Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. We have a lot of work to do. We have six or seven appropriations bills that we have passed. We have 13 total to do. This is the last day of the fiscal year. We will have to pass a continuing resolution to go on into October, but we certainly need to continue to work on that and get that completed as soon as we can. It is very important we do that. There are several other bills, of course, that are pending that all of us feel strongly about. The Medicare bill is pending and we need to do something with pharmaceuticals. There is a great difference of opinion as to how we do that. The bottom line is that everybody knows we need to do something for Medicare, particularly pharmaceuticals, to make them available at a reasonable cost to as many people as we possibly can. So those issues are pending. I have a particular interest in energy because of my committees and because of where I live. Wyoming is an energy-production State. We look forward to being able to do more of that. We are in the process of an energy policy and had planned to get that completed this week. The House and the Senate have both passed energy bills. Most everyone knows we need an energy policy. We have not passed one for a good many years, and things have changed substantially. So we really need to deal with it. One of the issues I believe is important, that we are talking about, is an energy policy. We are not talking about every detail. We are not talking about everything tomorrow. We are talking about an energy policy that will give us some guidance into where we are 10, 15, 20 years from now. Obviously, things are going to change and indeed have changed. We have seen a number of the problems: the blackouts, the cost of gasoline, the shortage of natural gas, the things that happened in California. Those are part of what we are talking about, but we are also talking about the future. In this bill, we have things that have to do with renewable energy, finding ways to use wind energy, finding ways to use ethanol to extend the use of gas. We are talking about renewables. We are talking about doing some things with hydro and making that more accessible to much of the country. Obviously, one of the questions we have is how to move energy around the country. It has to do with the blackouts and has to do with California. We are talking about, how transmission can be operated, how to get new transmission incentives to invest in transmission costs. We find ourselves in a position of using more electricity, for example, but not really keeping up production to meet our demands. In some parts of the country--for instance, Wyoming--where we have lots of coal, we could generate a great deal of electricity, but then there has to be a way to move it to the market. Those have been very difficult things. We have to have research. I mentioned coal. We ought to have more research so we can ensure that coal is clean and we can have clean air as we generate that fossil resource that is the most abundant resource we have in fossil fuel. We need then, of course, in the shorter term, to continue to encourage production. We find ourselves almost 60 percent dependent on foreign oil. We have a good deal of oil in our country and we need to find ways to extract more of that, keeping in mind at the same time the protection of the environment. We can do that. There is ample evidence we can do that. So we have to deal with things such as incentives for unusual kinds of oil and gas that are more expensive to discover and to produce. We have to look at what we can do with the potential resources in Alaska, for example, whether it be having gas available from there, build a pipeline down so it is there, or whether we talk about ANWR. These are places where there are substantial sources of energy but they are not really available to us. These are some of the things we need to talk about. We had a bill last year in both Houses. We had a committee working on it last year. We were not able to produce a policy. This year, the same thing is happening. We passed something in the Senate; there was something else passed in the House. We need to put together the differences, and there are differences, quite a few in terms of the amount of ethanol we use and the subsidies that are there for ethanol. We have been talking about what to do about electricity and how much authority they have in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is controversial--how we can develop techniques, given regional differences in energy, without having the Federal Government in charge of everything we do. These are called regional transmission organizations, where the States can make the decisions within that for interstate movement. Then when you move between the RTOs, there has to be some Federal involvement. These are some problems that are not insurmountable. We can get them done. Of course, not everyone is going to agree on every detail, but that is not uncommon in the Senate. We have to give away some things. Some things are different in Alabama or Oregon, and we need to reconcile those differences and put together a national energy policy. That is our challenge. I mention that to emphasize that hopefully we will not be here forever. We will be able to adjourn this session, hopefully in November sometime--early November, if we are lucky, or later. We have a lot to do prior to that time, but we can do it if we will bring it to the floor, if we have our legitimate concerns voiced in legitimate debates, but not just hold up legislation for various political reasons. I think that makes us look inefficient and unaware of what we have to do, and we have a great deal to do. I believe our time has expired. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, obviously one of the issues before us and the issue we will be grappling with for the remainder of the week-- perhaps longer--is the question of supporting our troops in Iraq and continuing to deal with the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Certainly everyone agrees that these things have to be done. There are different views as to how they should be done. All of us have to review in our minds where we are, what the basic issues are that have us there, and certainly what is necessary to succeed in our efforts in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have before us a request for $87 billion for the war on terror. That will be dealt with this week, the division there between what is required for the military aspect and then what is required to complete our job in terms of leaving Iraq and Afghanistan in the condition in which democracy and freedom and a lack of terrorism will be where we are in the future. It is good to go back and review some ideas. I would like to talk about where we have been, where we need to go to complete the task we undertook, and talk a little about what we are seeking to do in terms of leaving Iraq in a position to govern itself and to support freedom and peace, and about the fact that we hear all the time that there was no plan after combat was over. That is not true. There is a plan. The plan is in process. We certainly will continue to carry out that plan. We need resources to do that. All of us are concerned about spending. All of us are concerned about the deficit. We find ourselves in a deficit situation for reasons that are fairly apparent. It started, of course, with September 11, which was something we had no control over, which increased special spending we would not otherwise have had. Then we were faced with an economic turndown which caused additional impacts on our deficit and the economy. Then, of course, we continued to have more terrorism and our troops in Iraq. I guess probably no one in this body is more conservative than I am in terms of spending, in terms of government's role and what we ought to be doing, but I do recognize that when you have special things, whether it is your business or your family or your government, then spending is done in a different way. That is where we are. The stakes are high in Iraq, certainly. It is the center front now for the war on terrorism. Critical work remains to be done in Afghanistan as well. Terrorists and regime remnants are making a desperate attempt to maintain themselves and continue in these countries. The U.S. and its allies are confronting them where they live and where they seek refuge, rather than leaving the terrorists in the safe havens where they would like to gather strength and resources and come back as they did before. Our troops--no one would disagree, I am sure--have to have the necessary resources for the war on terror, and the spending requests will give our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan the equipment they need to increase their safety and security, which happens to be the most important thing for us. This includes funding to replace equipment used that was destroyed during combat operations, to protect our forces, better housing for our troops deployed overseas, and enhanced pay, reflected in the dangers that we face. Of course, we have been through these things before. Stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan will increase our security at home and certainly help win the war. As we understand, the war was not just combat but to change things in that part of the world. The costs of fighting terrorists are significant, but they still are a relatively small percentage of the overall economy compared to that of previous conflicts. According to an analysis done by USA Today, the cost of fighting the war is 5 percent of the GDP compared to 30 percent for World War II and 15 percent for the Korean war. The $87 billion request is less than 4 percent of our entire Federal budget next year. Yet it is a critical part of this stabilization area we are in. Initial estimates of Iraq's total need range from $50 billion to $75 billion. The administration believes $20 billion represents our reasonable share as to what we ought to be doing to put the country back in reasonable shape, and we expect the rest of the costs, of course, to be filled by the international community, or by Iraq's own reserves, which are potentially very large. So these funds will be carefully targeted to the immediate security needs, as well as the share of the critical infrastructure that has to be replaced in order to get the kinds of support there that we are looking for. Iraq oil reserves are estimated at approximately $12 billion in 2004 and $19 billion for each of 2005 and 2006. So unlike many of the countries in that part of the world, there are sizable resources that we hope will be part of this rebuilding exercise, and indeed should be. President Bush has held the line on nondefense spending growth. In 2001, the last budget before President Bush took office, nondefense spending grew nearly 15 percent. He cut that growth to 6 percent in 2000, less than 5 percent in 2003, and 2 percent in 2004. Obviously, there is always controversy and different views and things that we would like to do in our home States and in our country. But, of course, obviously, they have to be balanced with our ability to pay and our willingness to tax. Today's deficits are larger than anybody wants. No one wants deficits, but they are certainly still less than 5 percent of the GDP and are manageable if we put them into a steady downward path by strong economic growth and spending restraints. These are the issues with which we have to deal. Certainly, the war on terrorism has to be funded. Freeing Iraq is the key to winning the terrorism war and vital to America. President Bush has asked for $87 billion in emergency funding--a large amount, of course. The majority--$65 billion--will go to directly support troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, give them more resources that they need. Again, no one would argue against giving our troops what is necessary for them to go forward. And $21 billion would go to create a secure environment. It is high, but as I mentioned, things have changed and we need to do the job right and continue to work at doing it. From time to time we hear that there really wasn't a plan or there is not a plan. There is a plan and we are following it. One of the issues, of course, is time. I don't know how you could plan that anybody would have a definite timeframe in terms of a plan for a place such as Iraq. But I think Secretary Rumsfeld covered it well when he commented some time back, a few days ago. These are some of his comments that I think are correct. He said the coalition has certainly, in less than 5 months, racked up a series of achievements in both countries and civil reconstruction that may be without precedent. Today in Iraq virtually all major hospitals and universities have been reopened; hundreds of secondary schools--until a few months ago many were used for weapons storage--have been rebuilt and are ready for the start of the fall semester. This is part of the plan to put these entities, of course, back into place. Fifty-six thousand Iraqis have been armed and trained in just a few months. They are contributing to the security and defense of the country. Today a new Iraqi army is being trained, and 40,000 Iraq police will join with that army to conduct joint controls with the coalition. Contrast that to the 14 months it took to establish a police force in postwar Germany and the 10 years it took to begin training a new German army. Again, this is part of the plan to add stability and provide the opportunity for Iraqis to be able to control their own country and their own people and move forward. As security improves, so does commerce. Five thousand small businesses have opened since the liberation on May 1. An independent Iraqi central bank was established and new currency was announced in just 2 months. These are accomplishments which took years before in Germany. The Iraq governing council has been formed and they appointed a cabinet of ministers-- again, something that took years to do in other times. So this is the plan and the movement to get government back into place there, to have security for themselves, to have people trained to do what has to be done in a country that is independent and standing alone. In major cities and most of the towns, villages, and municipalities, councils have been formed to make the decisions on local matters. That is something that it took a great deal of time to do before, and you would imagine that it would. But all this has taken place in just 5 months. Again, I don't think anybody can specifically say we are going to be done by the 14th of March in 2005, or whatever, but we are moving very quickly. There is a plan as to what needs to be in place. The Iraqi people are providing intelligence now for our forces every day. Division commanders consistently report an increased numbers of Iraqis coming forward with intelligence that makes it more likely that we can find the terrorists and get them out of positions, and so on. So there has been a great deal of advancement. There has been great talk about the need for more troops. Those in the military have declared that is not necessary. If we are going to have more, they need to come from other countries that are involved. The commander of the Marine division in the south area decided to send home 15,000 troops and explained if there is a point when he needs them, he can get them. So there hasn't been the shortage that is felt by the military. Again, we are moving forward and making some progress in that area. That is what it is all about--to continue to reach the visions that we have for Iraq and against terrorism. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will take just a portion of that. I think we have covered this issue fairly well. I would like to comment on a couple things that were said on the other side of the aisle. The Senator said we are going to contract everything out. That is part of the problem here, making statements like that which are absolutely untrue. It makes it kind of tough to understand what is going on. No one is talking about contracting everything out. No one is even talking about privatizing. We are talking about competitive competition. So I think we ought to be just a little more careful about that. This idea that this is being done entirely by the executive branch, remember, we passed a law in 1998 called the FAIR Act. You know what that was. It authorized what we are doing here now. Circular A-76 has been on the books from Congress since 1976. Congress passed that. Surprising as it may seem, a lot of people in Congress think the private sector is a good thing, that it does a pretty good job. That is kind of what this country is about, the private sector. This idea that somehow you hire people and take away all their benefits--the Service Acquisition Act, passed by Congress, ensures that health benefits and pay are not reduced in Government contracts to the private sector. Those are things that are done there. We are not talking about contracting everything. Here are the positions being evaluated to give you some idea. From U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, clerical support and appraisers; National Park Service, maintenance vehicles, lawns, bathrooms, air-conditioners--is that going to change the emotions in the park? I don't think so--Bureau of Reclamation, Job Corps centers; Bureau of Land Management, maintenance vehicles, bathrooms, air-conditioners, geographic information services. These are the kinds of jobs that are done all the time in the private sector, the professionals, many of them in the private sector. It is too bad we continue to say some of these things that just aren't the case. I hope we continue to provide, as the Congress has said, an opportunity to have competition for some of the activities within Government, and those that can be done better in the private sector can be done. Those savings then will go to offset some of the backlog of the Park Service that has existed without any competition. This is kind of where we are. I certainly encourage my fellow Senators to support our second-degree amendment when it comes to the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, this second-degree amendment on which we will be voting, the reporting requirement, addresses a number of concerns various Senators have had with competitive sourcing. The second-degree amendment does the following: It requires the Secretary of the Interior to annually report on its competitive sourcing efforts--including a list of the total number of competitions completed, a list of the total number of competitions announced and the activities covered, and a list of the total number of full-time equivalent Federal employees studied under completed competitions. The second-degree amendment is a responsible measure that will bring additional accountability and transparency to public-private competitions. Two weeks ago, the House overwhelmingly adopted a similar reporting requirement during consideration of the Treasury/Transportation appropriations bill. The Thomas-Voinovich amendment will give Congress additional oversight of competitive sourcing, unlike the Reid amendment that stops it altogether. Competitive sourcing allows tax dollars to be used more efficiently, more effectively. It will improve agency efficiency. I urge my colleagues to support the second-degree amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Would my fellow Senator from Wyoming yield?

Mr. THOMAS. I am sorry, Mr. President, how much time is there?

Mr. THOMAS. It is also my understanding that the BIA assessed the need for repairs on several occasions, including a 1968 Completion Report that found 74 percent of the irrigation structures and 61 percent of the canals needed serious rehabilitation at a cost of $6.6 million in 1968 dollars or approximately $26.0 million in 1993 dollars. Furthermore, since the BIA's 1968 Completion Report, several additional studies have been conducted, specifically one in 1988 which indicates that $50 million would be needed to completely rehabilitate the Wind River Irrigation system. The most recent study completed in 1994 cited that over 60 percent, or 1200 structures need repair or replacement, and 45 percent, or 190 miles of canals and laterals need repair or reconstruction. Due to the Project's current configuration, it has only 66 acres of irrigated land per mile of canal. In comparison, Midvale Irrigation District, which lies adjacent to the Wind River Reservation, has over 160 acres per mile of canal.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the amendment that is before us. I was concerned when I first talked to the Senator about it. I was concerned that it would be difficult to differentiate between commercial signs, advertising, on the one hand, and sponsors, for instance, the Race for the Cure, on the other. However, we talked together about that. We talked with the Park Service about that, and I believe the wording of the amendment is such that that kind of emotion, that kind of recognition of the sponsors for voluntary events would be allowable. I am chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee and we deal with The Mall, and we have had several hearings and considerable consideration about what we do on The Mall and how many buildings there are and how it is used. So I think it is important to set standards for the use of something that is very unique and in the national interest. I think the Senator has a worthwhile amendment, and I support it.

Mr. THOMAS. Here is one in behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce favoring the competitive sourcing and opposing the amendment. Here is the NFIB, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which opposes the amendment. Citizens Against Government Waste is also in support of this. American Council of Engineering Companies, the National Taxpayers Union, and Americans for Tax Reform--all of these are in strong support of continuing to give the private sector an opportunity in these areas. I also finally would like to tell you there is a statement of administration policy here in which the administration indicates they will veto a bill that includes this kind of program. They say the administration understands the amendment will be offered on the Senate floor which would effectively shut down the administration's competitive sourcing initiative to fundamentally improve the performance of government in many commercial activities. The administration seeks to improve performance of Government services based on the comprehensive principle of competition, a proven way of protecting taxpayer dollars while providing better services and performance. Now is the wrong time to short circuit the implementation of this principle, especially since numerous agencies are starting to make real progress in providing public/private competition. If the final version of the bill contains such a provision, the President's senior advisers would recommend he veto the bill. I urge we get support for this amendment so we can continue the competitive notion. I reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. THOMAS. My colleague is exactly right. This situation has resulted in a critical shortage of financial resources to maintain Project facilities, causing less efficient use of water, progressively deteriorating crop quality, and an increase in the proportion of income water users' pay in fee assessments. This lack of resources should not continue in the Wind River Basin, or catastrophic events like major floods from dam failure and/or severe droughts could occur. The Wind River Irrigation Project needs rehabilitation. The water users in the area--folks who have been hit hard by region's drought--cannot continue to operate their ranches and farms without addressing the root of the problem. The Wind River Irrigation Project is the source of water problems on the Reservation. It affects Indians and non-Indians, and it is recognized by the State of Wyoming as the most critical agricultural and economic issue facing residents on and near the Reservation.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, I say to the Senator from Montana. It is interesting to be talking about this issue. The fact is, I suspect all of us are looking for the most efficient way to operate the Government. I guess that is what we spend a lot of time doing. We spend a lot of time looking for ways to make it less costly to get the job done. We spend a lot of time providing opportunities for small businesses. These are the very things that are involved here. Yet we seem to be trying to keep that from happening. It is a bit of a surprise. Competitive sourcing seeks to streamline Federal agencies. This has been going on, by the way, for a long time. In 1996 we passed the FAIR Act and began to do something with it. There were different kinds of reactions to it. There were some efforts made in the Clinton administration that did not go very far to utilize this. Then 2 years ago we started to revamp the thing a little bit and make it work. That is what this administration has done--to make the Government more accountable to the taxpayers, to reduce the Government's direct competition in the private sector. These are the purposes of this competitive sourcing. The President's competitive sourcing initiative is designed to improve performance and efficiency. That is really the bottom line. When the Government competes with the private sector, we erode the local tax base, we drive up prices, decrease performance of Federal agencies because there is no competition, and we know that is a key to our whole effort within the sector. Regarding cost savings, both the General Accounting Office and the Center for Naval Analysis, two independent groups, have found through extensive research that competitive sourcing reduces costs by 30 percent--regardless of who wins. Keep in mind, this is competitive sourcing. When this particular job or this particular task is set up for competitive sourcing, the Federal employees have a chance to compete for it as well as the outside. In most cases, over half the cases in the past, Federal employees have won. Nevertheless, because of that, because of looking for ways to do it more efficiently, there has been a 30-percent reduction in costs. So the Government can save billions of dollars by allowing the private/ public competition to occur. Stopping this competition only wastes taxpayer dollars, increases the inefficiency of a Government monopoly, and prevents us from improving upon services the taxpayers receive. One of the troublesome things has been that the image of that kind of action has not often been clear. I have here an article by Fran Mainella, who is the Director of the National Park Service. Over the past several months, a number of media reports have mischaracterized the scope, purpose and effects of the National Park Service competitive sourcing efforts. She goes on: Our competitive sourcing initiative challenges us to put our finger on our own pulse. It provides a framework by which we examine whether we have the right skills, the right techniques, organizational structures to provide Americans the best possible service--service that is effective and efficient. So we have had a great deal of success in doing that. Actually, the competitive sourcing idea is not a new one. It has been talked about for a good long time. In fact, I point out here--this is a statement made in 1996 by the unions publicly supporting competition. It says: Over the years, the OMB Circular A-76 competitive process has benefited taxpayers with billions of dollars in savings. I am proud of the fact that these competitions have shown Federal workers to be just as competitive as their private- sector counterparts in terms of their cost, efficiency and overall quality of performance. Mr. Chairman, you have often heard me say that Federal employees are not afraid of competition. If we cannot provide the services better, faster and cheaper than our private- sector competition, then we do not deserve to perform the work in the first place. We ask you and the members of this committee not to deny us the opportunity and dignity of competing. This is the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees. This is, of course, some time back. So what we are dealing with here, of course, is an amendment that prevents the improvement of the Department of the Interior's commercial activity competitive sourcing. This is something we have dealt with for a good amount of time. We talked about the Printing Office and the money that has been saved there. We talk a lot about parks. Of course, I come from a State with parks, such as the Grand Tetons. There is an idea that we are going to replace the park rangers. That isn't true at all. This has nothing to do with park rangers and people who have those kinds of professional jobs. We are talking about people who do maintenance work and people who do other kinds of activities. That is the case. We agree parks are special. It is one of the things we hear about a great deal. We hear about it incorrectly from time to time. That, I guess, is what is happening here. Secretary Norton noted that 2,500 positions have been reviewed under competitive sourcing since 2001. Not one full-time Federal employee has been involuntarily separated. These are things that change. We have a great deal of retirement coming up, and there will be some opportunity to do some things here that will give us a chance to make our Federal Government more effective and more efficient. Over the past several years it has been our Government policy not to compete with the private sector. However, the Federal Government currently has about 416,000 positions that are characterized as commercial in nature. Seeing that Congress has done a poor job with sourcing policy, President Bush initiated competitive sourcing to improve the way it functions. We are now in the process of seeing that improvement take place. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are always concerned about economic developments. They should support this opportunity to improve competitive sourcing. Keep in mind that Government competition in the private sector erodes the local tax base and creates a Government monopoly. Here we are. I think we have an opportunity to continue to strengthen that. The amendment before us is certainly not one that helps that. It precludes going forward with this very useful thing. The amendment we will be voting on is a first second-degree amendment. This reporting requirement addresses a number of the concerns many Senators had about competitive sourcing. This second-degree amendment does the following: It requires the Secretary of the Interior to report annually on its competitive sourcing efforts, including listing the total number of competitions completed; list the total number of competitions announced; the activity covering the total number of full-time equivalent Federal employees studied under the completed competitions; total number of full-time equivalent Federal employees being studied but not completed; the incremental costs directly attributable to conducting the competition, including costs attributable to paying outside consultants; estimate of the total and completed savings; description of the improvements in services and performance derived from the competition actually reported; and total number of full-time equivalent employees covered by competition rescheduling for next fiscal year. That is the kind of reporting we will have. We have a number of letters. I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. My colleague is correct. I would also like to add that during Wyoming's last legislative session, the Wyoming legislature and the Wyoming Water Development Commission worked closely with the Wind River Tribes to develop and pass legislation that will enable the Tribes to act as sponsors of water development projects through the Wyoming Water Development Program. According to the Director of the Wyoming Water Commission, funding for the Wyoming Water Development Program is appropriated annually by the legislature for specific projects, like rehabilitating certain parts of the Wind River Irrigation Project. Unfortunately, the State does not have the financial means or the desire to fund a federally owned and operated system by itself. However, this cooperation highlights that Federal dollars spent on the Wind River Irrigation Project would go a long way towards not only its rehabilitation, but would also encourage the State of Wyoming to become more involved in addressing the water needs of that area.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will wait for the floor manager here.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak in morning business.

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

Mr. THOMAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, of course we have an important bill before the Senate. However, one of the overriding activities, and it is unfortunate, is the discussion of our efforts in Iraq and probably the highest priority now, the fight over terrorism. It is a challenge, of course, to deal with terrorism, which is not only focused in one place but particularly in that part of the world. We have a commitment to win on our terms. We are highly committed. Our world changed September 11. The things attached to September 11 went beyond Iraq, went beyond Afghanistan. We are dedicated to complete our work there. We are dedicated to completing the job we have begun. Everyone understands that. It is a difficult task. Never before have our troops done such a wonderful job. We have ahead following up with stability in Iraq. It is a long-term, difficult job. We have heard stated our involvement in Iraq is based on fraud put forth in Texas. This is unreal and something that we do not need to put up with in the Senate. Our involvement with Iraq goes back a long time, to the gulf war. Our troops did a great job there. We worked with Iraq following that. They failed to agree with the United Nations agreement on the followup. So obviously, there were many reasons to do something with Saddam Hussein. I don't think there is any question about that. The key to Iraq is winning the war on terrorism. That is why we are there. The President has asked for a large amount of money to fund the war on terrorism. We knew that would be the case. Certainly of the $87 billion, some is for our troops. No one argues with the notion we have to give our troops the support they need. The majority of the money will go to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan while we continue to give them the resources they need to continue to win. There are also other needs if we are going to finally get this country to be self-supportive, which is our goal, and to do away with terrorism so it is not a source of danger around the world. We have to be committed. The stakes are high. And our spending has been high. We have been, since September 11, in some unusual arrangements. I am serious about trying to control spending and to keep it within the budget, but when there are extraordinary circumstances, you have to take extraordinary steps. And certainly September 11 is extraordinary. Certainly the economy now, which we are trying to strengthen, is extraordinary. The terrorism that continues to take place is extraordinary. So if we are to be successful in this global war, we must be willing to pay that price, and we must do the job correctly. I think that is particularly important after we are there. I guess before we began, you could talk about all kinds of things. The fact is, we are there. The fact is, we are committed. The fact is, we have done a great deal. We need to continue to see it through and see our duty through. Where are we today? We are winning the war in Iraq. The situation remains dangerous, of course, and it is not settled, it is not steady. But great progress has been made. It is interesting how much of a different picture you receive from people who have been to Iraq and then come back and tell what they have seen and what they feel as compared to what you see on the news nightly. I understand that bad things are always news, and so that is not a new idea. But progress is being made. There is no food crisis, no refugee crisis, no public health crisis. The coalition is helping Iraq establish a representative basis for a democratic government of their own, something they, of course, have never had. And it is part of our goal for the future. The coalition authorities continue to help repair the vital infrastructure all across the country. We are seeing increasingly other countries becoming involved. I think soon we will see the U.N. be more involved than it is now. Coalition forces are aggressively hunting down members of the former regime. Unfortunately, some would rather ignore the achievements, I think, for political purposes. That is too bad. I understand there can be differences of view. That is perfectly legitimate. But when you get the sense that sort of thing is being designed toward an election in 2004, it is a little disturbing. The former regime in Iraq had ties to al-Qaida; there is no question. It harbored and supported terrorists; there is no question. It possessed weapons and used weapons of mass destruction. They had done that; there is no question. They were a threat to the region and the world. We know that was the case. When we decided to use military force, the President made the best decision he could make. To suggest this was dreamed up in Texas for political purposes is not realistic, nor is it fair. Using the best information available at the time, the President made his decision--a tough decision. Can you imagine having to make that kind of decision following September 11? So it is a very difficult issue. But I think, truly--and my only point is--we can disagree, but we ought to disagree taking into account the facts, letting people make their own judgments. I understand that. But I think to portray the President as deliberately misleading the public is not a reasonable approach and one that should not take place among our associates. The war on terrorism takes time and patience and dollars, and we must see it through. Mr. President, I feel very strongly about this issue, so I wanted to make those comments today.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: The hearing will be held on Thursday, October 2, 2003 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 524, to expand the boundaries of the Fort Donelson National Battlefield to authorize the acquisition and interpretation of lands associated with the campaign that resulted in the capture of the fort in 1862, and for other purposes; S. 1313, to establish the Congaree Swamp National Park in the State of South Carolina, and other purposes; S. 1472, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide for the construction of a statue of Harry S. Truman at Union Station in Kansas City, Missouri; and S. 1576, to revise the boundary of Harpers Ferry National Historic Park, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Pete Lucero at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, are we in a quorum call?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to comment for a few minutes on an issue that I think is part of the appropriations bill before us and certainly one of the real issues that all of us are concerned about and that is health care and how we begin to deliver health care in a way that is more workable than what we have had in the past. The Senator from South Dakota has spoken for a moment or two about health care in his State. Of course, Wyoming and South Dakota are rural States, and there are some unique things about the delivery of rural health care. But I think more than anything, we do have a situation with health care that has to do with access. It has to do with the availability of services wherever we are in the country. And it is becoming more and more evident that access is also a function of being able to afford those services. We find generally that it is becoming more and more difficult for most Americans to afford the services that are there, and therefore they are not as accessible or available as we would like them to be. Clearly, it is one of the most difficult issues we have before us. It is a complex issue. If you can afford a Cadillac, that is fine. I live with a Ford, and we are happy about that. But we all want ``Cadillac'' health service. I understand that. Most of us live, in many ways, in the market as to what we can afford, but health care has more demands because we all have problems with our health and it is very costly to deal with that. We talk about the issue a great deal, as we should, but, frankly, I think it is time for us to talk a little more about solutions than we do about the problem. And we have tried to do that. During the last month in Wyoming, I held a seminar on health care, particularly rural health care, because we are a rural area of the country. We asked the people on the panels, who were very good, by the way, to talk about solutions, to talk about the problem, which, of course, we have talked about a number of times. Now, what do we do about it? That is a challenge and one with which I think all of us need to deal. Some of the areas we spoke about, that I think we need to talk about, are, first of all, the Federal programs. A good many people in this country, although fewer than you normally think--I think in Wyoming about 13, less than 14 percent of Wyoming citizens are enrolled in Medicare. Sometimes it seems as if it would be higher than that but, nevertheless, it is a sizable amount. In addition to that, of course, the Federal Government has Medicaid. We have the kids program and others. So the Federal program is a substantial part of our health care. Some of the things we need to do there are to have programs that do pay the costs. I know we have to have some limits. I know it is easy to have things happen in the delivery of health care which we have to guard against so we do not waste money. But the point is, if procedures cost a certain amount, then the Federal Government programs need to pay substantially what that amount is. Otherwise those of us who have private insurance have to pick up the cost, or the lack of it, that is paid for by Government programs and, of course, the uninsured. So we have that problem. We have been working on and I have enjoyed being chairman of the rural health caucus, and I have been joined by many people. It is interesting, in the West when we talk about endangered species or public lands, you have the support of about eight or nine States that are involved. When you talk about rural health care, every State has some rural areas with rural health care needs. I think New York has some of the most rural areas. So we have made some progress. But what we have found is that basically rural hospitals, rural health care clinics, and so on, have not been paid equally with urban facilities. There is no equality there. Well, we say, my gosh, that is because the costs of living in a city are more than in a rural area. I think the fact is that to provide health care in low numbers, low volumes, perhaps is more expensive than providing it where there is high volume. All of us want the best care so we want the expensive equipment, much of which now has become very much a part of medicine. It costs millions of dollars. But if there are not very many people using it, then the cost per user is much higher. So we have made some success in looking for some equity. By the way, the large movement in that direction is in the Medicare bill that is now in the conference committee. We hope it will stay there and come out of there. A very large percent, almost half, of Medicare money is spent on a very small percent of the patients. They are the ones, of course, who have chronic diseases. They are the ones seriously ill. We have not had enough emphasis on seeking to treat people before and to avoid some of the illnesses that are so expensive. Those are some of the problems we have. We are beginning to have more and more problems with the service personnel, the number of nurses. There are shortages almost over the whole country. Part of that, I suppose, is the difficulty in training, not so much the capacity of the universities and the schools that do it but apparently a difficult time in having instructors who are available to do the costs on Medicare. If that is the case, in a market system where you have a shortage of something that is resulting in less volume, you do something about it. You change it so you can create that volume. We need to be doing that. Another reason, one of the ladies stood up--she was chairman of the hospital board--and said, it isn't so much the training. The job is not very attractive because of the hours, because of the time that has to be spent, because of the atmosphere, and those kinds of things. Lots of nurses who are trained are not doing nursing care, partly because the wages are too low. These apparently are some of the problems that exist there. The same is becoming more true with physicians. At least in some of our States, the cost, for instance, for health care liability insurance has gotten so expensive that we have people, OBs, who are no longer practicing in the area. Many times they were the only OB/GYN in the area. But when their costs for liability insurance get up to $55,000, $65,000, $75,000, as much as $100,000 a year, they say: I am not going to do that anymore. They either don't practice that particular procedure or they drop out entirely. Of course, in our State the average age of physicians is fairly up there, fifties and so on. These folks are going to be retiring. So that is one of the problems we have, ways to do that. Certainly another that is difficult is the uninsured. We have millions of people in this country who are uninsured. Well, they probably don't get as much treatment as if they were insured but they get treated. They go to emergency rooms. They go to public health facilities and they are treated. They are unable to pay the costs or are unwilling to pay the costs. So those who have insurance end up paying the cost. You also have an insufficient amount of health care for people who are uninsured. I suppose young people, all kinds of people, simply can't afford it. We had a rancher testify that for his family it costs $12,000 a year for health insurance. That is tough. In town meetings we had some time ago, that is the issue that came up most often--the cost of health insurance. Obviously, there is a relationship between the cost of health care and health insurance. Nevertheless, that is what people see, the health insurance costs. That is part of the problem we need to resolve. Pharmaceuticals and drugs, of course, have become a very high percentage of the increase, and particularly if combined with the new equipment, and so on. We are dealing with that now for Medicare. I hope we will come up with something for Medicare. We also have to deal with the costs for everyone else, whether there is overutilization, whether we ought to be using more generics, whether there is too much advertising going on, whatever. There is a problem there that we need to resolve. These are some of the areas with which we have to deal. Certainly, again, the Senator from South Dakota saying that that is what he heard the most about, I think for most of us, when we go to town meetings, that is what we hear the most about. All we hear about are the problems. I think it is up to us to work with the professionals, to work with others. We have an opportunity to do something about the liability costs. I don't know whether we can do it. Some will say that isn't going to solve the problem. Certainly it isn't going to solve all the problems but it is an opportunity to solve a part of the problem. There is evidence that it does by those States that have done something about limiting the noneconomic damages. There is a great challenge here and a great opportunity to do some things. Part of it will be right here with this appropriations bill. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a young man from my State who selflessly performed as his country asked. While doing so Army SP Michael R. Deuel was killed in Iraq on June 18 while on guard duty at a propane distribution center. Michael was a good soldier and served proudly in the 325th Infantry Regiment's 82nd Airborne Division. He comes from a family of military tradition that he carried with him. It was the Air Force that brought the Deuel family to Wyoming where both parents served on Wyoming's own F.E. Warren Air Force Base. It is particularly important that at a time like this, as we address legislation and we prepare to adjourn for the month of August and return to our homes to meet with constituents that we take time to remember soldiers such as Specialist Deuel. These are the brave souls who give everything to secure the peace. Michael joined the Army so he could learn to parachute. Eventually he wanted to become a smoke jumper and fight forest fires. This too is a particularly dangerous job, and as we see through this year's fire season it is critical to the survival of our towns and rural communities in the West. Michael's decision to be in the army and his goals for life after the Army paint a picture of a young man committed to his country and his fellow Americans. As operations continue in Iraq and the noose tightens around the last remnants of the regime, I offer America's thanks to Michael Deuel and to his family. It takes a special person to answer the call to public service. It is challenging and dangerous. America remains strong and steadfast because of the courage that they have shown in the face of danger. Thank you for your service and sacrifice. May God bless SP Michael Deuel of the 82nd Airborne Division and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the world's largest trading Nation, trade is key to the long-term economic growth of the United States. Nearly, 26 percent of the United States' gross domestic product is directly tied to trade activity. One in three acres is planted for export to other nations and mare than four out of ten products manufactured in the United States are exported. The United States needs to foster strong trading relationships to create opportunities for domestic businesses and entrepreneurs. As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Trade, I heard from manufacturers, ranchers, and financial service companies on the importance of opening new markets to U.S. goods and services. The agreements we are considering today represent two opportunities we cannot afford to let pass by. Since 1997, exports from the United to Chile have fallen from 24 percent to just under 17 percent. Exports from countries with trade agreements with Chile have risen during the same time period from 25 percent to 34 percent. Manufacturers and farmers in the United States have already lost one-third of the Chilean import market to countries with trade agreements with Chile. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that the current lack of a trade agreement with Chile costs exporters, $800 million per year in lost sales, affecting 10,000 jobs in the United States. We must act now to reverse this trend. Upon passage of the Chile agreement, more than 85 percent of consumer and industrial products will immediately become duty-free, with most remaining tariffs eliminated within 4 years. More than three-quarters of farm goods from the United States will enter Chile tariff free within 4 years with all tariffs phased out within 12 years. The Singapore trade agreement will provide similar benefits to United States businesses. Singapore is America's twelfth largest trading partner, with annual two-way trade of goods and services of more than $30 billion. After the agreement goes into effect, all exports from the United States to Singapore will enjoy zero tariffs. The agreement will also guarantee fair and non-discriminatory treatment and greater market access for United States firms into Singapore's financial and services industry. Expansion of trade opportunities for businesses and industry in the United States is good for our Nation. These agreements create new access opportunities for goods and services from the United States. They are good for our ranchers and farmers, and I support passage of the United States-Singapore, and the United States-Chile trade legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator from Wyoming was on the floor before he was, however.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been rescheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 808, to provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore; S. 1107, to enhance the recreational fee demonstration program for the National Park Service, and for other purposes; and H.R. 620, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding and other services that are necessary to assist the State of California or local educational agencies in California in providing educational services for students attending schools located within the Park. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Pete Lucero at (202) 224-6293.