Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Kansas.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I understood we had 15 minutes to present our point of view and that the others would present their point of view.

Mr. THOMAS. I guess we are going to use this time. I might as well join in. I want to read a part of a communication from OMB: Now is the wrong time to short-circuit implementation of the common sense principle of competition--a proven prescription for reaping significant cost savings and performance enhancements--especially since numerous agencies are starting to make real progress. The principle of competition was unanimously adopted by the recent congressionally-mandated Commercial Activities Panel. Prohibiting the funding for public-private competitions is akin to mandating a monopoly regardless of the impact on services to citizens and the added costs to taxpayers. If the final version of the bill would contain such a provision-- Talking about this amendment-- the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I rise to support this disaster assistance, one of the things that is most important for us to deal with in the area I come from. I thank the chairman of the committee for putting this bill forward and going back and making it fit the need. We have to send relief to people who have had real disasters. I thank also the Democrat leader for his work. He has worked on it for some time. We do need, of course, to have balance in our spending. We need to have some control. We know that. We have to be reasonable about how we do that. In Wyoming, this is probably the third year of drought. Fortunately, up until this last year, we generally had runoff and the irrigating systems worked reasonably well. This year that is less the case. We do not have the kind of storage we have had in the past. We need to deal with this issue. In Wyoming, livestock is at least equally important as the crops. We need to adjust that, which has been done here, to make sure livestock is recognized as well. We have had natural disasters throughout the country. We have had tax relief. That is good. But in many cases tax relief is not sufficient because there is no income to tax. We had a farm bill this year which changed things. We had an unworkable insurance program. We need to do something about that so it does work. We also now have a farm program that is based on loans for crops. If you do not have a crop, you do not benefit from the farm program. That has been difficult. I am pleased we do have an option. We did have a year ago the opportunity and did vote for a disaster bill at that time. Frankly, it seemed at the time and still seems that it is very unlikely to pass. We have to have some results as opposed to just talking about it. That is what we are talking about, something that we can complete for the people throughout the country. This bill is a good bill. The Cochran amendment moves the money quickly to those who need it. It goes to those who are needy and have had losses. That is very important. It does include livestock. We need that, certainly. Also, it is the kind of budget recognition we need. It has an offset. I urge our support of the Cochran amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I rise to talk for a few minutes about an amendment that is pending. It has to do with the New Source Review rider. It is an amendment which would, in effect, negate or postpone a proposed change in rules that have been proposed by the administration that I think are very important to our efforts collectively to increase the more effective production of electricity and energy, and to do it in a way that contributes to clean air. I believe this New Source Review proposal does that. The Senator from North Carolina has an amendment which would prevent the final rules from taking place. He indicates that, in his view, it would prevent backsliding from the administration. He also indicates he considers it an insider's industry benefit. I suggest that neither of these allegations is valid. In fact, what is happening is a change that will remove the obstacles to environmentally beneficial projects, clarify the New Source Review requirements, encourage emissions reductions, promote pollution prevention, provide incentives for energy efficiency improvements, and help assure worker and plant safety. Those are the things that are involved. To some extent, I think this amendment has a little bit to do with 2004 in that it is seen as the President's gift to polluters. Of course, that is not the case. The proposed rider is premature and ignores the public involvement already inherent in this New Source Review reform process. In December of 2002, the EPA issued a final rule that includes actions previously proposed by and substantially similar to those put forward by the Clinton administration. These actions are supported by a bipartisan consensus after extensive public involvement over more than 10 years. A separate proposed rule on issues related to routine maintenance, repair, and replacement will undergo a full public review and EPA analysis before it can take effect. Thus, it is clearly premature at this time to stop this open rulemaking process by rider before the process even begins. A proposed rider is bad energy and environmental policy. The complexity of the current New Source Review program and its related burdens create significant disincentives to new investment in energy- efficient and environmentally friendly technologies that are being proposed. The NSR reforms should allow facilities where actual emissions remain within permitted levels to make operating adjustments and explore alternative fuel and resource choices that will help them meet energy and product needs in the most efficient, cost-effective, environmentally sound manner possible. A proposed rider will negatively impact more than 22,000 industrial facilities across the country. The New Source Review program affects utilities, refineries, and manufacturers around the country that form the backbone of our Nation's economy. In the current economic climate, we need sensible reforms that streamline regulatory programs while providing fundamental environmental protection that allows companies to improve energy efficiency, environmental performance, and economic competitiveness. A proposed rider would impede a State's ability to implement effective clean air programs. The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, Environmental Council of the States, and several State attorneys general have called for NSR reforms that enhance the environment and increase energy security. The keys to improving air quality and energy security are innovation and investment. The final and proposed NSR rules will help promote safer, cleaner, and more efficient factories, refineries, and powerplants. Many groups have supported the idea of making these kinds of changes. Interestingly enough, the National Black Chamber of Commerce has indicated in a letter the proposed revisions to the Clean Air Act's New Source Review previously provided a meaningful compromise to economic growth and the assurance of clean air and continued public health protection. Such an amendment that is now before us, they continue, impedes progress in reforming a well-intended program that has, over the years, unintended consequences. Another group which is a cooperative in Montana, with membership of over 325,000, says: We know many environmental groups oppose NSR reform, but NSR reform will actually move forward quicker in adopting more modern and efficient environmental technologies and procedures. These are some of the testimonies that say we ought to continue with the proposal that has been made to allow refiners to be able to make improvements on existing facilities that will improve the environment and will continue to provide for efficient energy production. I urge that the amendment offered by the Senator from North Carolina not be received by the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have heard some strong views, which, of course, is appropriate for the Senate. That is what we ought to be doing. We will always have a difference of view as to how we approach the problems that confront us. What we ought to do is approach some of those problems rather than stand in disrepair here for another few days and not do anything with the issues. But we will always have a difference of view. That is what it is all about. It is interesting that the Senator from Illinois talks about a bipartisan solution when we have no bipartisanship at all in this Chamber. There can't be a word, there has not been a word, offered about any of these proposals without criticizing the White House. You can have a different point of view, but you don't always have to criticize the person who has a different point of view than you do. We have a unique situation. We find ourselves with a difficulty in the Middle East, the challenge of war there. We have a challenge in North Korea as well. We also have an economy that has slumped. We have to do something about that. These are quite different situations than 2 years ago. We have to do some things that are different. With respect to the economy, we need to do something. All I hear is criticism from the other side. I don't hear a plan. I don't hear any proposal. I don't see anything happening except just criticism. The fact is, we need to have a plan. The President has put forth a plan. His plan deals with the issue. Should it be altered? Could there be changes? Of course, that is always the case. The fact is, there is a plan that has three main goals: To encourage consumer spending that will continue to boost the economy; to promote investments by individuals and businesses that will lead to economic growth and job creation; and to deliver critical help to unemployed citizens, which we have already done to some extent and need to continue to do. The difference in point of view, apparently, as my friend from the other side of the aisle said, is they want to redistribute income and pass out money. That is their plan; $300 to everyone. And they talk about just doing it for 1 year. The fact is, what we need to resolve this problem is more investment and more jobs. Mr. President, $300 doesn't solve a family's problems; $300 doesn't solve anyone's future. But a job does, and jobs require investment. The President's proposal would speed up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of recovery and job creation, encourage job-creating investments in small and large businesses by ending some of the double taxation and giving other incentives to invest. These are the kinds of things that create jobs, that will help people and provide for unemployed Americans, which we have done to some extent. They talk about not doing anything immediately. They want to give somebody $300. Under the President's proposal to speed up tax relief, 2 million taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of over $1,000 in 2003; 46 million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,700; 34 million families with children would receive an average benefit of $1,400; 6 million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of over $500 immediately, this year; 23 million small businesses would receive tax cuts averaging over $2,000, which would help create more jobs and continue to move in the direction we would like. There is a chart in today's Washington Times that compares the $300 with the things the Bush bill would do, and talking about a single person who makes an income of, say, $50,000, he gets more under the Bush plan. But more importantly, when you have a married couple, they get more like $1,700 as opposed to $600 or $300 each. So we can have a different view as to how we do this, but two or three things are important. One is we get the facts out there as to what is really going to happen. Two is we have a plan that applies more than just the distribution and redistribution of money, and the other, that would create jobs to stimulate the economy. We have seen what economies can do in terms of deficits. No one hates deficits worse than I. I am probably one of the more conservative spenders here, but I believe when you have a turndown in the economy, you have to do some things differently, particularly when they are coupled with the problems we have overseas. But a strong economy will replace that and we have seen that happen in the past. The best way to deal with the deficit is to have that strong economy and to get it moving again. Generally, the President's growth and job package provides for a short-term boost for the economy, creates jobs, promotes sustained and long-term economic growth. Accelerating the 2004, 2006 tax rates to 2003 will provide 28 million taxpayers with an average of $1,100. We don't hear that when we talk about it. Mr. President, again, I respect the idea that we have different views as to how to deal with problems. I think it is very important that we make sure we get the facts out and, No. 2, if you disagree with it--and there is a problem as there is here--that there be an alternative, that there be some choices, and not just full-time criticism.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish to talk a little about the congressional session we are in now for our second week. We have lots of things to do. Certainly, the American people are anxious that we move on to do those things. Yet we find ourselves in sort of a stall on the floor, which is disappointing. We know we have actions to take. We know we have to be organized. Yet we are held up in being organized. That is discouraging to many of us. The fact is that 2 years ago, when the Senate was 50-50, we had an agreement as to how to work and how to fund the committees. Now we find, particularly on the other side, that we can't come to agreement. As I understand it, we had then a 50-50 arrangement with 10 percent going to the majority committee because there are lots of common costs. So it broke it down really into a 60-40 arrangement. That was satisfactory. Now it seems that we can't find a satisfactory agreement. I urge the leadership to move forward so we can get on to do the things we are here to do. We have a lot of things to do, many of which are held over from the last session. One of the most pressing is ready to be acted upon whenever we are ready to act on it, and that is 11 of the 13 appropriations which we did not even get to last year. The other is to begin on a budget of which we had none last year. A lot of people say it doesn't make much difference whether you have a budget anyway; You always break it. The fact is, it is important because it has a restriction in it. When a budget is set and the spending goes beyond that budget, you can raise a point of order, and it takes 60 votes instead of 50. That is a protection from overspending. We hear a lot about spending. I am one who wants to control spending. So here we are with things to do in the new year. We are here with items left over from last year, and we are not able to get going with it. Everyone, of course, has their own priorities, but there are some fairly commonly agreed upon. Certainly education is one. There is nothing more important. When I talk to people about Government programs and things they want to do more about, education is always among the top. It is true that the Federal contribution to the financing of education is only about 7 percent of the total. But nevertheless, it is an important part, particularly when Federal rules and regulations provide some unfunded mandates to the States to do the things they must do. I am in favor of having some common methods of having an assessment of how schools are doing partly because now we move so freely in this Nation; if you are educated in Wyoming, you may end up working in New York. You need to know that your education is comparable so you will do as well there as you could anywhere else. We are talking about funding. We are talking about IDEA, funding for special education, which is very important. I hear a great deal about that. My wife happens to be a special education teacher, and it is terribly important that we give everyone an opportunity. To do that, you have to have special education. The Perkins Act, which funds vocational education, whether it be agriculture, business, whatever, is apparently in somewhat of a controversy at the moment. It is very important that we be able to provide vocational education and opportunities for young people to become trained in what they want to do. Testing, of course, is very controversial, but I believe it is a test as to whether or not schools are keeping up with others. Some argue, well, you just teach to the test. I suppose there is some danger of that. If the tests are adequate, perhaps that is not a bad idea, but there has to be accountability. So that is where we are with education. On energy policy, we spent a great deal of time with that last year, more probably than we should have had to spend because it was pulled out of committee and the committee did not make the decisions. We brought it to the floor. I believe we were here 7 weeks on energy policy. Then it went into committee to facilitate the differences between the House and Senate and, frankly, we never did come to a successful conclusion. Energy policy is very important at any time because nothing touches more of us than does energy--whether it is light, heat, automobiles, whatever. Even more important now, as we deal with economic difficulties, is that we find the price of energy going up, partly because of the unrest in the Middle East. So energy policy, it seems to me, is very important, and we ought to get back on that. We can have an energy policy. We have not had one for years. We need to have one that has to do with domestic production, so that we are not 60-percent dependent upon exports as we are now. We need a policy that provides for more research into new sources of energy, so that we have renewables, so that we have various other kinds of opportunities. We have to have research to make sure that what we use now--coal, for instance--is as clean as it can be for air quality. That is the kind of balanced policy we need. But here we are with that need to move forward and we are not able to do that. Certainly, health care is one. In my State of Wyoming, health care has become particularly important over the last couple years, largely because of cost and accessibility. Often, when we talk about health care, we talk about Medicare, and certainly we should. Medicare is very important to a large number of people who have higher costs generally. Nevertheless, Medicare is there and we need to make some changes with it, particularly as we look forward to what we are going to do over the next few years--a program that gives some choices and hopefully brings in more private operations and a more private distribution of resources that will fund a program that is needed over a period of time. The one we have now isn't going to do that. We have to make some changes. I suspect we will be looking at more short-term changes originally, as we first go about it. We need to look at the long term, what we want to have over time and what it takes to provide a health care distribution system that is useful. It is not all Medicare. For example, in our State the prices have gone up substantially. There are a number of reasons, of course. Part of it is liability insurance for physicians. Many have given up certain kinds of practices because the cost of liability insurance is out of sight. We can do something about that, and we can do something about it here as well as in our States. We have a problem with the number of uninsured in this country. Of course, the notion of insurance, the concept of insurance is that you have a broad participation of people, some of whom are less likely to need services than others, so that it levels out the costs. But when you have a large segment of the most healthy people who do not carry insurance, then that concept is weakened. So those are broader issues that we need to have. We have a shortage of nurses. We need to do something about that. It has very little to do with Medicare. The other one that is important, of course, and I suspect will be dealt with more quickly, is pharmaceuticals. Some say we have an overutilization of pharmaceuticals. For many people, particularly the elderly, the cost is extremely high for pharmaceuticals and is unable to be handled by many people. We need to find a better way of distribution, find a better way of using generics, find a better way of examining the pharmaceutical requirements. We had some meetings. In one case, we had a retired pharmacist take a look at the pharmaceutical needs of the people employed by his former company. He was able to reduce it substantially and still provide the same kind of health care. So there are a lot of things that we can do. As to jobs and the economy, obviously, nobody is unaware of the fact that we need to do something there. We need to have a program. All we have heard in the last 2 weeks is criticism of the President's economic program. I believe the President has a very well-balanced effort at doing something about the economy. He does something initially with payments, such as child care, reduction of income tax withholding, which would put more dollars in right away. I suppose we can talk about the size of the package because of dividends on some of the payments that are made. But the fact is, it is a balanced program that has initial impact; it has long-term kinds of tax reductions that create jobs. Now, it is one thing to just sling money out there, which some folks like to do. The real answer is to develop jobs so people have them long term, and that is what it is all about. On judicial nominations, we are behind from last year. We still haven't organized a committee to do that. We are faced with lots of opportunities to do some things that need to be done. Yet here we are waiting to begin to move. I think the pressure needs to be on the leadership to resolve this issue and get us into a position to move forward so we can deal--as we are here to do-- with the issues before us and resolve many of the questions that are pending. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. I rise to speak in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about several issues. First, of course, we all know so well that we are involved now in this war on terrorism, and I wanted to speak a moment about that, the fact that it affects us all. Since that terrible day on September 11, virtually none of us have been untouched by those acts of cowardice and the effort to break the American spirit. Fortunately, they did not succeed. We were shaken but probably strengthened from that. Our efforts to combat the production and proliferation of weapons require that we prepare forces in the Middle East, and everyone has a role in that. I just learned that one of my staff members will be called in the Reserve to active duty tomorrow. Sgt John Travis Deti of the Marine Corps Reserve will be serving as an operations specialist with the Marine Corps combat engineers. He was promoted from legislative correspondent to legislative aide just 1 day before learning of his orders to report to duty. As a fellow marine, I know that Travis is ready to do what he can, prepared to serve his country. I am very proud of what he is doing during this difficult time. Travis, semper fi.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have been here throughout this debate. I have not been involved in this issue prior to this point, as many have. But it has been an interesting and rather surprising sequence of events here on this first day, this sort of ceremonial day, in which we get into this kind of head-to-head arrangement. It is surprising. I do understand why this issue was brought to the floor. That is because there is a time element. We heard a letter from the Secretary of Labor indicating that in order to get a continuation of the unemployment benefits of those who are still eligible, we have to do it by Thursday. So I think that is a pretty compelling issue. In order to get that done, we obviously also have to do something that has been agreed to, apparently, by the House as well. So it is surprising to me that we have this effort made within the Senate, and also with House leadership, to try to do something within this time that is imperative we do, yet we come to the floor and apparently the very people who helped make the agreement now are proposing an amendment which would kill the bill. Certainly it would not make it available in the time that is necessary. There is no reason for anybody to argue with the fact that there are those out there who need some additional help. This bill is not a total remedy. I think everyone admits that. We have to come back and do some other things. But this was argued last year. We could not get it done. We should have gotten it done last year and didn't. Now we have an opportunity to do something today to get it to the President, to get it through the House before they adjourn--apparently today. It really sounds as if the process is such that it is pretty compelling that we do what seems to be available, and that is to pass a bill which would extend unemployment benefits to, apparently, up to 2 million people whose benefits otherwise would expire at the end of this week. If there are others who are eligible who still need some help-- and there obviously are--then we can do that. We can come back and do that. But to sacrifice what we can do today to argue about something that we do not agree on yet and can do tomorrow does not seem to make good sense. I hate to think it is a political issue, bringing up now the President's economic package. It really is not a part of this debate. The President has said all along that he wants to have the unemployment relief extended. So it is a puzzle to me. I hope we can now move forward. We have passed the bill. I say that is the greatest thing we could have done today. Certainly we needed to do that. We can come back and take a look at these other issues and everyone can get their opportunity to express their political issues and, I think, seek to separate us from the other side. I hate to think that is the case, but it seems to be. And it is too bad. The notion that some of us do not want to do anything is not accurate. How we do it is what we are talking about. We have been through it before. I am glad we are able to move forward. I think we ought to get in our minds a way to work on the issues that remain to be worked on and do that in the appropriate time. But I am reluctant to think we want to continue to confront one another today and to talk about all the bad things we can think of. That is not quite what is involved with this first session of the Senate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I just listened to the two Senators who are probably most involved with the details of this homeland security bill--very interesting comments. I have been, frankly, disappointed that it has taken us as long as it has. We have been on this measure, I understand, now for about 7 weeks, and we are still not finished--a bill that needs to be finished. It needs to be there for security. Yet we continue to debate and worry over issues that are not as significant as the passage of this bill. I hope we are getting closer to passing a homeland security bill. It is our responsibility to do that. I am almost embarrassed that we are not. I am pleased that cloture was invoked and that we can move forward on this bill that gives the President the tools he needs to protect our homeland. We have talked about the details. That is good. On the other hand, there are provisions in there that generally most everyone would agree we ought to be moving forward with: Immigration, to change the reorganization of that department so that you have more emphasis on the immigration aspect with regard to terrorism; reorganization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms so that it can work better in terms of terrorism as opposed to law enforcement activities. Personnel flexibility has been one we have talked about for a very long time. Certainly, the President ought to have as much authority for flexibility as others have had and as he has in other departments. We also need to have, obviously, some protection for the union representatives, and it is there; research and development, aiming it more toward terrorism, that is one of the amendments; critical infrastructure protection, of course, so that we get into helping with the private infrastructure such as dams, such as oil refineries, these kinds of things--important stuff to do--the Coast Guard, strengthening their position with respect to terrorism; the one on corporate inversion where there was concern about being offshore. The fact is it is only there to be used as long as it has specific economic security reasons to be used. I think that is reasonable. Airport security--all these things are there. Again, I thought during the last month or so it became pretty clear that this session of the Congress has been exceptionally slow in moving forward. It has not accomplished many of the things we should have accomplished. I had hoped that with that in our background, we would be ready to move forward to accomplish this one that is so obvious in need. I hope we can do that. I am glad we do have Members on both sides who recognize the importance of doing this. We have carefully crafted language that will be there. It is time for us to move forward. Whether there is anything else that we really need to do in this lame duck session, I wouldn't argue that. We obviously have to have a CR. Apparently there is movement toward doing something with terrorism liability. But this is the one. This is what we need to do, and we need to move forward. I do appreciate the work that has been done. Particularly Senator Thompson and Senator Gramm have worked tirelessly in putting something together that will ensure homeland security and a department that will be capable of moving forward to do the things that everybody understands we need to do. Frankly, there are no more excuses to delay this bill. I certainly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and pass the compromise bill so the President can sign this into law. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I come to the floor today to talk a little bit about where we are and, hopefully, about where we are going, and, more particularly, some comments about energy, which I think is one of the real important points that we must talk about. First, let me say that certainly we find ourselves in a difficult position as we close this session. I think we have brought ourselves into that position by not moving more quickly on some of the issues that have been out there and that now we desire to have passed. It is very difficult to resolve some of these issues in the ending moments of a session. Certainly, we are not going to be here much longer. Clearly, we are going to go into a recess before the election. Particularly those who are running are very anxious to do that. And, indeed, to be fair to voters, people who are running should be out in the country talking about their positions. So it seems to me what we have before us is the chore of putting some priorities on the many issues that are out there and making the determination as to which of those are going to be the issues that we emphasize and indeed move to finish. And there are lots of them out there. We can talk about the issue of bankruptcy which, of course, is something that has been ongoing for a long time. We have not been able to come together on the fairness of that. We can talk about reinsurance for construction, particularly for large buildings. That issue is very important to the economy. It is one we have not been able to resolve, mostly because of a liability issue. Certainly, an unemployment extension is something that needs to be dealt with, as it expires in the fairly near future. On the other hand, the points of view are quite different in terms of the most effective and efficient way to do that. We have Medicare givebacks, as it is called, which is in relation to taking up the slack in hospital costs in provider payments over a period of time, which, if not corrected, very likely will cause some providers not to deal with Medicare patients. It is very important. I happen to be from a rural State. There are activities related to that which specifically have to do with rural health care. And we would like to do that. And there are other issues. But there are a great many items, of course, which, when you come to the end of the session, everybody wants to take a look at. These are all items that have not been done during the year, and when putting them together it can become a very haphazard kind of approach. Frankly, I think the leadership responsibility, and the responsibility for all of us, is to cut through that and to establish some priorities and talk about those things that need to be done. It sounds increasingly as if we will be back in a lame duck session after the election is over to finish some of the items. Most apparent among them are appropriations bills. We do not have a budget. It is the first time in many years we have not had a budget. A budget is very important, not simply because there would be a budget but because it is a process for holding down spending. And if the appropriations bills exceed the budget that has been agreed to, then you can ask for a point of order, and then have to have more votes to pass it than you do without it. So it is not just the idea of a budget for the sake of a budget; it is a mechanism that helps hold down spending. I think we have passed just 1 out of 13 of those appropriations bills. Hopefully, in the next 2 days, we will pass another. We must pass the Defense appropriations bill, in my judgment, because the need for defense dollars certainly has increased over last year. And the continuing resolution we will pass will simply extend the authority of the other appropriations bills we passed last year at their levels. So we have some items that have to be done. I think we are going to be dealing, of course, with election reform. It is very important. It is hardly our biggest priority, in my view, because it does not apply to this election. But it will apply in the next election. We have some time in that regard. Nevertheless, it is on the agenda. As I said, we are going to be dealing with the Defense appropriations bill. It is a must-do piece of legislation, in my opinion. Certainly, then, in order to continue to have the Government operate, we have to pass a CR. I suppose maybe there are other items with which we need to deal. In my view, those seem to be the items that are necessary and that we need to do. One of the issues out there that has been difficult--but I think we have worked at it for a very long time--is an energy policy. We have not had an energy policy in this country for a very long time. We need an energy policy. We need it particularly now in terms of the turmoil in the Middle East. A good deal of our energy is imported from the Middle East. We need an energy policy now because of our economic condition. Energy is certainly a big part of our economy and our security. Those are two issues that are most important to all of us. And to do that well, we need an energy policy. The President asked for an energy policy nearly 2 years ago--a year and a half ago. He outlined an energy policy that he sent to us. We have been all this time trying to come up with our own energy policy. Certainly, we have a broad energy policy. We have talked about lots of things that go into it. We talked about production. We talked about the availability of energy sources. We have gotten ourselves into the position of importing nearly 60 percent of our energy. And that situation is very iffy because of the condition we are now facing. So we do have to do some things. We talk about production in the energy bill. We talk about production in terms of encouraging the production of oil, production of coal, the production of gas. Some of the proposals have to do with access to public lands where, such as in my State, for example, 50 percent of the State belongs to the Federal Government. And in many of the Western States more than that belongs to the Federal Government. So we have to devise a plan where we can take advantage of those resources and, at the same time, of course, take care of the environment. We can do that. And we have shown we can do that. We are particularly interested in coal as being a source of energy that we pursue more. People are in favor of that. We have to do more about clean air. We have to do some research on coal. We have to do what is necessary to provide clean-coal energy. More than 55 percent of electricity is now produced from coal. And 95 percent of our fossil fuel is coal. So coal is very important to our energy use. In the bill there are a number of items that have to do with encouraging the clean use of coal, whether it be in research or whether it be incentives to build new plants or upgrade existing plants to make them more clean, including existing plant credits. Oil and gas: Of course oil provides about 40 percent of our Nation's energy. Natural gas is providing more than it did in the past. But, nonetheless, we need to continue to work on that. Oil has been a controversial issue, of course. The idea that you open up less than 2,000 acres out of millions has seemed not to be acceptable by environmentalists. Another opportunity would be, perhaps, to go from private land to cross some of the ANWR with a right-of-way. I don't know whether that will be acceptable. Nevertheless, I think we have to move forward. And we have to have more geophysical research. We are working on that. We can do something about rental payments. All of these areas of concern encourage production. Along with this, we have to continue to look at conservation: conservation in homes, conservation in the kinds of equipment that we have in our homes. We have to also take a look at automobiles to do something with CAFE standards to reduce energy use. But there are many things we can do in terms of conservation, and indeed we should. One of the areas in which I have been particularly interested and one that is now under debate--and I don't know where we are in terms of the timing--is the electrical provisions. That is very important. All of us, obviously, depend on electricity in our homes and in our businesses. We have had electricity very reliably for a good long time. We found last year in the California experience some difficulties in reliability brought about for various reasons. Nevertheless, it raised the specter of unreliable electric service. So we deal with that in the bill, some reliability provisions. We are changing the way we do electricity. In the past, you had an electric company that served an area in terms of its customers and also generated its own power and did its own distribution. Now we are moving to a situation where you have generators that are not in the distribution business and sell their energy where it is needed. It is probably a very efficient way to do things, but it is a change. During the process of that change, there have to be some changes in the rules as well--access to transportation and transmission, probably over time a transmission system that is made up of regional distribution organizations off nationwide transmission lines, for example. As there is more market in the sale of electricity, there has to be transparency so we avoid some of the kinds of issues that allegedly occurred in California, and we can do that. There are things we need to do there, as well as in conservation, in terms of being able to renovate generation plants to make them more efficient without having to go back and redo the whole generator. We are talking about mergers, doing away with some of the old laws with respect to mergers and dealing with energy as it exists now in the more modern phase and many of the things with which we need to deal. I hope we are able to do that. One of them is Indian energy. There is a proposition in the bill that allows for easier access to Indian lands, should they want to do that, which is good for them economically as well as providing more energy for the country. I mentioned clean coal. We have been doing a good deal more research so that coal can be used that way. We have talked about nuclear power. Nuclear power certainly is one of the cleaner powers we have, and indeed nearly 20 percent of the energy in Illinois, for example, is nuclear. So it is an opportunity for us to do many of the things we need to do and can do in a way that is acceptable, particularly to the environment. Renewables have been one of the real areas of controversy. Renewables now, not including hydro, produce about 1 percent of our energy, our electric energy. So it is very small. But the opportunity to grow, of course, whether it be wind energy, whether it be Sun energy, whether it be other kinds of renewables, is out there. The question is, Do you mandate renewables that cause the consumers to have to pay more at this time or do you give incentives so that we can go forward in that way? I always remember years ago--of course, Wyoming is an energy-oriented State. We had a meeting there. I believe the speaker was from Europe, but he made the point--and I think it is an excellent point--that through time we have never run out of a fuel; we move from one fuel to another as we find new, more efficient fuel. We used to have wood. Now we don't use wood. Then we had coal. Then we had gas. And we will continue to do that as science looks for new ways to provide energy. We need to do that. Ethanol has been one of the issues as well: How much requirement is included in the ethanol and what percentage of it is in gas and so on. Those are the kinds of issues we have talked about a great deal. Part of the bill also has to do with the pipeline from Alaska for natural gas so we can have that kind of resource available to us. Many of these things are being considered in the tax title where there will be incentives for the kinds of production we need for the kinds of research we need and the things that can happen. So we are down to, frankly, a stressful point in terms of timing. We have worked on this energy policy now for the better part of 2 years. We have worked on it here in the committee for a long time. Finally, unfortunately, it was pulled from the committee and put on the floor without a committee bill. I think we were 4 weeks here on the floor talking about energy. So we spent a good deal of time on it. Obviously, different parts of the country have different points of view as to how energy bills ought to be structured and how they impact different parts of the country. Some States are more production oriented; others are more user oriented. And there are some differences there. There is always a conflict about how much authority goes to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as opposed to the States. That, of course, is one of the reasons that many of us are in favor of getting the regional transmission organizations going, so that the decisions that have to be made interstate in these areas can be made largely by the States and they come to an agreement as to how you do that. Also, there are always some difficulties, of course, between the municipals and co-ops as opposed to investor-owned utilities. It is not an easy project, but it is one that is very important to our comfort, very important to our economy, very important to our security, and one that has had a great deal of work on it this year. I guess we will probably know tomorrow whether that committee that has been dealing with trying to bring together the House and the Senate will be able to put forth a bill. We are hopeful that indeed they will. Of course, it may lap over into a lame duck session, but that is fine. I suppose in the worst instance--at least I think it is the worst instance--if we don't do anything, then we can take this work and put it back into next year's efforts. But we do need to be more aware of doing the things in this body that need to be done. And, of course, we don't all agree, but we need to find ways to move forward. We have found ourselves in the last several months without much forward movement, without much activity--still haven't done homeland security over relatively small differences of view. I am hopeful that as we enter into these literally last few hours here before we have some kind of recess, we can set some priorities collectively, do those things that must be done and not try to do everything haphazardly, which will obviously result, if we do too many things to move forward--do what we have to do, go do our elections, come back, and then we will have to take up what is yet undone. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of several of our Members who want to talk, I object.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning I will make a few comments with regard to the issue that is generally before us and before the country, and that is, of course, where we go with regard to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The President did a great job last night. He made very appropriate comments at a very appropriate time. He has discussed in detail the threats we see in Iraq, the threats we see in terrorism, and he has talked about his solution. There have been questions raised, and properly so, and the President last evening sought to answer those questions, as indeed I think he should. Why do we need to contain this dictator? I think surely most people understand that. Why do we need to do it now? I suppose that may be one of the most difficult questions for some. Why are we waiting to have allies in the U.N.? Certainly most agree that is something we want. The President covered that very thoroughly, and indicated that is his goal. Our loss of 3,000 innocent Americans on September 11 makes us aware of why we need to make some changes; that activity in the world has changed. A number of years ago the threats were of landing on barges, flying huge formations of airplanes, with divisions of armed men and women. Now it is not entirely safe, as we found out September 11. We suffer huge damages from one incident. That is difficult to control. Clearly we have a problem. We must complete our discussion, move forward and make decisions. It is an issue important to everyone, as a Nation, and important to the world. We will be voting on a resolution soon. I suppose there will be amendments to the resolution. The House may or may not come up with the same resolution. Nevertheless, that is the role of the Senate. I hope we deal with it as quickly as we can. It grants the authority of the President to do what he feels has to be done to deal with this issue. Today we understand the clear and present threat of terrorism being different than in the past. September 11 changed that. We see evidence of these threats around the world. Our personal safety has changed, as well as our national security. We recognize that. I understand there is reason to debate this issue. People have different views. We need to discuss the commitment of the military in this world. The question of acting unilaterally is a difficult question. That is one alternative. We need to offer leadership in the world to reduce the risk that exists. The administration has done an excellent job of getting the support of our allies. Not all have signed up. Not all have stood up and raised their hands. Many support what we do now, as in Afghanistan. Obviously, people have different views. Some are politicized. Some are different, legitimate views. We have to identify what our role should be as a leader in the world. More importantly, we need to protect this country's freedom and protect the freedom of all citizens. In England, Prime Minister Blair has stepped up. I am sure others will, as well. We need to continue to discuss it. Much of the discussion has already taken place and the decision is ready to be made. Is this a sufficient threat to cause us to commit ourselves? I think so. Should we work through the U.N. with our allies? Of course. That is what the President suggested last night. I heard a fellow Senator this morning saying we should not do anything until the U.N. authorizes it. I hope the U.N. does, and I hope the U.N. is there. They should be. On the other hand, I don't think we ought to be controlled by the U.N. If we find this has to be something we do, we must go ahead. Our role is to disarm Saddam. Inspectors are an excellent way to do that. But we have to review policy to see they are unrestricted. However, getting inspectors in is not the goal. Disarmament is the goal. Inspectors may be a way to do that. We hope they are. There will be movement in the U.N. The President's talk last night will do a great deal to assist in that regard. The resolution before the Senate provides for the necessary authority. It pertains to support of diplomatic efforts of the President to strictly enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions that have been in place for 10 years. That is all we are asking. We support, in this resolution, action by the Security Council to ensure Iraq abandons its strategy for delay and invasion. The authorization is included. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and, number 2, enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. The President makes those determinations and reports to the Congress. He makes available to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore his determination that, number one, reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone either will not adequately protect the national security or will not likely lead to the enforcement of those Security Council resolutions. It makes that determination, and, number 2, determines that acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists, terrorist organizations, including the nations, organizations, and persons planning and authorized to commit or aiding terrorists in the attacks that occurred on September 11. It is pretty clear what needs to be done. It is appropriate to discuss this. We have discussed it sufficiently. I hope in the next day or two we can complete action. We need a little less talk and more action. The time has come to do that. It is our challenge. It is our responsibility. I hope we can do it in the next several days. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the 4-H Youth Development Program and express my support for the ``National 4-H Youth Development Program Week.'' Since its inception, 4-H has played an integral role in extending agricultural education to young people all over the country, particularly in rural areas like Wyoming. Being a former 4-H member has given me an even greater appreciation of one of America's longest serving youth development organizations. The four H's--head, heart, hands, and health--are precepts I have never forgotten. I still remember as a high school student traveling away from home for the first time to the National 4-H Congress and the positive impact this organization has had on my life. Today, there are over 60 million 4-H alumni world-wide, and the organization has expanded to meet new challenges of the 21st century. For example, 4-H provides a number of educational projects and activities in the areas of animal science, home economics, natural resources, handcrafts, as well as leadership and citizenship. Through these programs, young men and women have the opportunity to meet new friends, build self-confidence, learn to set and achieve goals, and develop a sense of pride as they ``learn by doing.'' These types of activities underscore the importance of personal development, as well as encouraging our youth to become involved in their community. I am pleased to note that more than 8,000 young people from the State of Wyoming have chosen to make 4-H a part of their lives. The motto of 4-H is ``To Make the Best Better.'' I know that the organization will continue to do just that and I commend their efforts to provide an even greater service to our country's most valuable natural resource, our young people. I am pleased to join Senator Inhofe and many of my other Senate colleagues in support of 4-H and this Concurrent Resolution.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to make a few short comments before I turn it over to my friend from Iowa. I have been listening to my friend from Florida. He is blaming the administration for the deficit. I remind him who it is that spends the money. The administration cannot spend a dime unless it is authorized by the Congress. We find ourselves in a Congress that doesn't even have a budget. When we talk about spending and deficits, we should talk about ourselves and wonder why we haven't done one of the things we have done every year, and that is have a budget. We don't have a budget. So I agree, as a matter of fact, with the spending, but we need to take action.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are a lot of rumors about where we are going in the next few days we have remaining, basically the rest of this week and I presume next week, as to what is going to be done. There is talk about pulling homeland defense. I hope that is not the case. Of all the issues we have before us, certainly that has to be one of the most important. There is talk of bringing all the kind of politically oriented issues to the floor, knowing they will not pass, but to be able to say we tried. I don't think that is the best way to govern. It seems to me we have to make some priorities. We have a shortage of time. We have to decide what are the most important things that need to be done during that time. It seems to me they are fairly clear. I hope we will address those things. Homeland defense has been on the floor for 4 weeks now. It is one that, obviously, is necessary. I don't think there is a soul here who believes we ought not to be doing that. We have argued about governmental employee unions. Certainly, the highest priority of this administration, and I think for the Congress, would be to put into place a homeland defense program, which we have before us. The Iraq resolution apparently is coming to the floor, hopefully tomorrow, to be discussed a rather short time. It is very obvious that needs to be done. We have passed no appropriations this year. We are supposed to have been finished with appropriations. Today, we start a new fiscal year-- without the passage of any appropriations bills. Obviously, we plan to go with a continuing resolution for most of them, but we cannot do that for Defense or military construction. We have to decide those as priorities. Then we have to have a continuing resolution to carry on Government operations until sometime in the future--whether it is a November return, December, January or February, whatever. That has to be done and, I hope, in a clean way that allows us to move forward with attaching a great many things to it. So that is where we are. Certainly, we are all aware of the necessity of accomplishing those things in a reasonably short time we have in which to do that. So I urge the leadership and all of us to try to decide how we handle those things and do them as quickly as we can, so we will be able to leave here when the time comes. These things must be done in the meantime. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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