, and provides some new flexibility. For example, many visitors frequent national and State parks, but are not allowed to use State and national passes interchangeably. In cooperation with State agencies, the Secretary of the Interior will be authorized to enter into revenue sharing agreements to accept state and national park passes at sites within that state--providing a cost savings and convenience for the visitor. In the past, concerns have been expressed about ``nickel and dime'' efforts where there appears to be a lack of planning and coordination by agency officials. Fee programs under this legislation would be established at fair and equitable rates. Each unit would perform an analysis to consider benefits and services provided to the visitor, cumulative effect of fees, public policy and management objectives and feasibility of fee collection. This review would serve as a business plan for each site so that managers could utilize scarce resources in the most efficient manner. The Recreation Fee Demonstration program was an effort by Congress to allow public land agencies to obtain funding in addition to their annual appropriations. This legislation will help provide resources for badly needed improvement projects and ensure an enhanced experience for all visitors. We need to guarantee our national treasures are available for generations to come. I believe that Congress, the National Park Service and those interested in helping our parks should cooperate on initiatives to protect resources, increase visitor services and improve management throughout the system. Working together, we can ensure that these areas will remain affordable and accessible for everyone. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.