Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act with my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. Specifically, this legislation will exclude loan repayments made through National Health Service Corps, NHSC, program from taxable income. Enactment of the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act would increase the amount of Federal dollars available so more students could participate in the NHSC program. Under current law, the NHSC provides scholarships, loan repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in national designated underserved urban and rural communities. The tax law changes in 1986 resulted in the IRS ruling that all NHSC payments were taxable. Congress eliminated the tax on the scholarship in 2001, but the loan repayments and stipends continue to be taxed. To assist loan repayment recipients with their tax burden, the NHSC loan program includes an additional payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount so the loan repayment recipient can pay his or her taxes. Close to 40 percent of the NHSC Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income.'' The current situation should not be allowed to continue. Given the fiscal restraints we are facing, we must ensure that Federal dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. It is obvious that today's NHSC loan repayment structure does not meet that goal. Our legislation resolves this issue. For over 30 years, the National Health Service Corps, NHSC, program has literally been a lifeline for many underserved communities across the country that otherwise would not have a heath care provider. I know this program is critically important to my State of Wyoming and to many other rural States that have difficulties recruiting and retaining primary health care clinicians. There are 2,800 health professional shortage areas, 740 mental health shortage areas and 1,200 dental health shortage areas now designated across the country. However, the NHSC program is meeting less than 13 percent of the current need for primary care providers and less than 6 percent of need for mental health and dental services. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act would increase the number of students in the program and allow more providers to be placed in these shortage areas. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act is crucial to the future well-being of many of our rural communities. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act with my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. Specifically, this legislation will exclude loan repayments made through National Health Service Corps, NHSC, program from taxable income. Enactment of the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act would increase the amount of Federal dollars available so more students could participate in the NHSC program. Under current law, the NHSC provides scholarships, loan repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in national designated underserved urban and rural communities. The tax law changes in 1986 resulted in the IRS ruling that all NHSC payments were taxable. Congress eliminated the tax on the scholarship in 2001, but the loan repayments and stipends continue to be taxed. To assist loan repayment recipients with their tax burden, the NHSC loan program includes an additional payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount so the loan repayment recipient can pay his or her taxes. Close to 40 percent of the NHSC Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income.'' The current situation should not be allowed to continue. Given the fiscal restraints we are facing, we must ensure that Federal dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. It is obvious that today's NHSC loan repayment structure does not meet that goal. Our legislation resolves this issue. For over 30 years, the National Health Service Corps, NHSC, program has literally been a lifeline for many underserved communities across the country that otherwise would not have a heath care provider. I know this program is critically important to my State of Wyoming and to many other rural States that have difficulties recruiting and retaining primary health care clinicians. There are 2,800 health professional shortage areas, 740 mental health shortage areas and 1,200 dental health shortage areas now designated across the country. However, the NHSC program is meeting less than 13 percent of the current need for primary care providers and less than 6 percent of need for mental health and dental services. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act would increase the number of students in the program and allow more providers to be placed in these shortage areas. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act is crucial to the future well-being of many of our rural communities. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to conduct oversight on the designation and management of National Heritage Areas, including criteria and procedures for designating heritage areas, the potential impact areas on private lands and communities, federal and non-federal costs of managing heritage areas, and methods of monitoring and measuring the success of heritage areas. The hearing will take place on March 13, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact: Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Pete Lucero at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is very interesting to hear the discussions. It is very similar to what we have heard now for a couple of weeks. I could not agree more with the Senator from New Jersey who says let's get on with it. I have a suggestion as to how we can do that. There are more than a majority in this Senate who are satisfied with this candidate and ready to vote. All we need to do is have an up- or-down vote. Those who are opposing that are in the minority. They can study as many things as they choose. The fact is, the majority of the people on this floor are satisfied this candidate is the right candidate and it is time to go. I could not agree more. We have a lot of things to do. We have gone through the hearings, we have gone through all the background, and certainly most of us would like to get away from this delay tactic and get on with our work. I have to say that when the majority is ready to go, that is what we ought to do. I suggest that. I will discuss another subject for a moment. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thomas pertaining to the introduction of S. 475 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, again I hope we find ourselves in a position to move forward. I don't think there is a soul here who would not admit we have talked enough about this judicial nomination. I don't think there is a soul here who would deny we have all made up our minds, we all know exactly what we are going to do. It is very clear that the majority on this floor is prepared to vote for this nominee and we are being held up over here by a minority that simply continues to ask for something that is not necessary because the majority has already been determined. So I hope we can move on and do the business of this country for these people. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about one of the things that is so important. Obviously, items connected with terrorism, the war in Iraq have to be dealt with. We have to deal with heightened homeland security and related issues. Health care is an area we need to talk about. Prescription drugs is in the process of this. One issue that is particularly important is an energy policy. I don't think there has ever been a time when it has been more apparent and more important to deal with energy policy. We have an economy, prices with gas and energy that are high. We have uncertainty, certainly, in the Middle East. We have had a Venezuelan problem. We had a very cold winter. We cannot seem to come together to put together a policy that will allow us to move forward, an aggressive energy policy. I would like to talk briefly about a component of that which I think is very important, and that is an electric component. I rise today to introduce the Electric Transmission Reliability and Enhancement Act of 2003. It is my intention to build on a changing wholesale, competitive, open access market and to suggest that we build that into a policy. Things have changed in the way energy is generated, the way energy is transmitted, the way energy is sold. We need to change our policy, as well. Very simply, what we have is: In years past, there was a generator that generated for their own distribution area. That was pretty simple. Prices were controlled. It was a simple technique. Now we have more and more merchant generators, people who do not have a constituency or distribution system of their own but they sell into the marketplace. This is good. There is competition. And we will see more and more of that. But to do that, we have to update our laws and we have to update the regulations that go with that. My legislation would extend and improve open nondiscriminatory access policies. Access to transmission would remove antiquated Federal barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets. Wholesale markets that are competitive are new. We have to change to meet those needs. We have to encourage increased investments in our transmission system and establish reliability standards. We saw what happened in California 2 years ago. If there is no reliability, we cannot depend upon getting that energy to people's homes, to businesses, and then we have a very difficult situation. Particularly what has changed now is it is interstate. For years we grew up with the fact that in your State the State controlled both the generation and the distribution, and that worked well. Now we go across interstate lines and there needs to be something different. Legislatively we have to pare down our wish list so we get to the bare essentials and keep those things that are necessary. It seems clear, if we are going to have a truly wholesale market, we need to ensure that all the industry participants play by the same rules. Only Congress can give FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the tools it needs to ensure that all participants get treated fairly in a competitive marketplace. Under the Federal law, currently FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission owned by public power agencies, municipals, cooperatives, yet they want to participate and need to participate and should participate. Many of them--most--are willing to participate. These nonregulated utilities represent 52 percent of the total, so we do not want to move forward with FERC's so-called market plan. I think it goes too far getting into the authority of the States. But there are some changes that need to be made, and we would like to do that. We also need to protect those cooperatives. I grew up in a area of cooperatives and spent much of my life working with cooperatives. So we have given that break. Those that sell less than 4 million megawatt hours per year are entirely exempt. We think that is as it should be. We would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, because it needs to be restructured and the deployment of capital in this industry needs to go where it is desperately needed. We need to do that. There is ample regulation over those investments now in the existing business. We want to make it easier for people to be able to invest, produce competitively, and go into the marketplace. The Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and the State commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross- subsidies. So my legislation would prospectively eliminate mandatory purchase and sales obligations of PURPA, one that was put in a very long time ago. Despite the State administering it, it causes favoritism to many utilities and changes things. Over the years the grid has been protected through voluntary standards and that is exactly right. But what we are now faced with is to have RTOs, regional transportation organizations, where they can make those decisions within the RTO. There would be a Western one, a Midwestern one, a New England one, and so on. But then connecting with those will be an interstate, like an interstate highway. That has to, of course, be organized and controlled by a national group because it serves all these different ones. So what we need is to modernize our system so we can accommodate things that have changed. Reliability organizations must be run by market participants and be overseen by FERC. Reliability organizations must be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected: residential, commercial, industrial. That can be done, and this provides an opportunity to do that. During our discussions last year, we were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and found a great deal of issues that needed to be dealt with--market manipulation, those kinds of things. This is very complex. I believe we can address these issues with regulatory agencies, things that truly can exist. So my legislation would provide a greater price in the transmission of availability of information and outlaw the practice of roundtrip trading. In the past we found some trading where they went around, got it back, made a profit on the sale, and served no one. We prohibit the reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. Again, we go back a little bit to the California situation, where there obviously is a great need to do some opening up so there is visibility of what is happening. That is what we are seeking to do. It would increase civil and criminal penalties for the violation of the Federal Power Act and would accelerate the effective dates of refunds and so on. In the end, it is about consumers, it is about serving consumers, it is about competition, it is about reliability, it is about keeping the lights on--the part of energy that probably affects more people and more businesses than any other. It is my hope that the Electric Transmission Reliability Enhancement Act of 2003 will produce a more reliable, efficient transmission system, a more dependable and more affordable product for the end user, and perhaps more than anything else, bring our system and our oversight into the modern time of electric generation and transmission. Things change. We need to change. Now is the time. We will have an energy bill. It needs to have an energy component. Mr. President, any comprehensive energy bill must contain an electric component. That is why, today, I rise to introduce the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability Enhancement Act of 2003.'' It is my intention to build on the competitive wholesale open access policies adopted by the Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. My legislation would extend and improve these open, non-discriminatory access policies; remove antiquated federal statutory barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets; encourage increased investment in our transmission system and establish enforceable reliability standards to help ensure the continued reliability of the interstate transmission system. The state of the industry is far weaker financially than it has been in years. Billions of dollars of shareholder value has evaporated. Access to capital is becoming an important issue for large segments of the industry that are fighting for survival. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, policy regarding wholesale markets seems to be in a state of constant change. The Standard Market Design, SMD, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NOPR, has divided regulators and industry participants in a way that may be unprecedented, threatening more years of rulemakings, litigation and regulatory uncertainty. If we are to legislate successfully, we will have to par down our wish list to the bare essentials, plus those issues necessary for the electric industry to attract the capital it needs to keep our lights on. Last year, the Enron fallout dominated the debate. By being on the defensive most of last year, it was not possible to successfully advance those issues most important to consumers and the industry that serves them. It seems clear that if truly competitive wholesale markets are to exist, there is a need to ensure that all industry participants play by the same rules. While FERC has tried to ensure this, the Commission's tools are limited. Only Congress can give FERC the tools it needs to ensure that all industry participants in competitive wholesale markets play by the same rules. The Wyoming State commissioners wrote that ``under present Federal law the FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission facilities owned by public power agencies, municipalities and cooperatives. In the West these types of entities own a substantial portion, perhaps as much as half of the interstate electric transmission system.'' As a matter of fact, in the Western Electric Coordinating Council, an area that encompasses all or part of 11 Western States and parts of Canada, non-FERC jurisdictional facilities account for 52 percent of transmission miles. The Wyoming commissioners claim that, ``without the full participation of all of those who own transmission in the West, the FERC's wholesale market initiative will fail to provide the full spectrum of benefits Congress expected when it created wholesale electricity markets. System optimization requires that bulk power be able to move freely throughout the interconnected system without regard to who owns the facilities over which the power travels. Removing the institutional impediments to the free movement of bulk power is also requisite to identifying the physical constraints that exist in the western system. Proper planning for the relief of such constraints depends on properly identifying and quantifying them, absent other economic and institutional constraints.'' They go on to say that such a vision for the future of wholesale power markets makes a compelling case for the inclusion of all facilities which can be used to move bulk power across the West, regardless of ownership. Anything less than 100 percent participation by transmission owning entities will simply perpetuate some level of inefficiency in the system and will continue to afford those who do not participate the ability to favor their own generation resources. My legislation would permit FERC to require certain nonregulated utilities to offer transmission serviced at comparable rates to those they charge themselves, and on terms and conditions comparable to those applicable to jurisdictional public utilities. Currently nonregulated transmitting utilities would not be subject to the full panoply of FERC regulation under this provision. Instead, a ``light handed'' form of regulation would apply and small nonregulated entities, such as those that sell less than 4,000,000 MW/h per year, would be entirely exempt from these nondiscrimination requirements. It also seems clear that the Public Utility Holding Company Act PUHCA, is hindering necessary restructuring of the industry and the deployment of capital into an industry that desperately needs it. Investors are deterred simply because they do not want to deal with the PUHCA rules and restrictions. If repealed, utility securities will continue to be regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, FERC and most state commissions. Mergers and acquisitions of jurisdictional assets would still require FERC and state commission approval and review by Department of Justice, DOJ, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. FERC and State commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross-subsidies. Despite State progress in administering the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, PURPA, more in-tune with markets, it is clear that PURPA continues to provide special privileges to certain favored generators at the expense of utilities and their customers. Like PUHCA, PURPA is no longer needed in today's competitive wholesale markets. My legislation prospectively eliminates the mandatory purchase and sell obligations of PURPA. Over the years the grid has been well protected through voluntary standards established by the North American Electric Reliability Council, NERC, NERC's voluntary reliability standards--which are not enforceable--have generally been complied with by the electric power industry. But with the opening of the wholesale power market to competition, our transmission grid is being used in ways for which it was not designed. New system strains are also being created by the breakup of vertically integrated utilities and by the emergence of new market structures and participants. The results of these changes have been an increase in the number and severity of violations of NERC's voluntary rules. My legislation converts the existing NERC voluntary reliability system into a mandatory reliability system. A nation-wide organization would have the authority to establish and enforce reliability standards, and take into account regional differences. The new reliability organization will be run by market participants, and will be overseen by the FERC in the U.S. The reliability organization will be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected--residential, commercial and industrial consumers; state public utility commissions; independent power producers; electric utilities and others. There is no question that we need a new system to safeguard the integrity of our electric grid. My legislation would do this, using language that was effectively agreed upon last fall by House and Senate conferees for the energy bill. During discussions last year, efforts were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and attempted market manipulation through legislation. While this area is obviously very complex, I believe that we need to address this issue if regulatory gaps truly do exist. I realize my attempt might not be perfect, but I wanted to intimate discussion on this very important topic if, in fact, regulatory agencies do need additional authority to police and monitor the industry. My legislation will provide greater price and transmission availability information, outlaw the practice of round trip trading and prohibit reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. In addition, I've included authority the FERC has requested and that would increase civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act and accelerate the refund effective date to the date of filing of a complaint. In the end it's about the consumer. It is my hope and vision that the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability and Enhancement Act of 2003'' I am introducing today will produce a more reliable and efficient transmission system and that these improvements will result in a more dependable and affordable product for the end user. This legislation is the best solution to move forward with a better product for all classes of consumers and the industry as a whole. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about one of the things that is so important. Obviously, items connected with terrorism, the war in Iraq have to be dealt with. We have to deal with heightened homeland security and related issues. Health care is an area we need to talk about. Prescription drugs is in the process of this. One issue that is particularly important is an energy policy. I don't think there has ever been a time when it has been more apparent and more important to deal with energy policy. We have an economy, prices with gas and energy that are high. We have uncertainty, certainly, in the Middle East. We have had a Venezuelan problem. We had a very cold winter. We cannot seem to come together to put together a policy that will allow us to move forward, an aggressive energy policy. I would like to talk briefly about a component of that which I think is very important, and that is an electric component. I rise today to introduce the Electric Transmission Reliability and Enhancement Act of 2003. It is my intention to build on a changing wholesale, competitive, open access market and to suggest that we build that into a policy. Things have changed in the way energy is generated, the way energy is transmitted, the way energy is sold. We need to change our policy, as well. Very simply, what we have is: In years past, there was a generator that generated for their own distribution area. That was pretty simple. Prices were controlled. It was a simple technique. Now we have more and more merchant generators, people who do not have a constituency or distribution system of their own but they sell into the marketplace. This is good. There is competition. And we will see more and more of that. But to do that, we have to update our laws and we have to update the regulations that go with that. My legislation would extend and improve open nondiscriminatory access policies. Access to transmission would remove antiquated Federal barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets. Wholesale markets that are competitive are new. We have to change to meet those needs. We have to encourage increased investments in our transmission system and establish reliability standards. We saw what happened in California 2 years ago. If there is no reliability, we cannot depend upon getting that energy to people's homes, to businesses, and then we have a very difficult situation. Particularly what has changed now is it is interstate. For years we grew up with the fact that in your State the State controlled both the generation and the distribution, and that worked well. Now we go across interstate lines and there needs to be something different. Legislatively we have to pare down our wish list so we get to the bare essentials and keep those things that are necessary. It seems clear, if we are going to have a truly wholesale market, we need to ensure that all the industry participants play by the same rules. Only Congress can give FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the tools it needs to ensure that all participants get treated fairly in a competitive marketplace. Under the Federal law, currently FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission owned by public power agencies, municipals, cooperatives, yet they want to participate and need to participate and should participate. Many of them--most--are willing to participate. These nonregulated utilities represent 52 percent of the total, so we do not want to move forward with FERC's so-called market plan. I think it goes too far getting into the authority of the States. But there are some changes that need to be made, and we would like to do that. We also need to protect those cooperatives. I grew up in a area of cooperatives and spent much of my life working with cooperatives. So we have given that break. Those that sell less than 4 million megawatt hours per year are entirely exempt. We think that is as it should be. We would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, because it needs to be restructured and the deployment of capital in this industry needs to go where it is desperately needed. We need to do that. There is ample regulation over those investments now in the existing business. We want to make it easier for people to be able to invest, produce competitively, and go into the marketplace. The Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and the State commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross- subsidies. So my legislation would prospectively eliminate mandatory purchase and sales obligations of PURPA, one that was put in a very long time ago. Despite the State administering it, it causes favoritism to many utilities and changes things. Over the years the grid has been protected through voluntary standards and that is exactly right. But what we are now faced with is to have RTOs, regional transportation organizations, where they can make those decisions within the RTO. There would be a Western one, a Midwestern one, a New England one, and so on. But then connecting with those will be an interstate, like an interstate highway. That has to, of course, be organized and controlled by a national group because it serves all these different ones. So what we need is to modernize our system so we can accommodate things that have changed. Reliability organizations must be run by market participants and be overseen by FERC. Reliability organizations must be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected: residential, commercial, industrial. That can be done, and this provides an opportunity to do that. During our discussions last year, we were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and found a great deal of issues that needed to be dealt with--market manipulation, those kinds of things. This is very complex. I believe we can address these issues with regulatory agencies, things that truly can exist. So my legislation would provide a greater price in the transmission of availability of information and outlaw the practice of roundtrip trading. In the past we found some trading where they went around, got it back, made a profit on the sale, and served no one. We prohibit the reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. Again, we go back a little bit to the California situation, where there obviously is a great need to do some opening up so there is visibility of what is happening. That is what we are seeking to do. It would increase civil and criminal penalties for the violation of the Federal Power Act and would accelerate the effective dates of refunds and so on. In the end, it is about consumers, it is about serving consumers, it is about competition, it is about reliability, it is about keeping the lights on--the part of energy that probably affects more people and more businesses than any other. It is my hope that the Electric Transmission Reliability Enhancement Act of 2003 will produce a more reliable, efficient transmission system, a more dependable and more affordable product for the end user, and perhaps more than anything else, bring our system and our oversight into the modern time of electric generation and transmission. Things change. We need to change. Now is the time. We will have an energy bill. It needs to have an energy component. Mr. President, any comprehensive energy bill must contain an electric component. That is why, today, I rise to introduce the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability Enhancement Act of 2003.'' It is my intention to build on the competitive wholesale open access policies adopted by the Congress in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. My legislation would extend and improve these open, non-discriminatory access policies; remove antiquated federal statutory barriers that stand in the way of competitive wholesale markets; encourage increased investment in our transmission system and establish enforceable reliability standards to help ensure the continued reliability of the interstate transmission system. The state of the industry is far weaker financially than it has been in years. Billions of dollars of shareholder value has evaporated. Access to capital is becoming an important issue for large segments of the industry that are fighting for survival. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, policy regarding wholesale markets seems to be in a state of constant change. The Standard Market Design, SMD, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, NOPR, has divided regulators and industry participants in a way that may be unprecedented, threatening more years of rulemakings, litigation and regulatory uncertainty. If we are to legislate successfully, we will have to par down our wish list to the bare essentials, plus those issues necessary for the electric industry to attract the capital it needs to keep our lights on. Last year, the Enron fallout dominated the debate. By being on the defensive most of last year, it was not possible to successfully advance those issues most important to consumers and the industry that serves them. It seems clear that if truly competitive wholesale markets are to exist, there is a need to ensure that all industry participants play by the same rules. While FERC has tried to ensure this, the Commission's tools are limited. Only Congress can give FERC the tools it needs to ensure that all industry participants in competitive wholesale markets play by the same rules. The Wyoming State commissioners wrote that ``under present Federal law the FERC has no jurisdiction or authority over transmission facilities owned by public power agencies, municipalities and cooperatives. In the West these types of entities own a substantial portion, perhaps as much as half of the interstate electric transmission system.'' As a matter of fact, in the Western Electric Coordinating Council, an area that encompasses all or part of 11 Western States and parts of Canada, non-FERC jurisdictional facilities account for 52 percent of transmission miles. The Wyoming commissioners claim that, ``without the full participation of all of those who own transmission in the West, the FERC's wholesale market initiative will fail to provide the full spectrum of benefits Congress expected when it created wholesale electricity markets. System optimization requires that bulk power be able to move freely throughout the interconnected system without regard to who owns the facilities over which the power travels. Removing the institutional impediments to the free movement of bulk power is also requisite to identifying the physical constraints that exist in the western system. Proper planning for the relief of such constraints depends on properly identifying and quantifying them, absent other economic and institutional constraints.'' They go on to say that such a vision for the future of wholesale power markets makes a compelling case for the inclusion of all facilities which can be used to move bulk power across the West, regardless of ownership. Anything less than 100 percent participation by transmission owning entities will simply perpetuate some level of inefficiency in the system and will continue to afford those who do not participate the ability to favor their own generation resources. My legislation would permit FERC to require certain nonregulated utilities to offer transmission serviced at comparable rates to those they charge themselves, and on terms and conditions comparable to those applicable to jurisdictional public utilities. Currently nonregulated transmitting utilities would not be subject to the full panoply of FERC regulation under this provision. Instead, a ``light handed'' form of regulation would apply and small nonregulated entities, such as those that sell less than 4,000,000 MW/h per year, would be entirely exempt from these nondiscrimination requirements. It also seems clear that the Public Utility Holding Company Act PUHCA, is hindering necessary restructuring of the industry and the deployment of capital into an industry that desperately needs it. Investors are deterred simply because they do not want to deal with the PUHCA rules and restrictions. If repealed, utility securities will continue to be regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, FERC and most state commissions. Mergers and acquisitions of jurisdictional assets would still require FERC and state commission approval and review by Department of Justice, DOJ, and the Federal Trade Commission, FTC. FERC and State commissions would still be able to monitor rates and prevent cross-subsidies. Despite State progress in administering the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, PURPA, more in-tune with markets, it is clear that PURPA continues to provide special privileges to certain favored generators at the expense of utilities and their customers. Like PUHCA, PURPA is no longer needed in today's competitive wholesale markets. My legislation prospectively eliminates the mandatory purchase and sell obligations of PURPA. Over the years the grid has been well protected through voluntary standards established by the North American Electric Reliability Council, NERC, NERC's voluntary reliability standards--which are not enforceable--have generally been complied with by the electric power industry. But with the opening of the wholesale power market to competition, our transmission grid is being used in ways for which it was not designed. New system strains are also being created by the breakup of vertically integrated utilities and by the emergence of new market structures and participants. The results of these changes have been an increase in the number and severity of violations of NERC's voluntary rules. My legislation converts the existing NERC voluntary reliability system into a mandatory reliability system. A nation-wide organization would have the authority to establish and enforce reliability standards, and take into account regional differences. The new reliability organization will be run by market participants, and will be overseen by the FERC in the U.S. The reliability organization will be made up of representatives of everyone who is affected--residential, commercial and industrial consumers; state public utility commissions; independent power producers; electric utilities and others. There is no question that we need a new system to safeguard the integrity of our electric grid. My legislation would do this, using language that was effectively agreed upon last fall by House and Senate conferees for the energy bill. During discussions last year, efforts were made to address some of the more egregious behavior and attempted market manipulation through legislation. While this area is obviously very complex, I believe that we need to address this issue if regulatory gaps truly do exist. I realize my attempt might not be perfect, but I wanted to intimate discussion on this very important topic if, in fact, regulatory agencies do need additional authority to police and monitor the industry. My legislation will provide greater price and transmission availability information, outlaw the practice of round trip trading and prohibit reporting of false information for the purpose of manipulating price indices. In addition, I've included authority the FERC has requested and that would increase civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act and accelerate the refund effective date to the date of filing of a complaint. In the end it's about the consumer. It is my hope and vision that the ``Electric Transmission and Reliability and Enhancement Act of 2003'' I am introducing today will produce a more reliable and efficient transmission system and that these improvements will result in a more dependable and affordable product for the end user. This legislation is the best solution to move forward with a better product for all classes of consumers and the industry as a whole. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 4th at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 164, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of sites associated with the life of Cesar Estrada Chavez and the farm labor movement; S. 328 a bill to designate Catoctin Mountain Park in the State of Maryland as the ``Catoctin Mountain National Recreation Area'', and for other purposes; S. 347 a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a joint special resources study to evaluate the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Rim of the Valley Corridor as a unit of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and for other purposes; S. 425 a bill to revise the boundary of the Wind Cave National Park in the State of South Dakota. 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, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact: Tom Lillie (202-224-5161) or Pete Lucero (202-224-6293).

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce S. 379, the Medicare Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2003, with my distinguished colleague, Senator Bingaman. This legislation makes important improvements to the current Medicare Incentive Payment (MIP) Program. These refinements will go a long way in ensuring eligible rural physicians receive the Medicare bonus payment to which they are entitled. The Medicare Incentive Payment Program was created in 1987 under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act to serve as an incentive tool to recruit physicians to practice in Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSAs) by providing a 10 percent Medicare bonus payment. There are approximately 2,800 federally designated HPSA's--75 percent of which are located in rural areas. In my State of Wyoming, over half of the counties are designated as a Health Professional Shortage Area and have a difficult time recruiting physicians. Unfortunately, this well-intended program has not worked well due to the burden if places on providers. Under the current MIP programmatic structure, physicians are required to determine if the patient encounter occurred in designated underserved areas, they must attach a code modifier to the billing claim and must undergo a stringent audit. Additionally, there is evidence that many physicians who would be eligible are not even aware of the program. The legislation we are introducing today alleviates the administrative burden on rural physicians by requiring Medicare carriers to determine eligibility. The Medicare Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2003 also requires the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish a MIP education program for providers and establishes ongoing analysis of the MIP program's ability to improve access to physician services for Medicare beneficiaries. All physicians are struggling with last year's Medicare payment reduction of 5.4 percent and with the possibility of another 4.4 percent reduction on March 1 of this year. These payment cuts combined with an ever-increasing regulatory burden to participate in the Medicare program and escalating medical malpractice premiums have begun to impact senors' access to care. As rural providers tend to be disproportionately impacted by Medicare payment cuts, it has never been more important to ensure that the few rural physician incentive programs that exist have a positive effect on the stability of our rural health care delivery system. I strongly urge all my Senate colleagues interested in rural health to cosponsor the Medicare Incentive Payment Improvement Act of 2003

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will discuss the topic on the floor, the nomination process. It is interesting the Senator from North Carolina has a bill he thinks is important and probably is important, yet questions are not able to move forward on any of those bills because we are tied up in doing something that is not at all useful, not at all productive, but it continues. Those important things we have to do are not being done, and as a matter of fact will not be done, apparently, for some time. I rise more to talk a little bit about the disappointment I have in the process in which we find ourselves. There is not much point in talking about the nominee, Mr. Estrada. He has been talked about forever. I can't think of another thing that could be said that has not already been said. What we can do is talk a little about the process being created. Talk about the obstruction that is taking place and the Congress that is faced with a great many important issues we need to get considered. We all recognize in any issue, particularly of a nominee, it is perfectly legitimate that people have different points of view. That is not unusual. Indeed, that is the way it ought to be. It also is appropriate for people to come to the floor after the committee has acted and to share those points of view and to do whatever they feel appropriate to try and convince others to share that point of view. That is the way it is supposed to be. Finally, after that is done in a reasonable limit of time, we have a vote, an up-or-down vote, so those who feel one way can vote one way, those who feel the other can vote the other. Not a very unusual process. On the contrary, it is the very well-accepted process. That is not what has happened here. That is not what has happened. As has been said before, it is time to move forward. It is time to move on. It is time to deal with the dozens of other important issues out there for this country and for the people of this country, issues that to people in the country are much more meaningful and have more to do with their business and welfare than we have here. I cannot imagine there is more to say from the other side of the aisle in opposition. They are opposed; fine. That is fine. They are able to convince anyone else? I don't think so. We have been working on this for about a week. It looks as if we will be here some more. It is very disappointing for those who would like to do things that are most important to do. Among other things, of course, the White House has responded. The letter was sent to the President renewing the request to him for confidential judicial memoranda that have never before been released. The response of Mr. Gonzales, the counselor to the President, basically indicates they respect the Senate's constitutional role in the confirmation process, and they agree the Senate must make an informed judgment consistent with the traditional role and practices. However, requests for these kinds of papers have no persuasive support in history and the precedent of judicial appointments. It is not there. It has not been done. Relevant history and procedures convincingly demonstrate that would be shifting standards. There is no basis for doing that. In conclusion, the President's counselor said: Miguel Estrada is a well-qualified, well-respected judicial nominee with very strong bipartisan support. Based on our reading of history, we believe you have ample information about this nominee and have had more than enough time to consider questions about his qualifications and his ability. We urge you to stop the unfair treatment and the filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote to confirm Mr. Estrada. I agree with that. Certainly, that is the case. I am not here to talk about the legal aspects of it, just the operational aspects of it, and make it clear, this man was before the committee from 10 in the morning until 5 in the evening, answering all the questions, answered written questions subsequent to that, and we continue to carry on with it. It is interesting that a number of newspapers throughout the country who generally do not get very involved in these things have in this case. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, entitled ``A Filibuster is No Fix,'' said: Democrats are trying to decide whether to filibuster the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the powerful federal appeals court for the District of Columbia. They consider Mr. Estrada a stealth conservative who is being groomed for the U.S. Supreme Court as a Hispanic Clarence Thomas. The Democrats' fear may turn out to be valid. But the filibuster is the parliamentary equivalent of declaring war. Instead of declaring war, the Democrats should sue for peace and try to fix the process. That is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Miguel Estrada, a Harvard-educated lawyer who has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, is well qualified for the federal appellate bench. Democrats, who are threatening to stall a vote on this confirmation, are choosing the wrong target. The Florida Times-Union: If the system were functioning as the founders intended, Miguel Estrada would be confirmed quickly to the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He is extremely qualified in both education and experience--and the American Bar Association unanimously ordered its highest possible rating. We heard all that. We know that. People out in the country are saying this is not the right process. We have been through this. We have had enough. We need something different. The Tampa Tribune: Leading the charge are committee members picked by the Democratic leadership precisely because of their ideological bent. Until the new Congress was seated, they thought nothing of thwarting the constitutional mandate that gives the Senate--the full Senate--the advise and consent power over the judicial nominations. So it goes on, and most remarks are very similar all over the country. The Washington Post, not known for its conservatism, particularly, has indicated this is not the way. This nomination in no way deserves a filibuster. It is not just being talked about here, it is pretty much all over the country. I go back to the point I made in the beginning, that we have a lot of things to do. We are supposed to be dealing now, and hopefully, today or tomorrow, we will deal with the 11 appropriations that were not passed last year. We have been operating almost half of this year on CRs, instead of doing what we are supposed to do with appropriations. Certainly, as the Senator discussed, we have homeland security at a new threat level. I can't imagine people in the country are thinking more about this nomination than they are about terrorism and homeland security and the economy and health care and pharmaceuticals. Where do you suppose this would rate among those things? Or national energy policy, which again we didn't do last year because it was pulled out of the committee. We had a pretty dysfunctional Congress last time. Now we have a chance to move forward and do some things, and we are blocking ourselves by carrying on this kind of conversation. Mr. Estrada has had a full hearing, under both Republican and Democrat control. There is nothing left to say. It is time to come to the snubbing post and decide for or against. It is time to have an up- or-down vote. We have been considering this nominee since last week. Obviously, it is becoming nothing more than a delaying tactic. We owe the nominee, we owe ourselves, we owe the American people a decision, and then to move on to all those other issues that confront us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2003.'' The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray. Today, I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and State governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve. In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. In 1998, the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire, devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings regarding the handling of the Preble Mouse has been the confusion between the ``known range'' as opposed to the alleged ``historical range'' of the mouse. Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short- grass, semi-arid plains of southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. further, the State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes to the Endangered Species Act are desperately needed. Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival. My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-reviewed. Right now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, States are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role. This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices. In Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened? This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or a private citizen's development of their own property is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species? This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, that person should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require. Additionally, we need to revise the end of the process, the de- listing procedure. Recovery should be the goal of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. There is no certainty in the process, and the State who has all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed. Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this issue to no avail. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole. The point is something needs to be done. People in Wyoming have grown weary of the Endangered Species Act and the efforts of a vocal minority to run roughshod over their lives and interests. It is imperative to the longevity of many species and our citizens in the West that we bring this Act to the snubbing post and gain control of the process. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real goal--recovery and delisting.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This bill is designed to guarantee that Federal agencies identify State, county and local governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under NEPA. NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a proposed Federal action are considered and minimized by the federal agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate public participation in the decision making process on these Federal activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to the proposed action. Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem in Wyoming and many States throughout the Nation. A statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public planning process on Federal lands. NEPA now serves to delay action and shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these Federal lands for their existence. The ``State and Local Government Participation Act'' is designed to provide for greater input from State and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure would simply guarantee that State, county and local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning process, too often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. Unfortunately, many Federal agencies have become so engrossed in examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on Federal land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live near and depend on these areas for their economic survival. States and local communities must be consulted and included when proposed actions are being taken on Federal lands in their State. Too often, Federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, DC or New York City than the people who actually live in the State where the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input of state and local communities are vital for the proper management of federal lands in the West. The ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed decision that will affect their lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' which would amend the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This bill is designed to guarantee that Federal agencies identify State, county and local governments as cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning responsibilities under NEPA. NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a proposed Federal action are considered and minimized by the federal agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate public participation in the decision making process on these Federal activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to the proposed action. Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a real problem in Wyoming and many States throughout the Nation. A statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public planning process on Federal lands. NEPA now serves to delay action and shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these Federal lands for their existence. The ``State and Local Government Participation Act'' is designed to provide for greater input from State and local governments in the NEPA process. This measure would simply guarantee that State, county and local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning process, too often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. Unfortunately, many Federal agencies have become so engrossed in examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on Federal land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live near and depend on these areas for their economic survival. States and local communities must be consulted and included when proposed actions are being taken on Federal lands in their State. Too often, Federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of environmental organizations located in Washington, DC or New York City than the people who actually live in the State where the proposed action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input of state and local communities are vital for the proper management of federal lands in the West. The ``State and Local Government Participation Act of 2003'' will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee that local folks will be involved in proposed decision that will affect their lives. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Listing and Delisting Reform Act of 2003.'' The Endangered Species Act has become one of the best examples of good intentions gone astray. Today, I am taking one small step toward injecting some common sense into what has become a regulatory nightmare. It is my intention to start making the law more effective for local landowners, public land managers, communities and State governments who truly hold the key to any successful effort to conserve species. My legislation seeks to improve the listing, recovery planning and delisting processes so that recovery, the goal of the act, is easier to achieve. In Wyoming, we have seen first hand the need to revise the listing and delisting processes of the Endangered Species Act. Listing should be a purely scientific decision. Listing should be based on credible data that has been peer-reviewed. In 1998, the Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse was listed in the State of Wyoming. The listing process for this mouse demonstrates how the system has gone haywire, devoid of good science. One of the more significant shortcomings regarding the handling of the Preble Mouse has been the confusion between the ``known range'' as opposed to the alleged ``historical range'' of the mouse. Historical data and current knowledge do not support the high, short- grass, semi-arid plains of southeastern Wyoming as part of the mouse's historical habitat range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has even admitted to uncertainties regarding taxonomic distinctions and ranges. further, the State was not properly notified causing counties, commissioners, and landowners all to be caught off guard. Such poor practices do not foster the types of partnerships that are required if meaningful species conservation is to occur. Clearly, changes to the Endangered Species Act are desperately needed. Not far behind the mouse in Wyoming, was the black tailed prairie dog. Petitions to list the prairie dog were filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I've lived in Wyoming most of my life, and I've logged a lot of miles on the roads and highways in my State over the years. I can tell you from experience that there is no shortage of prairie dogs in Wyoming. Any farmer or rancher will concur with that opinion. This petition, and countless other actions throughout the country, makes it painfully clear that some folks are intent on completely eliminating activity on public lands, no matter what the cost to individuals or local communities that rely on the land for economic survival. My legislation will require the Secretary of the Interior to use scientific or commercial data that is empirical, field tested and peer-reviewed. Right now, it's basically a ``postage stamp'' petition: any person who wants to start a listing process may petition a species with little or no scientific support. This legislation prevents this absurd practice by establishing minimum requirements for a listing petition that includes an analysis of the status of the species, its range, population trends and threats. The petition must also be peer reviewed. In order to list a species, the Secretary must determine if sufficient biological information exists in the petition to support a recovery plan. Under my proposal, States are made active participants in the process and the general public is provided a more substantial role. This legislation requires explicit planning and forethought with regard to conservation and recovery at the time the species is listed. Let me be clear about the intent of this requirement. I do not question the basic premise that some species require the protection of the Endangered Species Act. However, listing a species can cause hardship on a community. For that reason, it is critically important and only reasonable that every listing be supported by sound science. We should be sure of the need for a listing before we ask the members of our communities and private landowners to make sacrifices. In Wyoming, I have found that with several listings, the Secretary of the Interior was unable to tell me what measures were required to achieve species recovery. The Secretary could not tell me what acts or omissions we could expect to face as a consequence of listing. How can this be, if the Secretary is fully apprized of the status of the species? Conversely, if the Secretary cannot clearly describe how to reverse threatening acts to a species so that we can achieve recovery, how can we be sure that the species is, in fact, threatened? This ambiguity has caused much undue frustration to the people of Wyoming. If the Secretary believes that certain farming or ranching practices, or a private citizen's development of their own property is the cause for a listing, then the Secretary should identify those activities that have to be curtailed or changed. If the Secretary does not have enough information to indicate what activities should be restricted, then why list a species? Why open producers and others to the burden of over-zealous enforcement and even litigation without being able to achieve the goal of recovering the species? This legislation is ultimately designed to improve the quality of information used to support a listing. If the Secretary knows enough to list a species, that person should know enough to tell us what will be required for recovery. That should be the case under current law, and that is all that this provision would require. Additionally, we need to revise the end of the process, the de- listing procedure. Recovery should be the goal of the Endangered Species Act. Yet, it is virtually impossible to de-list a species. There is no certainty in the process, and the State who has all the responsibility for managing the species once it is off the list are not true partners in that process. Once the recovery plan is met, the species should be de-listed. Wyoming's experience with the Grizzly bear pinpoints some of the problems with the current de-listing process. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee set criteria for recovery and in the Yellowstone ecosystem, those targets have been met, but the bear has still not been removed from the list. We've been battling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for years over this issue to no avail. Despite rebounded populations, we keep funneling money down a black hole. The point is something needs to be done. People in Wyoming have grown weary of the Endangered Species Act and the efforts of a vocal minority to run roughshod over their lives and interests. It is imperative to the longevity of many species and our citizens in the West that we bring this Act to the snubbing post and gain control of the process. The changes I've suggested will have a significant affect on the quality of science, public participation, state involvement, speed in recovery and finally the delisting of a species. Species that truly need protection will be protected, but let's not lose sight of the real goal--recovery and delisting.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing a bill that will further my efforts to limit government competition with the private sector. Senator Levin and I propose to eliminate the mandatory contracting requirement that Federal agencies are subject to when it comes to products made by the Federal Prison Industries, FPI. Under law, all Federal agencies, except the Department of Defense, are required to purchase products made by the FPI. Simply put, this bill will require the FPI to compete with the private sector for Federal contracts. Currently, the FPI employs approximately 22,000 Federal prisoners or roughly 20 percent of all Federal prisoners. These prisoners are responsible for producing a diverse range of products for the FPI, ranging from office furniture to clothing. The remaining 80 percent of Federal prisoners, who work, do so in and around Federal prisons. While Senator Levin and I believe that it is important to keep prisoners working, we do not believe that this effort should unduly harm or conflict with law-abiding businesses. This bill seeks to minimize the unfair competition that private sector companies face with the FPI. The FPI's mandatory source requirement not only undercuts private business throughout America, but its mandatory source preference oftentimes costs American taxpayers more money. I believe American taxpayers would be alarmed to learn of the preferential treatment that the FPI enjoys when it comes to Federal contracts. As I said before, Senator Levin and I support the goal of keeping prisoners busy while serving their time in prison. However, if we allow competition in Federal contracts, the FPI will be required to focus its efforts in product areas that don't unfairly compete with the private sector. Clearly, competitive bidding is a reasonable process that will ensure taxpayer's dollars are being spent justly. Of particular note, our bill allows contracting officers, within each Federal agency, the ability to use competitive procedures for the procurement of products. This approach allows Federal agencies to select the FPI contracts if he/she believes that the FPI can meet that particularly agency's requirements and the product is offered at a fair and reasonable price. The above outlined provision in our bill seeks to place the control of government procurement in the hands of contracting officers, rather than in the hands of the FPI. In addition to establishing a competitive procedure for the procurement of products, we include a provision that allows the Attorney General to grant a waiver to this process if a particular contract is deemed essential to the safety and effective administration of a particular prison. I am confident that by allowing competition for government contracts our bill will save tax dollars. As Congress looks for additional cost saving practices, the elimination of the FPI's mandatory source preference will bring about numerous improvements, not just in cost savings, but also in streamlining of the FPI's products.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Levin in introducing a bill that will further my efforts to limit government competition with the private sector. Senator Levin and I propose to eliminate the mandatory contracting requirement that Federal agencies are subject to when it comes to products made by the Federal Prison Industries, FPI. Under law, all Federal agencies, except the Department of Defense, are required to purchase products made by the FPI. Simply put, this bill will require the FPI to compete with the private sector for Federal contracts. Currently, the FPI employs approximately 22,000 Federal prisoners or roughly 20 percent of all Federal prisoners. These prisoners are responsible for producing a diverse range of products for the FPI, ranging from office furniture to clothing. The remaining 80 percent of Federal prisoners, who work, do so in and around Federal prisons. While Senator Levin and I believe that it is important to keep prisoners working, we do not believe that this effort should unduly harm or conflict with law-abiding businesses. This bill seeks to minimize the unfair competition that private sector companies face with the FPI. The FPI's mandatory source requirement not only undercuts private business throughout America, but its mandatory source preference oftentimes costs American taxpayers more money. I believe American taxpayers would be alarmed to learn of the preferential treatment that the FPI enjoys when it comes to Federal contracts. As I said before, Senator Levin and I support the goal of keeping prisoners busy while serving their time in prison. However, if we allow competition in Federal contracts, the FPI will be required to focus its efforts in product areas that don't unfairly compete with the private sector. Clearly, competitive bidding is a reasonable process that will ensure taxpayer's dollars are being spent justly. Of particular note, our bill allows contracting officers, within each Federal agency, the ability to use competitive procedures for the procurement of products. This approach allows Federal agencies to select the FPI contracts if he/she believes that the FPI can meet that particularly agency's requirements and the product is offered at a fair and reasonable price. The above outlined provision in our bill seeks to place the control of government procurement in the hands of contracting officers, rather than in the hands of the FPI. In addition to establishing a competitive procedure for the procurement of products, we include a provision that allows the Attorney General to grant a waiver to this process if a particular contract is deemed essential to the safety and effective administration of a particular prison. I am confident that by allowing competition for government contracts our bill will save tax dollars. As Congress looks for additional cost saving practices, the elimination of the FPI's mandatory source preference will bring about numerous improvements, not just in cost savings, but also in streamlining of the FPI's products.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003'' with my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Specifically, the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003'' permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for services provided to seniors. This will result in an increased choice of mental health providers for seniors and enhance their ability to access mental health services in their communities. This legislation is especially crucial to rural seniors who are often forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a mental health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today- compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists are able to bill Medicare for their services. It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as well as the critical role they play in the mental health care infrastructure. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of masters level social workers, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program. Particularly troubling to me is the fact that seniors have disproportionately higher rates of depression and suicide than other populations. Additionally, 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of all rural counties have ``no'' mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. It is quite obvious we have an enormous task ahead of us to reduce these staggering statistics. providing mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists the ability to bill Medicare for their services is a key part of the solution. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming has 174 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 263 clinical social workers for a total of 474 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2001'' will more than double the number of mental health providers available to seniors in my State with the addition of 528 mental health counselors and 61 marriage and family therapists currently licensed in the state. I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003'' with my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Specifically, the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2003'' permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for services provided to seniors. This will result in an increased choice of mental health providers for seniors and enhance their ability to access mental health services in their communities. This legislation is especially crucial to rural seniors who are often forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a mental health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today- compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists are able to bill Medicare for their services. It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as well as the critical role they play in the mental health care infrastructure. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of masters level social workers, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program. Particularly troubling to me is the fact that seniors have disproportionately higher rates of depression and suicide than other populations. Additionally, 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of all rural counties have ``no'' mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. It is quite obvious we have an enormous task ahead of us to reduce these staggering statistics. providing mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists the ability to bill Medicare for their services is a key part of the solution. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming has 174 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 263 clinical social workers for a total of 474 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2001'' will more than double the number of mental health providers available to seniors in my State with the addition of 528 mental health counselors and 61 marriage and family therapists currently licensed in the state. I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to authorize the exchange of State lands inside Grand Teton National Park. Grand Teton National Park was established by Congress on February 29, 1929, to protect the natural resources of the Teton range and recognize the Jackson area's unique beauty. On March 15, 1943, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the Jackson Hole National Monument adjacent to the park. Congress expanded the Park on September 14, 1950, by including a portion of the lands from the Jackson Hold National Monument. The park currently encompasses approximately 310,000 acres of wilderness and has some of the most amazing mountain scenery anywhere in our country. This park has become an extremely important element of the National Park system, drawing almost 2.7 million visitors in 1999. When Wyoming became a State in 1890, sections of land were set aside for school revenue purposes. All income from these lands--rents, grazing fees, sales or other sources--is placed in a special trust fund for the benefit of students in the State. The establishment of these sections predates the creation of most national parks or monuments within our State boundaries, creating several State inholdings on federal land. The legislation I am introducing today would allow the Federal Government to remove the State school trust lands from Grand Teton National Park and allow the State to capture fair value for this property to benefit Wyoming school children. This bill, entitled the ``Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act,'' identifies approximately 1406 acres of State lands and mineral interests within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park for exchange for Federal assets. These federal assets could include mineral royalties, appropriated dollars, Federal lands or combination of any of these elements. The bill also identifies an appraisal process for the State and Federal Government to determine a fair value of the State property located within the park boundaries. After the bill is signed into law, the land would be valued by one of the following methods: 1. the Interior Secretary and Governor would mutually agree on a qualified appraiser to conduct the appraisal of the State lands in the park; 2. If there is no agreement about the appraiser, the Interior Secretary and Governor would each designate a qualified appraiser. The two designated appraisers would select a third appraiser to perform the appraisal with the advice and assistance of the designated appraisers. If the Interior Secretary and Governor cannot agree on the evaluations of the State lands 180 days after the date of enactment, the Governor may petition the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to determine the final value. One-hundred-eighty days after the State land value is determined, the Interior Secretary, in consultation with the Governor, shall exchange Federal assets of equal value for the state lands. The management of our public lands and natural resources is often complicated and requires the coordination of many individuals to accomplish desired objectives. When western folks discuss federal land issues, we do not often have an opportunity to identify proposals that capture this type of consensus and enjoy the support from a wide array of interests; however, this land exchange offers just such a unique prospect. This legislation is needed to improve the management of Grand Teton National Park, by protecting the future of these unique lands against development pressures and allow the State of Wyoming to access their assets to address public school funding needs. This bill enjoys the support of many different groups including the National Park Service, the Wyoming Governor, State officials, as well as folks from the local community. During the 107th Congress the Senate passed this exact same legislation three separate times unanimously. Unfortunately, due to complications unrelated to the bill was not able to be sent to the President for signature and enactment. It is my hope that the Senate, and the Congress, will seize this opportunity to improve upon efforts to provide services to the American public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to authorize the exchange of State lands inside Grand Teton National Park. Grand Teton National Park was established by Congress on February 29, 1929, to protect the natural resources of the Teton range and recognize the Jackson area's unique beauty. On March 15, 1943, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the Jackson Hole National Monument adjacent to the park. Congress expanded the Park on September 14, 1950, by including a portion of the lands from the Jackson Hold National Monument. The park currently encompasses approximately 310,000 acres of wilderness and has some of the most amazing mountain scenery anywhere in our country. This park has become an extremely important element of the National Park system, drawing almost 2.7 million visitors in 1999. When Wyoming became a State in 1890, sections of land were set aside for school revenue purposes. All income from these lands--rents, grazing fees, sales or other sources--is placed in a special trust fund for the benefit of students in the State. The establishment of these sections predates the creation of most national parks or monuments within our State boundaries, creating several State inholdings on federal land. The legislation I am introducing today would allow the Federal Government to remove the State school trust lands from Grand Teton National Park and allow the State to capture fair value for this property to benefit Wyoming school children. This bill, entitled the ``Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act,'' identifies approximately 1406 acres of State lands and mineral interests within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park for exchange for Federal assets. These federal assets could include mineral royalties, appropriated dollars, Federal lands or combination of any of these elements. The bill also identifies an appraisal process for the State and Federal Government to determine a fair value of the State property located within the park boundaries. After the bill is signed into law, the land would be valued by one of the following methods: 1. the Interior Secretary and Governor would mutually agree on a qualified appraiser to conduct the appraisal of the State lands in the park; 2. If there is no agreement about the appraiser, the Interior Secretary and Governor would each designate a qualified appraiser. The two designated appraisers would select a third appraiser to perform the appraisal with the advice and assistance of the designated appraisers. If the Interior Secretary and Governor cannot agree on the evaluations of the State lands 180 days after the date of enactment, the Governor may petition the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to determine the final value. One-hundred-eighty days after the State land value is determined, the Interior Secretary, in consultation with the Governor, shall exchange Federal assets of equal value for the state lands. The management of our public lands and natural resources is often complicated and requires the coordination of many individuals to accomplish desired objectives. When western folks discuss federal land issues, we do not often have an opportunity to identify proposals that capture this type of consensus and enjoy the support from a wide array of interests; however, this land exchange offers just such a unique prospect. This legislation is needed to improve the management of Grand Teton National Park, by protecting the future of these unique lands against development pressures and allow the State of Wyoming to access their assets to address public school funding needs. This bill enjoys the support of many different groups including the National Park Service, the Wyoming Governor, State officials, as well as folks from the local community. During the 107th Congress the Senate passed this exact same legislation three separate times unanimously. Unfortunately, due to complications unrelated to the bill was not able to be sent to the President for signature and enactment. It is my hope that the Senate, and the Congress, will seize this opportunity to improve upon efforts to provide services to the American public. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the Record.