Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act.'' This legislation is a common sense proposal which will limit additional Federal land acquisition in the public land States. Throughout our country, the Federal Government continues to acquire greater amounts of land. It is time to stop the growth of the Federal Government and begin to protect private property. This is especially true for those of us living in the West. Roughly 50 percent of the land in my home State of Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government. Many other western States have an even higher percentage of Federal ownership, including Nevada and Alaska that have over 80 percent of their surface land owned by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not always been a good neighbor to the people of the West. The Federal land management agencies continue to acquire vast amounts of land and restrict access to these areas for multiple use purposes. This creates great hardship for local communities, destroying jobs and depressing the economy in many areas around the West. The time has come to curb the Federal Government's insatiable appetite for additional land in the United States. The ``No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act'' is a reasonable approach to stopping the ever- increasing growth of Federal land ownership. This measure requires the Federal Government to release an equal value of land when it acquires property in States which are at least 25 percent federally-owned. Property would be released at the time of the new acquisition, and land disposal would not necessarily have to come from the same agency making the acquisition. In addition, the legislation includes a provision waving the disposal requirement in time of war or national emergency. During my time in Congress, I have worked extensively to protect unique public lands such as national parks and other special areas. This legislation would do nothing to limit our ability to acquire more of these pristine and special areas in the future. Unfortunately, the Federal Government's quest for more land has included too many areas that do not contribute to our natural resource heritage. Rather, acquisitions often simply lock-up areas that should remain private and productive. It is time for Congress to protect the rights of private property owners and instill some restraint in Federal land acquisitions. The ``No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act'' is a reasonable proposal that will provide this much needed discipline. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act.'' This legislation is a common sense proposal which will limit additional Federal land acquisition in the public land States. Throughout our country, the Federal Government continues to acquire greater amounts of land. It is time to stop the growth of the Federal Government and begin to protect private property. This is especially true for those of us living in the West. Roughly 50 percent of the land in my home State of Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government. Many other western States have an even higher percentage of Federal ownership, including Nevada and Alaska that have over 80 percent of their surface land owned by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not always been a good neighbor to the people of the West. The Federal land management agencies continue to acquire vast amounts of land and restrict access to these areas for multiple use purposes. This creates great hardship for local communities, destroying jobs and depressing the economy in many areas around the West. The time has come to curb the Federal Government's insatiable appetite for additional land in the United States. The ``No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act'' is a reasonable approach to stopping the ever- increasing growth of Federal land ownership. This measure requires the Federal Government to release an equal value of land when it acquires property in States which are at least 25 percent federally-owned. Property would be released at the time of the new acquisition, and land disposal would not necessarily have to come from the same agency making the acquisition. In addition, the legislation includes a provision waving the disposal requirement in time of war or national emergency. During my time in Congress, I have worked extensively to protect unique public lands such as national parks and other special areas. This legislation would do nothing to limit our ability to acquire more of these pristine and special areas in the future. Unfortunately, the Federal Government's quest for more land has included too many areas that do not contribute to our natural resource heritage. Rather, acquisitions often simply lock-up areas that should remain private and productive. It is time for Congress to protect the rights of private property owners and instill some restraint in Federal land acquisitions. The ``No-Net-Loss of Private Lands Act'' is a reasonable proposal that will provide this much needed discipline. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to express our nation's thanks and gratitude to a young man and his family from Rock Springs, WY. On April 14, Private First Class Joseph Mayek was killed while serving in Iraq. PFC Mayek was critically wounded by an armor piercing round that appears to have been discharged from an M2 Bradley fighting vehicle. While the circumstances of this incident are still under investigation, I hope the final report will provide information that can help us understand how this happened. PFC Mayek was a vibrant young man who loved being outdoors and enjoyed sports. During his senior year at Rock Springs High School, Joseph played split end and cornerback for high school football team. Soon after graduating in 2001, he joined the United States Army. Upon completion of basic training he was assigned to C Company, 2nd Battalion, 6th Infantry Regiment in Germany. President Bush recently addressed the Nation to declare victory in the Battle for Iraq. This was a monumental task accomplished by the dedicated people and their families who serve in our Armed Forces. America's men and women who answer the call of service and wear our Nation's uniform deserve respect and recognition for the load that they alone must bear. Our people put everything on the line everyday, and because of these folks, our nation is more secure and remains strong in the face of danger. We say goodbye to a son, a soldier and an American. Our Nation pays its deepest respect to Private First Class Mayek for his courage, his love of country and his sacrifice, so that we may remain free.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, first, let me ask unanimous consent that it be in order to add the following signature to the cloture motion filed on May 1.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it has been mentioned this morning, of course, that we are going to move forward this week to deal with energy policy. I must tell you I am very pleased that that is the case. We have worked very long and hard to develop an energy policy to bring it again this year before the Senate. As you recall, we had one last year. It went into conference and we were unable to bring it up. I think it is certainly important that we do that. Of all the issues that are before us, I expect it may be one of the most compelling-- compelling because it is something that is of vital importance to this Nation. Probably more people are affected by energy than most any other service. We have the Middle East situation, of course. Over time we have gotten ourselves in the position where 60 percent of our oil imports are a matter of importance because we have become very dependent. It was almost 2 years ago that the President of the United States and the Vice President, Dick Cheney, and their task force, came up with energy recommendations. This is one of the first issues talked about. Since that time, it has become even more compelling partly because of the unrest in the Middle East. Also, partly because of the result in Iraq, I think people now are more aware of how important it is for us to have an energy policy. The President said we need to have an energy policy for the future, but, of course, one that also meets the needs of today. I think we can do that. I think we can develop a policy which deals with the problems we now have, but, more importantly, we should try to get a vision for the future--15 or 20 years in the future--and see what we have to do, and where we would expect to be at that time and then measure what we do in the interim with respect to accomplishing those goals. We do have to make changes. We have to make changes in most everything. But I have to tell you that in the case of energy, perhaps change is more apparent and more obvious and more compelling than most of the other issues with which we have to deal. We must modernize conservation. Obviously, what we need is a balanced policy but one that deals with conservation, one that deals with alternative fuels, one that deals with research, one that deals, of course, with enhancing domestic production, and other issues. But those certainly have to be the basic elements of our energy policy as we look forward. There is much that we can do. I can recall a number of years ago in Casper, WY, meeting with an energy group. I don't remember who it was. But I remember they said that we have never run out of an energy source. We have continued to change. We used to have wood. We used to have coal. We had oil, we had gas and nuclear, and we continue to change. But it takes some forward thinking to do that. It takes some research to do that. It takes an effort made to bring about the changes that are necessary to provide Americans with a very important element of their support. We need to modernize our infrastructure. Obviously, situations change. We are going to have production, for instance, in gas. In my State, we have a great deal of supply and a source. In order to get it to a marketplace, you have to have pipelines. You have to have transportation. The same is very much true with electricity. The largest source of fuel for the future and for which we have a resource is currently coal. You have to move that resource to the consumer. You can either move it as coal in a railroad car, which is very inefficient, or you can produce energy at the mine site and then move it to the consumer in transmission lines. We have not kept up with that. We are beginning to feel the consequences of that very much. We have to increase our supplies of energy. We are doing that, of course, by having new places to drill, new places to extract, new places to find different alternative fuels that are available, frankly, very little of which has become really commercial in nature. If you exclude hydro from renewables, then only about 3 percent of our energy comes from renewable sources. That is not very much, so it is going to take a while. It is going to take research. It is going to take much action to make sure we get those actually in the homes in America. Renewables are very important. We have to accelerate our plans and our efforts to protect the environment as we do this. I think everybody wants a balanced energy policy, a balanced policy which says, yes, we need to produce more of our own energy in whatever way. As we do it, we have to protect the environment. Again, in my home State of Wyoming, that is very important to us. Fifty percent of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government, so most of the resources there, such as oil and gas and often coal, are on Federal lands. We need to be able to produce this energy in such a way that you can also have wildlife, you can also enjoy the environment, as well as production. Frankly, we have shown you can do that. We need to make that activity become even more workable by doing more research. The bottom line, which I have already mentioned, is, in our national security, to be less dependent on having to look somewhere else for the energy that is necessary for us to remain secure and prosperous. It is not only part of security; it is also part of economic stability and economic growth. We have been trying. I mentioned we tried last year, but our attempts failed. We worked very hard at it, as a matter of fact. We had bills out of both the House and the Senate. After some controversy on both sides, we went to committee to put them together and were never able to come up with a solution. Now we are back again. That process was flawed. Basically, the committee of jurisdiction, the Energy Committee in this case, did not work through the bill before it came to the floor. Quite frankly, it is very difficult to be successful on the floor unless you can come to some agreement in the committee prior to that. We had no hearings, really. We had no markups. But it has been different this year. We have a chairman who has worked very hard--the Senator from New Mexico. We have a bill that is ready to come before us, and one we really need to work on. Again, certainly it is essential to completing this war activity we have been in, to really having stability in our own country so that we have somewhat of an energy independence. We may not be totally independent, of course. There is nothing wrong with bringing in fuels from other places, but we should not allow ourselves to be 60 percent dependent on that. The development of resources is essential to economic growth and that is what we are looking for now, at the same time we are looking at ways to stimulate the economy to create more jobs. I can tell you, the movement in the energy field is one that allows us to do the same thing. We need a balanced approach. I have mentioned that. Some people think, oh, my gosh, all you are going to do is take oil wells out there and start drilling everywhere. That is not the case. We are looking at conservation. As we look at our own lives, there are many ways, if we make some changes in what we do, we can reduce our demands on energy. We can shift our demands on energy to those things that are more available. Think about it at home. Are there any ways in which we could have appliances where we could do things a little differently and have them use less energy? I think that is true. We are all looking for ways to increase mileage in our automobiles, and there are ways to do that. I have to tell you, I think it is a mistake to mandate certain action over a period of time because that becomes very expensive and also puts a real halt on us moving forward. But what we ought to do is have incentives so that we do work toward having more conservation. Fossil fuels, of course, are our biggest supplier now of energy and will be for some time. Again, for instance, in the case of coal, we have a great abundance of coal, and we have done a great deal to make it more clean to help with climate change. But we can do even more. In the coalfields in Wyoming there is an effort to begin to put some emphasis on hydrogen. Hydrogen can be made with coal and water, and hydrogen can then be used much more efficiently in terms of the movement of the fuel as well as using it for automobiles. We can do that. Natural gas, of course, is one of our very important resources. Again, we need to be able to move that. We need to be able to use it at the highest priority and use these fuels where we get the best bang for the dollar. That is what we are seeking to do: to give some diversity, to utilize the domestic resources, to have an overall energy strategy. I think too often--and we are a little guilty of that right here in the Senate--we get into one of these issues and we start talking almost entirely about today's problems and solving the problems we have or our constituents have out there right now. That is fine, and we need to do that. But this is a policy. This is designed to give us a roadmap to make changes over time. Again, electricity is a good example. Years ago, when you had a distribution area, you had a city or a county, and you had an electric supplier that provided for that group. They had a generating plant and a distribution system, and it was all contained right there in the city or right there in the county. Now 40 percent of energy is generated by what you call merchant generators that do not do distribution, but they sell it to distributors. Of course, to do that, you have to have transmission lines that move the energy around. So things are changing, and we need to keep ahead of change the best we can. There are also great opportunities for doing something with nuclear power, which is one of the cleanest sources of power we have. We will be talking about doing some things with Alaska, for example, whether it is pipelines or ANWR. So I just want to say, Mr. President, we are going to be spending a considerable amount of time on energy in the next several weeks. Our goal, hopefully, in the Senate is to get through with the program by Memorial Day. The House will be moving forward as well and has a program that is ready to go, pretty much. Part of this, of course, will be in the area of tax incentives. As I said, what we need to do is provide incentives for people to do better, to have better ways of drilling, to do better in geological surveys, and so on. Part of that will be a tax title that has been passed out of the Finance Committee. And now the energy bill has been passed out of the Energy Committee. So we are ready to go. I am hopeful we can come together. I know there are going to be different views about what we do on conservation, what we do about ethanol, what we do about alternatives, but all of those must be resolved if we are to come forward with something that will be good for our country in terms of an energy policy. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. We are in morning business?

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I take a moment to talk about at least one of the pending matters. Certainly our focus is, and should be, on what is happening in Iraq, supporting our troops, so we can support whatever needs to be done now as this war, hopefully, comes to a successful conclusion. In the meantime, of course, while we are aware we are not yet at that point, we have to continue with strong support and praise of our men and women. In addition, business goes on. Despite our interest in terrorism, despite our concern and support for Iraq, our lives continue. An important issue is energy. We have been through this a number of times before, and the unrest in the Middle East has something to do with it, although it is not the exclusive reason. We need to find ways, as we look forward, to supply ourselves with our electricity needs. Energy is at times taken for granted. We do not pay attention to it. Lights, automobiles, food--everything has to do with energy. As we all know, we depend on imports for 60 percent of our energy. Availability is threatened, from time to time, but economically we are better off producing here. We are in the process of working on an energy policy. Last year, Members may recall, we began with no energy policy. For various reasons--organizations, committees did not get to the work--we had no policy. When we talk policy, we are talking broader than the details; we are talking about a vision, where we need to be and the best way to get there over a period of time. I know how difficult it is because we deal with issues before the Senate on a daily basis. However, the most important function of the Congress and the Senate is to make policy. Others do the details and the implementation. Our emphasis ought to be on where we want to go, where we want to be over a period of time and, in broad terms, how we get there. We are now in the process, I am pleased to say, of coming up with an energy policy. Hopefully, it will be a broad policy that will include what we think our needs will be and then talk about how we get there. The policy will include, certainly, research. There will be new ways of generating energy for ourselves. We will be using different kinds of energy over time, including hydrogen. Certainly we will be looking at conservation. There is no question there are many ways we can save in the amount of energy we each use; we can reduce our demands on energy. There will be emphasis on alternative means, including hydrogen cars, and perhaps hydrogen for other purposes as well. Most importantly, in the short term, we will look at increasing domestic production of energy. We have the resources in our country to have considerably more energy made available than we do now. When we do it, for instance, in the case of coal, one of the largest resources of energy we have, we have to continue to look for ways to produce it in a clean fashion so we can have good climate, clean skies. I am hopeful we can continue to emphasize the future, where we need to be, how we are going to get there. We are going to have to recognize things have changed, for instance, in the area of electricity. Years ago, certainly, generators were also distributes of what they generated in their own retail markets. Now we have changed that and 40 percent of the generation is done by so-called marketing generators that do not distribute but sell it wholesale around the country. Obviously, to make that work, we have to have transmission and transportation. That will be something we need as a national grid to be able to move electricity from the source to the area of consumption. That has changed. That is different than in the past. We will find ways to have cars and trucks that are more conservative in their use of gasoline. I am pleased we are moving forward. I just left a hearing where we discussed working on that after our recess, that hopefully we can come together with a sensible policy. I hope we do not get tangled up in every detail but, again, have this oriented toward looking out over a period of time as to how we will provide the necessary energy resources and use them in a clean manner. I look forward to that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act (H-CARE) of 2003'' with Senator Conrad and fellow Senate Rural Health Caucus members, Senators Harkin, Grassley, Johnson, Roberts, Domenici, Daschle, Bingaman, Bond, Lincoln, Cochran, Burns, Rockefeller, Jeffords, Talent, Levin, Smith, Dayton, Snowe, Edwards, Cantwell, Dorgan, Coleman and Murray. As always, it is important to note that rural health care legislation has a long history of bipartisan and bicameral collaboration and cooperation. The ``Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act of 2003'' will go a long way in addressing current inequities in the Medicare payment system that continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. This legislation recognizes the unique needs of rural hospitals and levels the playing field between them and their urban counterparts. Rural hospitals are more dependent on Medicare payments as part of their total revenue. In fact, Medicare accounts for almost 70 percent of total revenue for small, rural hospitals. Rural hospitals have lower patient volumes, but must compete nationally to recruit providers due to the nursing and other health professional workforce shortages. Additional burdens are placed on rural hospitals because of higher uninsured rates in rural America. Also, seniors living in rural areas tend to be poorer and have more chronic conditions than their urban and suburban counterparts. H-CARE recognizes the special circumstances faced by rural hospitals and addresses these issues by equalizing Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, payments. These add-on payments help hospitals cover the costs of serving a high proportion of low income and uninsured patients. Current law allows urban facilities to receive unlimited add-ons based on the percentage of these types of patients served. However, small, rural hospital add-on payments are capped at 10 percent. H-CARE eliminates the Sole Community Hospital and small rural hospital caps, bringing their payments in line with the benefits urban facilities received. This legislation permanently closes the gap between urban and rural `'standardized payment'' levels. Inpatient hospital payments are calculated by multiplying several different factors, including a standardized payment amount. The fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill corrected the 1.6 percent disparity, but the provision expires at the end of the fiscal year. Our bill also acknowledges that low-volume hospitals have a higher cost per case, which results in negative operation margins. To alleviate this problem, H-CARE creates a low-volume inpatient payment adjustment for hospitals that have less than 2,000 annual discharges per year and are located more than 15 miles from another hospital. This provision will improve payments for more than one-third of all rural hospitals. Almost two-thirds of Wyoming hospitals would qualify for the low-volume provisions in H-CARE, which would result in $26.5 million in increased payments over 10 years. Rural hospitals have long sought changes to the wage index which adjusts hospital inpatient payments to reflect the effect of their labor costs. Currently, the labor-related share of hospital inpatient payments is set nationally at 71 percent. As rural hospitals generally have a lower wage index than their urban counterparts, their inpatient payment is adjusted downward. H-CARE would lower the labor-related percent from 71 percent to 62 percent, which will increase payments to rural hospitals. There are now more than 700 hospitals nationwide that have converted to Critical Access Hospital status. This program was created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and allows our smallest communities crucial access to 24 hour emergency services and some hospital care in their home towns. Almost 25 percent of my State's hospitals have downsized to Critical Access Hospital status. H-CARE contains several provisions to strengthen this important rural hospital program. It is time for the Federal Government to recognize that rural hospitals are long overdue for a fair shake from the Medicare program. Rural providers care for patients under different circumstances than urban hospitals and H-CARE ensures that rural hospitals are paid accurately and fairly. I strongly encourage all my colleagues with an interest in rural health to cosponsor this legislation. I also want to thank the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, Premier and the National Rural Health Association for their work and support in this effort.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act (H-CARE) of 2003'' with Senator Conrad and fellow Senate Rural Health Caucus members, Senators Harkin, Grassley, Johnson, Roberts, Domenici, Daschle, Bingaman, Bond, Lincoln, Cochran, Burns, Rockefeller, Jeffords, Talent, Levin, Smith, Dayton, Snowe, Edwards, Cantwell, Dorgan, Coleman and Murray. As always, it is important to note that rural health care legislation has a long history of bipartisan and bicameral collaboration and cooperation. The ``Health Care Access and Rural Equity Act of 2003'' will go a long way in addressing current inequities in the Medicare payment system that continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. This legislation recognizes the unique needs of rural hospitals and levels the playing field between them and their urban counterparts. Rural hospitals are more dependent on Medicare payments as part of their total revenue. In fact, Medicare accounts for almost 70 percent of total revenue for small, rural hospitals. Rural hospitals have lower patient volumes, but must compete nationally to recruit providers due to the nursing and other health professional workforce shortages. Additional burdens are placed on rural hospitals because of higher uninsured rates in rural America. Also, seniors living in rural areas tend to be poorer and have more chronic conditions than their urban and suburban counterparts. H-CARE recognizes the special circumstances faced by rural hospitals and addresses these issues by equalizing Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, payments. These add-on payments help hospitals cover the costs of serving a high proportion of low income and uninsured patients. Current law allows urban facilities to receive unlimited add-ons based on the percentage of these types of patients served. However, small, rural hospital add-on payments are capped at 10 percent. H-CARE eliminates the Sole Community Hospital and small rural hospital caps, bringing their payments in line with the benefits urban facilities received. This legislation permanently closes the gap between urban and rural `'standardized payment'' levels. Inpatient hospital payments are calculated by multiplying several different factors, including a standardized payment amount. The fiscal year 2003 appropriations bill corrected the 1.6 percent disparity, but the provision expires at the end of the fiscal year. Our bill also acknowledges that low-volume hospitals have a higher cost per case, which results in negative operation margins. To alleviate this problem, H-CARE creates a low-volume inpatient payment adjustment for hospitals that have less than 2,000 annual discharges per year and are located more than 15 miles from another hospital. This provision will improve payments for more than one-third of all rural hospitals. Almost two-thirds of Wyoming hospitals would qualify for the low-volume provisions in H-CARE, which would result in $26.5 million in increased payments over 10 years. Rural hospitals have long sought changes to the wage index which adjusts hospital inpatient payments to reflect the effect of their labor costs. Currently, the labor-related share of hospital inpatient payments is set nationally at 71 percent. As rural hospitals generally have a lower wage index than their urban counterparts, their inpatient payment is adjusted downward. H-CARE would lower the labor-related percent from 71 percent to 62 percent, which will increase payments to rural hospitals. There are now more than 700 hospitals nationwide that have converted to Critical Access Hospital status. This program was created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and allows our smallest communities crucial access to 24 hour emergency services and some hospital care in their home towns. Almost 25 percent of my State's hospitals have downsized to Critical Access Hospital status. H-CARE contains several provisions to strengthen this important rural hospital program. It is time for the Federal Government to recognize that rural hospitals are long overdue for a fair shake from the Medicare program. Rural providers care for patients under different circumstances than urban hospitals and H-CARE ensures that rural hospitals are paid accurately and fairly. I strongly encourage all my colleagues with an interest in rural health to cosponsor this legislation. I also want to thank the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, Premier and the National Rural Health Association for their work and support in this effort.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to continue to talk a bit about the most important item before us, the issue most of us have on our minds, and that is our forces in Iraq, the efforts that are being made there and the reasons for those efforts. Certainly, at this time all of us are thinking about that. No one has ever said that this fight would be easy. Now that our troops are in Baghdad, we acknowledge that perhaps the toughest part of the war to disarm Saddam Hussein is likely still ahead of us. But so far Operation Iraqi Freedom certainly has been a tremendous success, and I think all of us share in pride at the actions of our men and women who are there and our leaders who have caused these actions to take place and have managed them. Our Operation Iraqi Freedom has been a tribute to the skills of the men and women in uniform and their leadership. I spent some time this morning with a group of fourth graders. These youngsters have a pretty good idea of what is going on in Iraq and, to some extent, why we are there. Obviously, they have been talking with their parents. Obviously, they have been watching TV. But I thought it was amazing how much these young kids seemed to understand. I thought that was great. Certainly our hearts break for every life that is lost and every soul missing on the battlefield. We thank our stars that the losses so far have been relatively light. That, of course, doesn't make it any easier for the families who have suffered the losses. In less than 3 weeks, our aircraft have seized control of the skies. Our soldiers and marines and special forces control the bulk of the country. In less than 3 weeks, our troops are showering in Saddam's Presidential Palace in the capital city of Baghdad. In the blitz to Baghdad, our troops have taken more than 4,500 Iraqi prisoners. These prisoners are being seen by officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross to ensure they are treated within the guidelines of the Geneva Convention. Saddam has been holding American prisoners for more than 2 weeks and has yet to grant the Red Cross access to them. Our forces have been treating the wounds of countless innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire. Our forces delivered relief to Iraqi citizens through its southern cities, removing deadly mines that prevented ships from docking. Our troops are safeguarding their ports and their oil wells for the time being. I think it is amazing that our military has had such an impact and has yet been able to focus it away from the civilians. Obviously, there are accidents and there are losses but relatively few. That is most difficult in this kind of situation. Just days ago there were naysayers who said Operation Iraqi Freedom was failing. Now most of the conversation is about what we are going to do after the combat is over. It is very difficult. Imagine what these naysayers might have said on D-Day, Okinawa, Saipan, Chosin, Yorktown, Gettysburg, or a host of other battles in our history and how their commentaries might have influenced America's support in the war. I sincerely hope--and I believe--that the American people are not as fainthearted or impatient as some would argue. We are in the 19th day of a war. That is pretty short. Hopefully, it will be over soon. But those who became very impatient after 5 or 6 days--certainly that was not realistic. I suppose maybe we had the notion from the gulf war that it would not last at all. I think we should be very pleased and very proud at the amount of time it has taken and the progress that has been made. In a war, as members of our Armed Forces know well, the enemy can react differently than we predict. It is interesting some have talked about the weaknesses of the planning, that it didn't go the way it was planned. Of course it didn't. In a war things never go just the way they were planned. But the plans, obviously, have been good to be so successful. On the battlefield, of course, the enemy has a vote. Our troops are learning on the go and adapting quickly to the changing battlefields. They are rooting out death squads that blend in with the Iraqi population in the countryside. Our troops are dealing with car bombers who kill themselves in order to harm soldiers. These suicide and homicide attacks, of course, can be indiscriminate and have the potential to kill many innocent Iraqi civilians. It is also a demonstration of how violence has changed over time. I guess things will never be the same after 11 September. Who would have imagined those things could take place. So we have a different kind of combat, even in war. As our fight against Saddam Hussein's regime unfolds, I urge all Americans to continue to have patience and support of our Commander in Chief. Our victory is certain as is our continuing support for our troops. This regime is corrupt. Its leaders are morally bankrupt. The savagery his death squads and car bombers are showing is not a tactic but a symptom of a dying regime in the throes of its own demise. As we focus on the days ahead, continuing to show our firm resolve to remove this tyrant and his regime and to accomplish the goal for which we set out--and that is to disarm Saddam Hussein--I particularly wish to comment for a moment on the contribution of the National Guard in various States. In my State, the Wyoming National Guard has certainly made a contribution of which we are all very proud. Obviously, the National Guard consists of citizen soldiers and airmen who serve our country with great pride and professionalism. The first Federal mobilization of a Wyoming Army National Guard unit came in 1898 with the Spanish-American War. Since then, and with the creation of the Wyoming Air Guard after the Second World War, units have served and participated in a variety of different theaters. These include the Korean war, Desert Storm, Bosnia, and now of course Operation Enduring Freedom. Currently, the Wyoming National Guard has 20 percent of its personnel activated in vital missions throughout the world. We have the smallest population of any State in the Union, so of course our people are greatly missed--as they are in other places. Our local employers have been supportive of people who have been deployed, and we have had a good deal of deployment for a good long time, in fact. I am very proud of the men and women in my State who have answered the call to service and eagerly joined the ranks of the National Guard. People willing to join have increased in numbers since the war with Iraq has begun. Not along ago, Brigadier General Dillon, Assistant Adjutant General of the Army, said to soldiers upon deployment: You are now on the first string and you don't ride the bench for long. I suspect the National Guard is even more important than it has been in the past. As we get more and more technical in the regular, full- time Army and Marine Corps, when there is a call for numbers, of course, then we have to turn to the Guard and to the Reserve. We all join in extending our thanks and gratitude to these people and to their families for doing what they are doing and doing it so well; to leave their jobs, to leave their families, to change their lives. This is a source of great pride that my State can consistently produce individuals to meet these challenges. They have done a great job. There is an article in one of our local newspapers that highlights some of these family members. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. All of us continue to support our troops; we continue to pray for our troops and their families and their losses. We know we will succeed and that we succeed because of the bravery and willingness of our Armed Forces. I hope, too, that we will remember there is a relationship between ``the land of the free'' and ``the home of the brave,'' and that is being demonstrated at this time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, March 31, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on the science and technology program and the role of Department of Defense laboratories in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2004.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, March 31, 2003, at 4:00 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the U.S. Air Force investigation into allegations of sexual assault at the U.S. Air Force Academy and related recommendations.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man from my home state of Wyoming who has dedicated his life to public service. The Wyoming National Guard has been extremely fortunate to have MG Edmond W. Boenisch, Jr., to head its ranks for the last 8 years. As the adjutant general for the State of Wyoming, Ed has been responsible for managing Wyoming's Air National Guard and Army National Guard through over 500 deployments around the world and insuring that our citizen soldiers are highly motivated and properly prepared to meet any challenge. No leader can expect to maintain consistently high performance under stress and challenging conditions if the people he leads do not have confidence in him. I believe that the Wyoming Guard's success is a reflection of General Boenisch's personal commitment and dedication to the personnel under his command. Through 20 years of service, General Boenisch has brought leadership to Wyoming's National Guard. Raised in a home of solid faith and the son of a drill instructor, Ed learned early to value self-discipline and moral conviction. Through his life and over 30 years of marriage, Ed and his wife Linda have shared their strong faith with their family. The challenges of raising two daughters, Laura and Lisa, and an ever demanding career have not shaken Ed and Linda's compass for God, family, and country. As Eucharistic Ministers, they both share their spirituality and are vital members of their church and community. I would be doing a great disservice if I did not mention Ed's strong ties to the Wyoming education community. Before becoming adjutant general, Ed spent 20 years working in a variety of positions in Laramie County Community College. With a master's degree in student personnel and guidance and a PhD in college student personnel administration, Ed has written several books on stress management. After such a long and distinguished career, I can attest that General Boenisch knows a thing or two about managing stress. Although we will miss General Boenisch, I am proud that he will continue his public service as deputy director for the Wyoming Community College Commission. As a warrior and a scholar, I know that Gen. Edmond W. Boenisch, Jr. will continue after this post to be a vital asset to our State. I would like to thank Ed on behalf of the people of Wyoming for his years of service and wish him success on the next stage of his career.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, more than anything else, we all are thinking about the conflicts that are going on in Iraq and about our men and women who are fighting there. Of course, we have to continue to do what we have to do. Our lives go forward. We think about it a lot, and hear a great deal about it--I suppose more because of the embedded media--than we have ever heard before. We hear various kinds of reports. Certainly they are good for us to hear. We need to know what is happening. From time to time, we also hear some questionable comments and questions about the commitment of our leadership. Nevertheless, that is where we are. I guess all of us think a lot about why we are there, what needs to be done, and what will be the outcome. This morning I met with a group of 8th graders from Big Piney, WY, one of the smaller towns in western Wyoming. The whole class from the high school came. I think there were 30 of them. One of them asked: What do you think of the war? Well, how would you react to 8th graders who ask that? I think it makes you really wonder. So we talked a little bit about it. We talked about the fact that it is a war that was brought about by terrorism, a war that was brought about by what happened in the Persian Gulf 12 years ago, a war that was brought about by the fact that Saddam Hussein, who had to sign an agreement to finish that war because he was defeated, has not done what he was required to do. We have to talk a little bit about the fact that the whole reason we are there, the whole effort, is to disarm Saddam for the safety of the United States, for the safety of the world. No one wants to have a war, certainly. It is not anything that we would like to do. He had great opportunities to do something different in these past 12 years. He refused to do so. These 8th grade kids seemed to understand that no one wants war but we have to defend freedom. We have had to defend freedom numerous times, of course--quite different situations, quite different circumstances, but we find ourselves in different circumstance now as a result of 11 September, where instead of having to be afraid of divisions landing on your shore with artillery, and so on, now we find that one or two persons with mass destruction tools and weapons can destroy 3,000 people very easily. So it is a different situation. It is hard for young people to understand that, but I was very pleased with the fact that they do not like war--neither do we--but they understood that you have to defend those things that threaten the basis of our country. They were in Washington, DC, to see the foundation of the United States, to see what freedom is about: The Government of the people, by the people and for the people. They were here to see the Supreme Court. They were here to see the Constitution, the thing that probably ensures our freedom more than any other document. They understood that we have to defend those things, and I was so pleased. They were very skeptical. When they thought about it some and they thought about it in terms of the kinds of threats that are there and then when they thought about it in terms of those people who are voluntarily protecting our freedoms, who have gone into a war situation--I am a little bit prejudiced, being a marine, as to the Marine aspect of it, but everyone who is there is sacrificing for our freedom. Certainly we have a right to speak out and we have a right to have different views, but I hope we all recognize our responsibility to support our troops, people who are giving more than they could possibly be asked. We have the opportunity to do that. It is a good exercise for us to be able to talk to young people about why it is we are involved and the importance of protecting the kind of country we have and want to maintain. Certainly there is nothing more important than that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will take some time this afternoon to recognize what is being done for us and for this country. All of us have strong feelings about those who are defending freedom. We have talked about the risks they take, but I rise today to recognize the sacrifice of a particular Marine Corps Second Lieutenant, Therrel Shane Childers. Certainly all of us recognize the necessity of defending freedom. We recognize the willingness of brave men and women to do what is necessary. We recognize the connection between the land of the free and the home of the brave. However, when we have these losses, they are a great tragedy to all of us, particularly to the families and loved ones. Known as Shane to his family and friends, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 5th Regiment of the 1st Marine Division of Camp Pendleton. Shane was the first combat casualty of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was 30 years old. 2LT Childers was lost while leading his platoon in a fight to secure a pumping station in southern Iraq. Shane's parents, Joseph and Judy Childers of Powell, WY, say that Shane always wanted to be a marine. His family says he liked the rhythm of life in the Corps, the pride that goes with wearing the Marine uniform. After his high school graduation in 1990, he enlisted in the Marine Corps and served in the Persian Gulf war. After his duty in the gulf war, Shane served as a Marine security guard at the American consulate in Geneva, Switzerland, and at the American Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. Shane later left the Marines and attended college at the Citadel where he completed his studies in an untraditional 3 years and was commissioned in 2001. Today, we mourn the loss of this young man and certainly pray for his family. I express my condolences to the Childers family and my gratitude to the men and women who wear the uniform and walk the line so that our Nation can continue to remain free. I yield the floor, and 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 would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources scheduled for March 25 has been modified to include additional agenda items. In addition to the original intent of the hearing, the Subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 634, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to study the feasibility of designating the Trail of the Ancients as a national historic trail, and S. 635, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary to update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails, and for other purposes. The hearing will take place on March 25, 2003, 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 Pete Lucero at (202) 224-6293. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to talk a few moments about energy for this country, about an energy policy that we have not yet developed and have the responsibility to develop. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the requirement for an energy policy. We worked on this issue last year, my colleagues will recall, and did not get this done. It is more necessary now than before that we have an energy policy for the future of this country's economy. It is a little naive to talk about all the little problems when we do not talk about where we need to be. And if we paid attention at all to what has been done in energy over the last several years and what the demands are going to be for energy, we would start being a little more realistic about where we want to go. I have listened for several years to the environmentalists and the political aspect of energy, and I think that is what it is. We need to talk about the realism of providing energy for American families and for the jobs that are required. Energy is such an important element in our lives. I live in a State that is a producer of energy. I live in a State where we have lots of public lands. I live in a State where we have been able to have access to public lands and production from public lands without ruining the environment. Most of us recognize that America is now 60 percent or more dependent on foreign sources of oil. Much of that comes from areas of the world that are now in great upheaval and are hostile to the interests of the United States. Oil represents about one-third of our trade deficit. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars per day overseas to support unstable regimes around the world. ANWR is one of America's best chances for a major discovery, as much as 16 billion barrels of oil. Each barrel produced at home is one less we need to buy abroad. Just a few months ago, we saw the labor strike in Venezuela shut down oil production there. It halted nearly 15 percent of our imports. A threatened strike in Nigeria also constrained oil supplies, and we saw the result of that in prices this time. One of these days, we will see the result in a shortage of energy. Domestic oil inventories are at an all-time low level, the lowest in 27 years, destroyed by the strike in Venezuela and a colder than average winter. There is very little excess capacity in the world for oil production. The International Energy Agency recently said that the global oil supply is running on empty. They said that on March 13. Development of ANWR will, of course, ease the strain on global markets but ensure a continued stable supply. In addition, of course, higher oil prices are a tax increase on the U.S. economy, and every American citizen feels that loss. Economists estimate a loss of 0.5 percent in GDP for every $10 increase in oil costs. Every American family spends more of their money on energy, and it leaves less money for other important priorities, such as education, health care, investments in new homes, and in the economy. Energy costs hit lower income Americans the hardest. A family earning less than $15,000 a year spends 14 percent of its household budget on energy compared to only 2.3 percent for a family earning $50,000 a year, and we are very concerned about that. We talk about it all the time. Here is an opportunity to do something about it. Diesel prices and truckers--there are lots of issues, and we all know what they are. I think, too, we ought to talk--and I am sure the Senator from Alaska will--about the development of oil and gas in ANWR. It will be conducted with the best advanced technology available in America today: Ice roads, directional drilling, 3-D seismic exploration, many we have used in Wyoming. We know it can be done. New technologies allow a field the size of Prudhoe Bay, with 20 percent of U.S. oil supply for the last 25 years, to be developed in an area less than the size of Dulles Airport. This proposed development at ANWR would be limited to less than 2,000 acres in an area of 19 million acres, close to the coast, not up in the mountains as the picture always shows. The picture is not valid. It is not true. It is not there. Exploration will be limited to the winter months, November to May, to protect breeding and wildlife migration patterns. I have been through this a number of times. I have been to Alaska. I have been to this area. I am satisfied it is going to be a great boon to our need for energy. I am satisfied it can be done in a way that is environmentally satisfactory, and I think it can be a great boon for our economy. I certainly hope we can take an opportunity to provide a better chance for our future economy by opening this field. I thank my colleague for the time and yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will make a few comments in morning business. I agree with the Senator from Maine. As cochairman of the Rural Health Caucus in the Senate, we have been working for a very long time and will continue to work for equity payments between urban and rural areas. In this instance, in-home health care costs are often higher in rural areas.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will talk a moment about an issue that has been important to Wyoming and to the entire country. As in many cases, the things we do here and the national laws we pass have different effects in different places. Wyoming, being a rather large State, a rural State, is 50 percent owned by the Federal Government. When we talk about endangered species, the program works much differently than it does in Delaware. There needs to be a certain amount of flexibility, as is the case with many things we do. I am for endangered species acts. It is proper we have programs that protect various endangered species, whether they be plants or animals. That should continue. However, we have been in this program now since about 1970 and there are, from our experience, changes we ought to consider. I am convinced this program needs some kind of change. Unfortunately, the results we have had are not the kind of results we intended. There has been a large amount of listing of endangered species but very little recovery. Of course, the purpose, the bottom line, is intended to protect special species and to recover them so they are self-supporting. We are hopeful we can strengthen the program to some degree so we can emphasize the recovery rather than simply the listing. The listing has an impact, particularly where there are interspersed private and public lands. What is done in public lands affects those on private lands. Because of the way lands were developed in the West with the Homestead Act, part of the lands were homesteaded and are now private. Those that were public are used by those folks with leases and they intermingle. It is an overlapping issue. We have had several experiences in our State and particularly with the States surrounding Yellowstone Park--Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming-- particularly with grizzly bears. Everyone recognizes the importance and wants to maintain the grizzly bear. They were developed in the park to refurbish them. We have long since, several years ago, surpassed the numbers in the plan for total recovery numbers, but they are still not de-listed; they are still listed and treated as endangered because we cannot come together on what the range ought to be. We cannot figure it out to get them de-listed. The same thing is true with wolves. We have wolves that were there years ago and they left. The Park Service reimported them from Canada and put them in Yellowstone Park. We knew they would not stay in Yellowstone Park and, of course, they did not. We have the same sort of problem with a predatory animal that is now in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and it is managed as an endangered species. For people who have property at risk, sometimes even humans at risk, there is not much that can be done as long as these critters are endangered. We seek to get a plan so they can be endangered in Yellowstone Park, but the States surrounding can have a plan to manage the animals so there is some control. We need to shift it. Under the program that very seldom happens. This program has been around for about 30 years. Most people would be surprised to know there has been over 1,000 animal species and 750 plant species that have been listed under the act. There have been only about 15 animals recovered. The emphasis has been on the listing, and continuing to be listed, rather than to find a way to get them recovered, which is what it is all about. My bill would continue to have the program and would strengthen the program rather than weaken it. It did two fairly basic things. One, it requires in the listing process there be substantive and substantial scientific information. Animals can currently be listed easily by nomination, sometimes without sufficient documentation of the facts. That is clear with the so-called jumping mouse in eastern Wyoming. After it was listed, no one could find evidence it was actually there. So there really was not any scientific and useful evidence before being listed. That ought to be changed. In addition, when there is a listing, there has to be a plan for recovery. So the range of the animal or plant is known. We know the numbers, and when appropriate, they will be de-listed. I introduced a bill now before the Congress. I hope we can take it up in the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Senator Craig and Senator Hagel are currently cosponsors. We are circulating materials and have quite a bit of support. Interestingly enough, the group that was in my office last week that represents shopping centers was very much in favor of this bill. I was pleased but surprised. This impacts local land owners and public land managers and impacts communities and State governments particularly. We can make the program useful but also workable for the people who live in the area. We have listed over 1,800 species, including plants and animals, and there have been only 15 recoveries. There is something wrong with that. We need to look at that. Hopefully, we will have a chance to make some changes in the committee and in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some pertinent information.

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 National Trail designations and the potential impact of National Trails on private lands, communities, and activities within the viewshed of the trails. In addition, the Subcommittee will receive testimony on S. 324, a bill to amend the National Trail System Act to clarify Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for certain trails in the National Trails System. The hearing will take place on March 25, 2003 at 2:30 PM 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 Pete Lucero at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I pay tribute today to Victor Baird, who is retiring from his position as Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics after more than 15 years of service. Victor has done a good job under difficult circumstances. I have been a member of the Committee for a couple of years, but in that short time, Victor has handled several high profile and sensitive situations very well. He certainly has been an asset in helping the committee preserve the integrity of the U.S. Senate. Often in this type of job, you end up making no one happy. Victor handled this thankless task with an even demeanor. Vitor has spent much of his life in public service--in the military, for the state of Georgia and in the U.S. Senate--and he has done it well. I wish him the best in his new endeavors.