Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we need to take a little time to talk about the purpose of this bill. All we have heard, frankly, is criticism. All we have heard is people being negative about the things that are there. The fact is, what we need in this Congress, and in this country, is a policy. We had a policy last year, you will recall, that had almost all the things about which the Senator from New Mexico talked. It did not pass. We do not have an energy policy with all those things he insists upon getting in there. We hear from the Senator from California about the problems that happened there. We need to go back and recollect some of the reasons they happened in California. That was because the State didn't allow for the development of energy, it didn't bring any transmission to get it into California, and they had some price controls on the retail but not on the wholesale. We need to go back and focus a little bit on what our real opportunity and obligation is here, and that is to have an energy policy, a policy that deals with conservation, that deals with alternative sources of energy, that deals with research, so we can continue to use the energy we have now, but which also focuses on domestic production. We can talk all we want about where we are going to be in the future, and I hope we are with more alternatives and more renewables, but the fact is we will not have those for several years. The immediate need is to make sure we do not become even more dependent on imported oil and gas from places such as the Middle East and Iraq. I want to take a minute and talk about some of the things that are very positive here because there are very positive aspects to this energy policy, keeping in mind it is an energy policy, keeping in mind, also, that most of us would like to recognize the differences between the regions in the country. The idea of having FERC control all the details of operations doesn't work. It is not acceptable. That is why it has changed this year, so we can put emphasis on regional organizations so States can concentrate on having things work the way they work in one region that don't work in another region. That is one of the reasons that standard market design was not acceptable to most people. It has been modified in this bill so it is not laid on the country originally. There are certainly opportunities for FERC to exercise their responsibilities, as they should, but after the States have had an opportunity to work as States and then to work as regions. This is the direction we are seeking to go. Let me go back just a moment to some of the things we seldom hear people talking about in the Chamber about which, it seems to me, we should be talking. One is energy efficiency. We require a 20 percent reduction in Federal building energy use by 2013. There is an effort to do something about it in the conservation area. The bill authorizes $3.4 billion for low-income housing, to be able to assist that housing in being more energy efficient. Our demand for energy--the production of coal, for example, in the last 5 years has doubled our energy. We are continuing to increase our demand, yet we are becoming more restrictive on our production. We have to balance these things. That is what is done here, is to seek to get more energy efficiency. We seek to establish new energy efficiency standards for commercial and consumer uses of products, such as stoves and refrigerators and those kinds of things. We need to do that. We also emphasize renewables. The talk here is we don't give enough attention to renewables. As a matter of fact, we do. There are incentive programs authorizing $300 million for solar programs with the goal of installing 20,000 solar rooftop systems in Federal buildings. It authorizes over a half billion dollars for biomass projects. These are things that have potential but have not been moved. This is designed to provide incentives so those things can move forward. It authorizes $100 million in increased hydropower production to increase efficiency of dams. So we have goals of increasing renewables by 75 percent over just a few years. Clean coal technology--coal is our largest resource of fossil fuel. It now produces nearly 60 percent of the electricity in this country. It ought to be used as opposed to gas, for example, because we are going to have more of that and gas is more flexible for other uses. But what we want to do is perfect and increase and make better the generation facilities so we can have clean air, so we can protect the environment at the same time that we use this fuel. The Senator from New Mexico was talking about transmission. Certainly you are going to have to have more of that. You have to start where the fuel is and go to the marketplace. That takes transmission. That takes movement of that kind. So we need to prepare for that, and that is what regional transmission organizations are for, so you can move interstate as you move in regions. The States can agree on what we do there. We talk about vehicles and fuels. Advanced vehicle programs: $200 million for that; and clean schoolbus programs. We are putting a great deal of money into the development of hydrogen for use in automobiles and elsewhere. This idea that all we are doing is giving credits for production of coal, oil, and gas is not true. That just isn't the case. There are lots of other things in here, as a matter of fact. We continue to increase funding for the Department of Transportation to work on improving CAFE standards so we will get better mileage out of the cars. I mentioned hydrogen. It is one of the real opportunities. As I said, this is a broad policy. It follows what the administration began several years ago to have a policy for the future of energy production for this country. We need to deal with it in a broad way. This bill does. I understand the people who seem to be concerned about it pick out those little things, and that is all they talk about. But we need to take a look at the broad bill and what it does. One of them, of course, is it gives some incentives for increasing production. That is what we need to do if we are going to continue to have the lights on and continue to drive our cars in the years to come. We have to have production. We have ways to do that. I happen to come from a production State. We can produce more. At the same time, we can protect the environment. These are issues that we talk about here in terms of transporting. For instance, we can produce more natural gas in Wyoming, and we can have a pipeline to get it to the marketplace. We are in the process of doing that. This helps considerably. The same thing is true with electric transmission. There are a great many details which we could go into here. A lot of people have talked about the cost. There is a cost. Let me tell you very briefly, from a conservation standpoint, that there are tax credits for energy efficiency. That is a pretty good thing to be doing--tax credits for producing electricity from certain renewables. I believe that is the direction we want to move--and fuel- efficient vehicles. Some of these tax credits are going to create more conservation. We have talked about reliability in relation to the California situation. There are some incentives for accelerating depreciation; and natural gas-gathering lines so we continue to produce. These are a great many things of that kind. Production by marginal wells is one of the areas that needs to be visited. A lot of older wells only produce a few barrels a day. There has to be some incentive to continue to do that. But it is a very important production aspect so we are not totally reliable on imports. I see others on the floor who are going to be more positive than we have heard for a while. So I will slow down here. But I do suggest that we take a look at our demand for energy and take a look at the growth of demand for energy. Look around in your own family, in your own business, and in your own place where you are sitting right now. How much increased demand do we have for energy? Then take a little look at where we are going to be in 10 or 15 years from now. How are we going to deal with that? That is really what policy is about. Take a little look at this bill and you will find we are talking about conservation, renewables, and domestic production so we can meet the needs on which all of us would agree. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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 Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 9 a.m., in open and possibly closed session, to receive testimony on current Army issues. committee on armed services

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 Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in executive session to discuss pending military nominations. committee on finance

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet in open Executive Session during the session on Wednesday, November 19, 2003; to consider nomination of Arnold I. Havens, to be General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury. committee on governmental affairs

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 2:30 a.m., on ``Judicial Nominations,'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List: Panel I: Senators. Panel II: Williams James Haynes II to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Louis Guirola, Jr. to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi; Virginia E. Hopkins to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama; and Kenneth M. Karas to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. select committee on intelligence

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on November 19, 2003 at 2 p.m. to hold closed Conference on the Fiscal Year 04 Intelligence Authorization.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in Executive Session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, November 19, 2003. The following agenda will be considered: S__, Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 2003 S__, Medical Device Technical Corrections Act of 2003 S. 741, Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2003 and Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2003 (manager's amendment to be filed) S. 573, Organ Donation and Recovery Improvement Act Presidential Nominations THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on the judiciary

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., for a hearing titled ``Agroterrorism: The Threat to America's Breadbasket.'' committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Fifteen minutes apiece?

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank my friend from New Mexico and the ranking member on our committee. I thank him for the work he has done. I think it is interesting, as we hear people begin to talk about this bill and talk about the need for an energy policy, to say how important it is for us to have one and then spend the rest of the time opposing the things that are there. The fact is we do need an energy policy. We haven't had one for a very long time. It has been something we have been working on now for 3 years. The other side of the aisle was unable to get one for the last year, and we worked right up to the end and it didn't get through. Now we have worked on it another 2 years, and we ought to be able to get it finished. I am disappointed that everyone talks about the need and then begins to talk about why they don't like this bill and this little piece and that little piece. I understand. It is a broad bill. But it is an important issue. We need an energy policy. We need the kind of energy policy that gives us some direction for where we are going to be in the future. It is not designed to deal with all the problems that may exist today, although some of those are there of course. We ought to be looking to where we need to be in 10 years or 15 years down the road. That is what policies are for--to talk about the future. It obviously has to be a balanced policy. Unfortunately, I am afraid very many of our friends here and very many of the folks in the country are just accustomed to turning on the lights, going to the gas station, and not thinking about how it happens to be there. It is kind of interesting that for States that are dependent on all other sources, their representatives are more opposed to doing something than the people who are producing the product. I think it is time they begin to take a look at the fact that energy just isn't there naturally. There has to be a policy to do that. It has to be a balanced policy. We are looking at conservation. We are looking at alternatives. We are looking at renewables. Of course, in the short term, in reaching those goals, the most important thing we have to talk about is domestic production so that we aren't becoming more and more dependent on foreign countries to provide what we are using. One of the reasons is that much of the opposition comes from environmentalists who only look at things from one side. This needs to be balanced. In my State of Wyoming, we are very concerned about the environment. We also know that you can have multiple use, you can have production, and you can also take care of the environment. You don't just have to say you can't touch these areas. These are the kinds of balances we have to find to really be able to move forward the way we would like to do. I thank Senator Domenici and Representative Tauzin and their staffs. They worked very hard. We worked on it very hard as well, prior to putting it together for the Senate and certainly from the House side, with a mix of domestic production, research and development, incentives to cause these things to happen, and conservation. We will be better off certainly with the passage of this bill and this legislation. It has been over a decade in coming. It has been over 2 years--almost 3 years--since the President's office and the Vice President particularly set about to come up with an energy policy so we will have some direction on where we are going as the demands increase, which they are. There has to be some way to meet those demands. The idea that you can suddenly go to alternatives and renewables-- they produce now about 3 percent of the total we utilize, notwithstanding the dams and that sort of thing. But air, wind, solar are a very small percentage. They have great possibilities for the future, but that isn't going to happen next year, or the next year, or even 5 years from now. That is what this thing is all about--to make some movement. We have experienced blackouts. We have experienced natural gas price hikes and all of those kinds of things. When that happens, suddenly everybody talks about energy. When that moves away from us, we forget about it again. We really ought to stay on the issue. I don't think we should, nor can we, wait for another crisis to be able to do something of this kind. If there is anything we should have learned in the 21st century and the quality of life that we seek, the idea of creating jobs, the idea of having a vibrant economy is very closely enhanced and tied to reliable energy and a clean environment. Those are the goals that we have. We have to modernize conservation to be able to do that job more effectively. Everyone is in favor of conservation. But how much have you done in your home in terms of having incentives to change the equipment you use to make it more conservation-like? Very little. We just want more power at a cheaper price. What have we done to modernize our infrastructure? We see things changing. With more and more market generators who do not make the distribution and have to move it to a market, then you have to change the system, you have to change the system of moving power. Those things change. Indeed, they are changing. We have to increase our energy supplies, including renewables and alternatives. We can do a better job of protecting the environment. I am persuaded. Obviously, there are some places in our States that should be set aside--and they are set aside--national parks, wilderness areas, parts of the forests, and this and that. Half of our State land belongs to the Federal Government. It is public land. We have to find a way to have alternative uses and to have multiple use. We intend to do that. Finally, one of our goals ought to be increased national security. What could be a more important goal than that? Are we going to be dependent on Iraq and Saudi Arabia for our energy? We need to change that. After years of talking about it, this is a good opportunity to do something. In any bill as complex and as large as this, there will be items of disagreement, such as MTBE liability. Of course, we can talk about that the rest of the month. But we ought to give a little thought to where we need to be with energy and whether that is the tradeoff necessary to defeat a bill. I cannot imagine that tradeoff. We need to have a balanced approach. That is what we seek. There has been a lot of talk about the tax credits. Let me state what they are for: tax credits for residential energy efficiencies; tax credits for producing electricity from certain renewable sources; tax incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles; tax credits for efficient appliances. All the talk of tax credits, and that is what they are for. That is how a private sector system gives incentives. For reliability, accelerated depreciation of natural gaslines so we can have accelerated depreciation for distribution, electric transmission lines. We need reliability to move the energy; open transmission, to be able to deal with the changes taking place in the development of the energy we have now. Production: How to get more production of gas and oil? Through incentives. Marginal wells, low-production wells, do not produce. There has to be an incentive to continue to produce, to continue to reintroduce CO2 into the ground. These are not to make someone wealthy. These are designed to cause things to happen. Suspended income in the percentage of depreciation for small producers, provide amortization for geophysical expenses to determine where we have production opportunities for oil and gas--these are the items we mean when we talk about tax credits. Yes, there are substantial credits but that is how we move toward domestic production. We can do it in an economically and environmentally sound manner. Oil and other fossil fuels provide 85 percent of all energy use in the United States. The fact is, we still depend on coal largely for the development of electricity. Quite frankly, we ought to depend on it even more because gas is so much more flexible for other uses. We are working on ways, with some of the dollars in the bill, to provide cleaner plants for the production of electricity with coal. That is part of the overall plan to move forward. Renewables, including hydrogen, currently provide about 7 percent. Absent hydro, it is only about 3 percent. We built a building for a company I worked with in Caspar and we used solar. This was about 15 years ago. Quite frankly, it did not work. We had to remove the solar panels and do something else. We had to find another way. Now I think it probably would work. We have to move forward. There is a difference in views depending on where you are from. The New Englanders have one point of view; of course, they use the energy. Some of the rest of the country produces as well as uses energy. My State produces about 35 percent of the Nation's coal and has the greatest coal reserves of any place in the United States. We are sixth or seventh in the production of oil. In gas, we are about fifth. We have come up with a methane production opportunity recently. There has to be a policy that encourages production so we can move forward. We have to have investment in the transmission. We find increasingly the market is here and the energy use is over here. That is a problem in California. California is the biggest user of energy but that is not the energy development area. We have to move that energy, whether it is through pipelines or transmission. In the bill we are trying to put together regional transmission organizations for electric transmissions so the States can collectively make some decisions with respect to interstate movement. No Member wants to leave it all in the hands of FERC, although there has to be some opportunity for FERC. We have to leave some responsibility there. We have had a big hassle over standard market design. This bill puts in a standard market design as it was designed a couple of years ago. But it does recognize that FERC still has to ensure reliability so we do not have blackouts, to assure the opportunities for movement of energy among States, which is not always an easy thing to do. These are realistic issues. I am surprised sometimes we find so much opposition to ideas. Ideas have to be here to accomplish our goals. That is what a policy is, to have a goal and decide how to get there. I cannot help but continue to be a little surprised at the difficulty in getting an energy policy on the ground. In any bill as complicated as this, everyone has a different view and everyone can change things a bit. This has become a collective bill, put together by the House, the Senate, Democrats, Republicans, people from New England, people from all over. We have a mixture of ideas. I would not have done it exactly this way had I been doing it by myself, but I think it is important to have a policy to move on, dealing with our demand for energy, and moving in the direction we want. In general, this is a good bill. This is a bill that moves us forward for energy in the future, the kind of future in which we can work on our conservation methods and, hopefully, reduce the demands we have--at least the growth level we have had in the past--and that we can find alternative fuels. As we move forward, we are looking now at coal as the basis for hydrogen. That can be very important. Imagine if we developed hydrogen cars next year and were ready to go with them as a clean and available source. How long would it take to get the delivery system in place, to get hydrogen stations instead of gas stations all over the country? When we think about potential changes out there, we have to think about reaching that point. We must continue to provide energy as we now know it, as we move toward something different. All this talk of more oil and gas, we will have renewables. Good luck. What are we going to do in the 15-year-period of transition? I hope we continue to look at a balanced policy with conservation, alternatives, domestic production, research, more cleanliness in production, and so on. We will continue, I suppose, to talk about this matter for a while. I am disappointed that apparently there is going to be a reluctance to let us move forward with it as quickly as we should. We are trying to complete some business this week, and yet it is going to be very difficult to do that.

Mr. THOMAS. Well, you have also been here. If you care to speak after Senator Craig, perhaps I could be after you, and Senator Durbin after that.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the committee substitute, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the amendment to the title as reported be amended with the amendment at the desk, the title amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 383, S. 1156.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Veterans' Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2297 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the FAA conference report before us this evening is critical because it provides funding for crucial safety, security and capacity projects at airports across the country. I strongly believe that all Senators should support this cloture vote--especially since it includes provisions to strengthen our Nation's air service. However, a handful of Members on the other side of the aisle have held this measure up due to inaccurate claims that the administration wants to privatize our air traffic control system. I would like to take a few minutes to set the record straight. The objective of the FAA contract tower program is to reduce costs to the Federal Government by contracting out the operation of low-activity towers while providing a safe and efficient service to users of the National Airspace System. Without the contract tower program, many smaller airports would be left with no air traffic control services. Since 1982, the FAA has used the contract tower program to provide air traffic control services at low activity Visual Flight Rules towers across the country. In 1994, the Program was expanded to include the conversion of FAA Level 1 Visual Flight Rule towers to contract operations. This expansion was included in Vice President Gore's National Performance Review and supported by Congress. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General has publicly stated how important the contract tower program is. This program makes sense because it allows the FAA to realign its resources in a more efficient and effective manner; it has a better safety rate than FAA towers; and, it saves taxpayer dollars. All contract controllers are certified by FAA, and contract tower facilities are monitored on a regular basis by the agency. Additionally, the vast majority of contract controllers are former FAA and military controllers. All contract controllers are subject to the same training requirements and operating rules and procedures. Presently, the FAA is operating 219 contract towers at airports throughout the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The Contract Tower program cost for FY 2002 was $73.5 million. This program results in annual savings of over $54 million. A recent audit by the Inspector General at the Department of Transportation validated the cost savings, and found that contract towers operate as safely and efficiently as FAA towers. Contract tower locations are evaluated by the FAA under the same requirements as FAA staffed towers. Contract towers are staffed at the levels required under current contracts. Contracts are required to submit monthly staffing reports-- which provides verification that they are in compliance with their FAA approved staffing plans. Several audits have commended the FAA's Contract Tower program for oversight of contractors and strict monitoring of controller staffing levels. According to Department of Transportation Inspector General Kenneth Mead, the contract tower program provides ``cost-effective services that are comparable to the quality and safety of FAA-operated towers.'' Additionally, the National Transportation Safety Board--NTSB--supports the contract tower program. I find it hard to believe that a handful of Democrats know more than NTSB or the inspector general when it comes to aviation safety. There are many aspects of our Nation's aviations system. Nothing in the FAA Conference Report would allow for privitization. Simply put, under this bill the FAA would continue to exercise the authority it has had since 1982. A number of my colleagues have implied that this bill is an attempt to contract out the job of Enroute Control Centers. Enroute controllers are responsible for directing traffic across the United States--the Contract Tower Program has nothing to do with these positions. At Congressional hearings this year, DOT's inspector general stated that with the sharp decline in revenues to the aviation trust fund and the most recent projections of the federal deficit, the FAA needs the flexibility to ensure VFR towers are conducted in the safest and most cost-effective manner possible. Wyoming's busiest commercial airport--Jackson Hole--operates under a contract tower. The Jackson Airport handles over 63 percent of Wyoming's commercial air traffic. For those who question the safety of contract towers, I would like to point out that Vice President Cheney and President Bush both use contract towers when they fly to their respective home States. If the contract towers are safe enough for the President and Vice President--I believe they are safe enough for the American public. I would like to quote Senator Lautenberg's floor statement during consideration of the fiscal year 1994 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act on October 4, 1993. He said: The use of contract towers is an example of how we can reduce the costs of Government services and achieve savings over the long run. FAA estimates that the use of a contract control tower saves $200,000 annually because of the flexibility available in scheduling controller working hours around changes in air traffic activity levels. I ask unanimous consent that the Talon News article by Jeff Gannon dated September 23, 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues and the American public see that under the Clinton administration the Contract Tower Program was okay but it's not today--under a Republican administration. This conference report includes many important provisions for our aviation system. It includes billions in funding for the Airport Improvement Program; provides continuation of the Essential Air Service and Small Community Air Service programs; funds FAA operations, air traffic control facilities and equipment; extends War Risk Insurance to March 2008; and it provides streamlining for airport capacity, safety and security projects. Secretary Norman Mineta has stated that ``passage of this legislation offers millions of American travelers the assurance that the Nation's aviation system will remain the safest, most efficient and most competitive in the world.'' The facts speak for themselves. The Contract Tower Program provides cost effective, quality and safe air traffic control services to smaller airports. I urge my colleagues to support cloture on this important bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I will not take much time. I have been listening, of course, as we all have, to the debate, some of it from the chair this morning. Nearly everything has been said, I suppose. Not all of us have said it, and so it is important that we all do. I am no expert in the judicial system. I am not on the committee. But I have been here and I have observed what has gone on throughout this whole last year. We keep talking about the fact that we ought to be talking about unemployment, we ought to be talking about a number of things, and I agree with that. We should have been doing that over the last year, but we spent a lot of time on this very issue right here on the floor when we could have been talking about energy; we could have been talking about health care; we could have been talking about all of those things. So I kind of hate to hear that this 30 hours is holding things up when we spent much more than that with the other side simply holding up moving things along. I am convinced there needs to be a system in the Senate we can depend on and work with, that we can bring it to a vote and decide yes or no. There has to be that system. That is what this is all about. There seems to be a lot of talk, of course, about the individual candidates we are talking about here who have not been able to be dealt with. But the real fact is it is the system that is in question. That is what it is really all about, and I think we need to deal with that issue. There has been obstruction, frankly. There has been obstruction on almost all of our issues. It has been called slow-walking. Some evidence of that from last year is that we did not even get a budget. Remember that? We did not even get appropriations through the whole year. That same obstructionism has been going on this year. It is all political. It is too bad, really, because we have so much we can do and so much we really ought to do. We have a constitutional duty, of course, to provide the advice and consent of these nominations. It is pretty simple. The Constitution specifically requires a supermajority for overriding a veto, for impeachment, for ratification of treaties. Advice and consent is not in that category and has not been in that category. As I said, I will not take long. Some of the past comments from the other side of the aisle I think have been interesting as time goes by. Let me quote from Senator Edward Kennedy from the Congressional Record in 1999, in September: Delays can be described as an abolition of the Senate's constitutional responsibility to work with the President and ensure the integrity of the Federal courts. Another quote: The delay has been especially unfair to nominees who are women and minorities, selected for that sort of business. Another from the Senator from California: I am very glad we are moving forward on judges today. We have all heard, as we were growing up, that justice delayed is justice denied. We have vacancies in many of our courts that have gone on for a year or 2 years, in many cases getting to a crisis level. I am pleased we will be voting. I think whether the delays are on the Republican or Democrat side, let the names come up and let us have a vote. Let us debate and have a vote. The Senator from California and I agree with that point of view. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as a veteran marine and friend, I rise today to pay tribute to Gy Sgt Thomas S. Hogdahl, who will retire from the U.S. Marine Corps on March 1, 2004. I have had the pleasure to work with Hogdahl on many occasions. In addition to his professionalism and planning expertise he will be missed for his intensity, integrity, and unique sense of humor. But mostly he will be missed for his dedication to the Members and staff of the Senate. Thomas Hogdahl was born in Teaneck, and was raised in Bergenfield NJ. There he played basketball and soccer and graduated from Bergenfield High School in 1983. In 1984 he enlisted in the Marine Corps, and subsequently reported to Parris Island, SC, to take on the challenge of becoming a US marine. Upon earning the title of marine, Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl completed his followon training at Camp Lejeune, NC, where he received formal training as a Marine Corps Administrator, graduating as the honor graduate. He was then ordered cross-country to Camp Pendleton, CA, to serve as an administrative clerk to the hundreds of marines assigned to the historic 1st Marine Division. From 1986 to 1994, his service would take him to Okinawa, Japan, with the 3rd Marine Amphibious Force; Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA, with Security Battalion, and eventually to Dover, NJ, with the inspector and instructor staff for the 25th Marines, 4th Marine Division. In 1994, Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl was selected for one of the most demanding billets in the Marine Corps, a Marine Corps Drill instructor (DI). I, as well as every person who has worn the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor will remember their drill instructor for the rest of their lives. He is the one person who has the greatest impact in transforming trainees into U.S. marines. After graduating in the top 10 percent of his DI School, Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl returned to the legendary yellow footprints where he started his journey 10 years before, only this time it would be in Recruit Depot San Diego, and this time he would be wearing the traditional ``Smokey'' cover of a drill instructor. For the next 2 years his leadership and example would transform hundreds of young men into U.S. marines. In 1996, after leaving the drill field, Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl attended the Advanced Personnel Admin Chief's Course, graduating again as the honor graduate. Thereafter he reported for duty at Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA, where he served as Administration Chief for headquarters and Service Battalion. Just over a year later Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl was selected to attend the Staff Non-Commissioned Officer Career Course, from which he graduated in the top 10 percent amongst his fellow senior marines. Following school, Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl was handpicked to fill a senior SNCO position as administrative assistant in the Office of the Under Secretary of the Navy. Based on his exemplary performance over the next year and a half, Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl was once again selected for another position of great responsibility--the Staff Non-Commissioned Officer for the Marine Corps' U.S. Senate Liaison Office. In May 1999, Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl began his tour with the Marine Corps' Senate Liaison Office, and since that time, he has been a key player in helping to maintain positive and productive relationships between the Marine Corps, my colleagues in the Senate, professional committee staff, and personal staff. He was responsible for responding to thousands of congressional inquiries ranging from such sensitive issues as notification of combat casualties during Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom to providing important, timely information on the operation and organization of the Marine Corps. Through his efforts, Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl developed a sterling reputation for honesty, punctuality, and accuracy. His efforts not only communicated the Commandant's message to the Senate, but also upheld and added to the Marine Corps' image and reputation on Capitol Hill. While a member of the Marine Corps Senate Liaison Office, Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl successfully planned and executed 28 international congressional delegations. I had the pleasure of traveling on three of these congressional delegations with Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl, and was greatly impressed with his professionalism, attention to detail, and resourcefulness. His acumen for planning and coordination carried over into Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl's ability to plan and organize numerous Marine Corps and Joint Service social events on Capitol Hill. These events included among others, the Marine Corps Birthday Commemoration, Joint Services Reception, and Marine Corps fall and spring receptions-- all very important in enabling myself, and my Senate colleagues to maintain important relationships with the Corps' senior leadership. Throughout his career as a U.S. marine, GySgt Thomas S. Hogdahl has demonstrated outstanding character, discerning judgment, and a deep sense of duty to his Country and Corps. On behalf of the U.S. Senate, I thank Gunnery Sergeant Hogdahl for his 21 years of service to the Nation and the U.S. Marine Corps. His wife Barbara, and their three sons--Thomas, Stephen, and Brandon--have reason to be proud of ``Gunny'' Hogdahl as we are here in the U.S. Senate and I wish them all the best as Tom tackles new challenges in his certain to be successful civilian career.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we all rise to recognize this day. As we think about it, I suspect there is no other day of recognition that has as much bearing on the freedoms we enjoy as this day of recognizing veterans. It is so important that we take time to recognize and honor those men and women who have worn this country's uniform. Certainly, as we think about it today, our thoughts are primarily focused on those men and women now serving overseas in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places. Of course, historically we have many things to think about: Those who have given so much so we can continue to live in freedom. I suppose if we have a weakness in terms of our recognition, it is identifying what others have done for us to be able to have the freedoms we enjoy and have done for so many years. I think it is appropriate we set this day aside not only to recognize those who have done so much but, frankly, to ensure young people understand the sacrifices that have been made. We want people who were not around at all in World War II, Korea, or even Vietnam to understand what has happened. Dwight Eisenhower once said that: War demands real toughness of fiber, not only in the soldiers who must endure, but in the homes that must sacrifice their best. That is true. All families sacrifice as well. This morning, we visited a VA hospital in DC. We visited with a number of veterans who were being treated in that hospital, some from World War II who had done so much. Today we honor those who made these sacrifices, in many cases the ultimate sacrifice in defense of liberty, justice, and democracy. We are engaged today in the struggle which will test our national resolve, and I hope today helps us to understand the importance of that resolve. A new generation of Americans has answered the call and is defending our country. Today, as we commemorate and honor those who have gone before, we must remember the brave souls currently serving in harm's way. We must renew our commitment to the ideals for which so many have fought and died. We must never forget freedom has a very high price indeed. That price has been paid by our Nation's veterans and their families. I was impressed when I think it was the commandant of the Marine Corps who said there is a direct connection between the land of the free and the home of the brave. That is true. Today we say thank you on behalf of a very grateful Nation. We are extremely proud of all the veterans have done. I ask unanimous consent the poem ``A Cowboy Defends Us'' be printed in the Record. There being no objections, the material was ordered to be printed in

Mr. THOMAS. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to speak on country-of-origin myths versus facts. No. 1, Myth: U.S. consumers do not care about country-of-origin labeling. Facts: That is not what people in Wyoming and national surveys indicate. Consumers overwhelmingly support labeling because it provides product information, increased consumer choice and the chance to support American agriculture. Two, of the largest consumer groups in the United States, Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumers League, strongly support mandatory COOL. No. 2, Myth: Country-of-origin labeling violates our international trade agreement commitments. Facts: Country-of-origin labeling law does not violate international trading agreements. Marking products is allowed by international trading rules. Under Article IX of GATT, countries can require marks of origin on imported products. Many nations already require country-of-origin labeling on a variety of food products. A recent GAO study found that 48 of our 57 top trading partners require labeling for at least one of the commodities covered by COOL and 41 require labeling of meat at retail. No. 3, Myth: The cost of compliance with the country-of-origin labeling law will be extravagant in the first year and will increase consumer food costs. Facts: The USDA incorrectly assumed that new record keeping system requirements would meet to be established and implemented. The Majority of producers already keep records that can provide the required information. GAO reports that USDA exaggerated its initial cost project. The $1.9 billion estimate was found to be ``questionable and not well supported.'' USDA current estimates are equally flawed. Consumer organizations estimate the average cost to individual consumers will only be about 13 cents per week. Also, consumer surveys support COOL. Fresh Trends, a 2002 survey, found that 86 percent of consumer respondents favor country-of-origin labeling. Of the 86 percent of consumers favoring COOL, 78 percent prefer mandatory labeling over voluntary labeling. And 60 percent of those questioned have been produce items in U.S. supermarkets that were grown in other countries. Also, 48 percent of the people identified South America as a source of produce, 33 percent Mexico, 12 percent Central America. North Carolina State University, in February 2003, found that 74 percent of consumers believe the U.S. shouldn't buy all its food from other countries even if it is cheaper than food produced and sold here. Four out of 5 U.S. consumers believe that U.S.-grown food is fresher and safer. And 92 percent prefer to eat meat produced in the United States. Those surveyed were undecided about the safety of meat from outside the United States. Only 5 percent questioned are uncertain about U.S. produced meats. And two-thirds of consumers would pay more for food grown in the U.S. rather than abroad. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services found that 37 percent of consumers would pay between 10 and 20 percent more for U.S. fruits and vegetables. More than two-thirds of consumers note the country where fresh produce is grown. Also, 56 percent of consumers believe that U.S. produce is safer than imported produce. And 62 percent of consumers would purchase U.S. produce if it had a COOL label. If price and appearance were equal, 61 percent of consumers would select U.S.-grown produce. Colorado State University, in March 2003, found that 75 percent of consumers prefer to buy beef with country-of-origin labeling. And 73 percent of consumers would be willing to pay more for beef with country-of-origin labeling. Also, 69 percent of consumers are willing to pay more for steaks labeled, ``USA Guaranteed: Born and Raised in the United States'' than for those with no origin label. And 56 percent of that 69 percent were wiling to pay premiums. Tarrance Group and Northern Illinois University, in June 2001, found that 81 percent of those surveyed want their food to come from the United States. I urge passage of COOL.