Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk a little bit about what I think is the future of some of the things that are being talked about in terms of this Senate session which probably will expire in 2 weeks, and the many things that we have to do prior to that time. Some of the things that are being talked about seem to me to be a little contradictory from time to time. I guess my hope is that we can together, of course, based on the leadership in the Senate, set some priorities, make some decisions, and accomplish some of the things that are necessary for us to accomplish prior to the recess. Clearly, we have to do something about homeland defense. I can't imagine anything that is more important to us than to complete this discussion and allow the President to establish what is necessary for homeland defense. It is interesting. It reminds us. This morning, for example, over in the Hart Senate Office Building, we were told we couldn't leave our offices and no one could come in because there was a suspicious package over there on the floor. It reminds us that there is indeed a continuing threat of terrorism which we need to do something about. Clearly, we have to make some decisions with regard to our position on Iraq. Whatever that decision is, it seems to me it is terribly important that Congress join with the President, and that we make some decisions which cause something to happen there. Hopefully, it will be some kind of a peaceful settlement. But that isn't going to happen--and it hasn't happened for years--until we do something that is very definitive. We can do that. We clearly have to do something about defense appropriations. I suspect that we will end up--and I have no problem with that--with a continuing resolution for the rest of the appropriations, none of which we have passed at this time, so they can continue at last year's level until whenever--November or February. Defense appropriations and military construction have to be changed because the demands are higher for more money, and we can't go on last year's numbers. These certainly are some of the things we must do. Then we have to have this continuing resolution. I hope we will get back to this matter of homeland defense. The President made a recommendation, and the House passed a bill. It is something that is unusual, it is something that is different, and it is something patterned after the threats up to now. I think it has to have management flexibility. That has been one of the controversial points--organizational flexibility, putting together a Department made up of a number of different departments that have had these specific responsibilities and bring it together so it will be coordinated. Some of the things we are finding that might have been done better prior to September 11 will be done better in the future. We can do that. We have to assign personnel responsibilities, do budget transfers, and do many of these things that pretty clearly need to be done. I think one of the interesting things that has happened in recent times because of Iraq and terrorism discussions and home defense discussions is that on homeland defense we see an effort being made increasingly to shift the division from the economy to these issues. I think both of these issues are very important. But when you have threats and you have terrorism, you aren't able to choose the time. When it is there, you have to do something about it. Some of the talk, particularly in the media, I suppose comes basically from here. It has been interesting. One of the columnists in my home State of Wyoming--one of the few liberal columnists--has written one that I think is interesting. The first point he makes is that President Bush, in his campaign, was for bringing troops home. At that time, that was a reasonable thing to do. We were deployed over the world and beyond where we needed to be. Now he said the contradiction is that he is willing to commit thousands of young people overseas. Times have changed. September 11 changed things. September 11 indicated to us that there is a different kind of threat from terrorism, and indeed a different kind of war in this world than there was before. Should our position change? It seems to me that it should. Then he goes on to talk a little bit about the fact that the administration hasn't even shown the need to do this. It seems to me, if you go back and examine what happened in the last 10 years in Iraq, it is pretty clear that the agreements that were made after the 1991 war have not been lived up to. And that is the basis for the kind of threat we have now. It is pretty clear. It is very interesting. He goes on to say we should never attack anyone unless we have been attacked. I wonder if he has forgotten the 3,000 people who died in New York City. It shows the different changes that have taken place. Years ago, an attack was by 17 divisions with tanks and landing barges. That is what you defended yourself against. That is not the case now. The case is you can bring some kind of a secret thing into a building in New York City and kill 3,000 people. We are having some strange conversations--all of them valid. We need to go through it. We also hear from some of our friends on the other side of the aisle that we are no longer paying any attention to the economy. I simply say that I believe we ought to review where we have been and where we could have been--and the number of things talked about here that have an impact on the economy that the leadership has not brought up, and has not been willing to go forward on. One of them is the budget. It is the first year in 20-some years that we haven't had a budget; that has something to do with an economy, of course. Policy for energy: We have been moving along, but we still haven't gotten an energy policy. It is one of the things that most impacts both our economy and our safety against terrorism. We are hoping to get that. There is still no movement there. Terrorism insurance on buildings, for example: We have reduced the ability of people to invest their money to help the economy. We haven't done anything with that. Tax permanency and doing something about the estate tax so people will be more willing to invest their money--they don't want to do that, and they haven't brought it up. We need to be sure to take those items out of the committees. Limits on liability, tort reform--that has something to do with the economy--we could do that. The leadership has chosen not to bring that up. So there are many things where there seems to be a contradiction. All of us want to pass homeland security legislation. No one in this Chamber does not want to accomplish that. And we want to make it work. To do that, we need to move forward. There is no one in this body who does not want to see our economy strengthened, making life better for everyone in this country. We have to make some decisions. We have to have some movement instead of being 4 weeks on the same thing and having not accomplished it. Mr. President, I certainly hope we can move forward. I think all of us want to do that. We have a couple weeks in which to do it. Now is the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is interesting. I wanted to visit a little bit about where we are on the floor and the fact we are not moving. We have been in the same place for 4 weeks. I understand the frustration of the folks on the other side of the aisle. I recognize, too, that we are in the full swing of an election year. It is blame-game time, where we all stand up and blame the President for what is going on when there is no effort on the other side of the aisle to move off where we are and take up some of the issues we ought to be addressing. We talk about prescription drugs. Prescription drugs is not on the floor because the leadership has not moved from where we are to make time to get it up here. I get a little exasperated, using all this time for political comments when there are no ideas of what to do coming from the other side of the floor. Actually, that wasn't why I came here, but I have to tell you it is pretty frustrating to continue to hear that sort of thing--blaming the President when these folks have no idea what they want to do and no suggestions, no leadership coming from the Senate. What are we going to do about it? What we have done is continue to work on two bills for about 4 weeks now. Homeland defense is one of the most important issues we have before us, and it has been stalled. Although we have differing views on how it ought to proceed, that is fine, that is part of the system here. We ought to take a vote on those views and move forward, but instead of that, we have had stalling on the other side, no chance to vote on amendments, simply wanting to always vote on cloture, which is what we are faced with today. The unwillingness of the majority leadership to allow votes on certain amendments has created a standoff. We keep hearing about what else you want to talk about over there, but we won't move off where we are. It is pretty frustrating. It seems as though that is the political moment. We have to really get down to what it is. The same thing is true of Interior appropriations. It has been on the floor for 4 weeks. Yet we can't seem to move it to get some of the things done. For those of us in the West, it is very important--public land fees and, so on, in which we are so involved. Maybe even more important than that, the more immediate issue, there is some drought relief in this bill. There is something on forest fire suppression. We can do those things. But have we moved? No. We continue to stall and to have votes on cloture, which does not resolve the issue. All we need to do is have a vote on the amendments. If you don't like the amendments, have a vote to table them. That is where we ought to be. That is the system. To get up and start spending all of our time blaming the President for an economic slowdown that began under the Clinton administration, according to all the people who are familiar and knowledgeable about it, is to be a little tiresome, when we have an opportunity to move forward. There are a lot of things we ought to be doing in the relatively short time we have left. Obviously, homeland defense is one that has to be done. We need to debate the Iraq resolution, which is going to take some time. We need a CR if we are going to adjourn on the 19th of October. We have an energy bill which we ought to move forward. We talked about pharmaceuticals and Medicare. We could have done something in our committee, but the majority leader pulled it out of the committee. We will not have time to accomplish these items as long as we remain on the pending bills. It seems to me it would be very frustrating to want to spend the time blaming the President for the economy when the Senate is not doing what we can and moving forward. I will not take any more time. We ought to look at what we are accomplishing instead of trying to put the blame on everybody else when we have not succeeded in doing what we ought to be doing. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Could the Chair tell me what the system is this morning? Are we going to have one side have all the time?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. How much time remains?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my most sincere words of support and encouragement to Mr. Nick Cosma. Today Nick will stand and take his oath to become a citizen of the United States. I believe it is particularly important during such times as these to reflect upon the dream that America represents to so many people like Nick around the world. A strong family, an adventurer's spirit and a solid character are essential ingredients to brave the challenges of an unknown land. While it certainly isn't an easy task to come from afar and try to make a better life in the United States, people continually come to these shores in search of opportunity, freedom and personal liberty. America is a country full of opportunity for those who are willing to work hard. Nick's hard work and dedication has brought him through our legal process to a junction where he can call himself an American. Today Nick will have earned all of the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship. I know this is a proud day for Nick and his wife Abra and their family and friends. As I understand, Nick has already been shopping for a fireproof safe to house his new American passport. It is apparent that Nick is already taking his new responsibilities seriously. So with that, I offer congratulations to Nick Cosma and his family on his day of becoming a citizen.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to talk about where the Senate is and where the Senate is going. Obviously, we are coming to the end of the session. I presume the maximum we will be here is 2 weeks after this week, a total of 3 weeks, unless circumstances change. We have, of course, as usual, a lot of legislation that could be done. There are a lot of issues about which we have talked this year that need to be finalized. All those issues rise to the top at the end of a session. More importantly, we are faced with the fact that there is limited time, and the process takes a good deal of time. Therefore, it is necessary, it seems to me, for us to choose priorities and decide what we must complete before we go into recess for the election and after and, of course, do whatever we can but that those need to be our priorities. I am one who believes strongly in the fact that one has to make priorities, in any group, although this group is not an easy one to manage. Decisions need to be made with respect to what we need to do and, frankly, finding some limits on how long we can spend on different issues. We only have time for a relatively few items to be completed, in my opinion. Some of them are more fairly obvious and some are quite important. Obviously, we have to complete homeland security. We have been on that bill now, I believe, 3 weeks. Hopefully, we will finish it very soon. Because of the time, it needs to be completed soon. Quite frankly, we find ourselves in a delay, a stalling arrangement here that is not where we need to be. Are there differences of views? Of course, and they need to be resolved, but that is what the system is about, and we need to go on. We are going to be faced very soon with a resolution with respect to Iraq. In fact, we are working on it now. It is an issue that needs to be addressed and addressed quickly. Again, it will take a certain amount of time, but we do need to address it, and we need to address it on the basis that it is a priority with which we need to deal, however one feels about it. Defense appropriations: We are going to find ourselves not having dealt with more than half the appropriations bills by the time we go into recess, but many of them can probably be tided over for several months with a continuing resolution, funding the agencies at the level they have been in the past year. It is not an unusual occurrence. But Defense appropriations, in this instance, is quite different because of the circumstances relating to terrorism. Defense appropriations need to be completed. More resources obviously need to be available to our military so when we ask our military to do whatever we ask them to do, they have the best support we can possibly give to them. The CR needs to be dealt with so we do not have the Government being stopped because of no financing. Remember, we did that a number of years ago. We cannot let that happen, of course. There are lots of issues people will talk about that indeed are important, and if we had our way, they could all be done. Unfortunately, a lot of those issues have not been brought out of committee and to the floor so we can move them forward. I believe 8 out of 13 appropriations bills have not been dealt with yet. We are going to soon have to deal with a payback for Medicare. I find at home--and I am sure everyone else does, too--more physicians are not treating Medicare patients because the reimbursement has gone down, and it is scheduled to go down more the first of next month. Frankly, this would be a relatively easy issue to fix. We know what the percentages are, and we could do something about that. An issue that I have talked a great deal about and that is more difficult--and I do not think we will accomplish but many of us would like to--is pharmaceuticals. We need to find a way to make pharmaceuticals more available to the elderly particularly. We have worked on that a great deal and have not come to a conclusion and will not, in my opinion, by the time this session is over. We have spent a good deal of time on energy. Certainly, energy is an issue that affects not only the economy but it affects terrorism and the upheaval in the Middle East where we have let ourselves become 60 percent dependent on imported energy. We need to change that. We need to have a policy. We have not had a policy for some time. We are now in the process of developing that policy in a conference committee, and we need to get that finished. We talked about drought relief. It is on the table. We can do that. Unfortunately, we will probably not be able to deal with terrorism insurance, which is too bad. It is a good issue because it has to do with the economy. It has to do with the resistance to constructing buildings, for example, when you cannot have insurance for them. There are lots of other issues, such as tort reform and health care costs. I think we have to move on those issues. We have to move ahead with the budget resolution, which we have not had for the first time in a number of years. One may say, what is the difference? The difference is not only does it help us deal with what we are going to spend, but it has an operational aspect to it that says if you spend over what you have agreed to for the budget, there have to be 60 votes to pass it, which is the kind of resistance we need when we are spending too much money. We have already talked about prescription drugs. That is an issue we really need to deal with. There are a number of ideas, and we need to consider them. The permanent tax cut, of course, again, has to do with stimulating the economy, and we have talked about that a great deal as something we need to do. There are also the issues of homeland security and welfare reform. Welfare reform is pretty much ready to go in the committee. We are going to have to have a temporary passage to keep that in place because it expires shortly. These are the things we need to deal with, as well as the appropriations bills. I urge that we set some priorities, decide what it is we are going to do over this time, and set some time goals so we can work at it. Then I think we really have to enforce it. Today, for example, it will be 5 o'clock on a Monday before we get around to voting, and I suspect we will be out again next Friday. The time has come when we really need to take the time that is available to do what we have to do. That is our challenge, and certainly it is not easy. It is difficult because we all have different ideas about what issues are most important. We have some compelling issues that clearly need to be moved on because of the shortage of time. I urge we move that way and complete the work that is necessary for it to be done before we leave in October. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr President, I know all of us in this Chamber shared in the profound sense of relief and elation which accompanied the heroic rescue of nine mineworkers from the Quecreek Mine near Somerset Pennsylvania earlier this summer. It was truly a remarkable story which combined the very best of the human spirit with the most modern mine safety and rescue technologies and produced nothing short of a miracle. Somewhat lost in the press accounts after the rescue was the role played by the Mine Safety and Health Administration which sent 70 of its own employees to Somerset to assist in the rescue. One of MSHA's important missions is to prepare mineworkers and local health and safety officials for responding to the sort of near disaster that we witnessed last month. The rescue in Pennsylvania was no accident. It was the result of thousands of man-hours dedicated to salvaging the best from the worst. We all saw firsthand how it works. I am very proud to be able today to recognize that a group of individuals from my own state has won this year's National and International Mine Rescue Contest. The Mine rescue competitions are designed to test the knowledge of miners who might be called upon to respond to a real mine emergency. The contest requires six-member teams to solve a hypothetical mine emergency problem--such as a fire, explosion or cave in--while judges rate them on their adherence to mine rescue procedures and how quickly they complete specific tasks. This year a team from Green River Wyoming, representing FMC Corporation, which operates a mine in my state, won this prestigious competition. I would like to recognize the individuals who are part of this number 1 team: Bob Knott, Alan Jones, Rick Owens, Leroy Hutchinson, Glen Weinmaster, Dave Thomas, Melvin Lovato, Robert Pope, Bill Oleson, Bob Robison, Tony Herrera, John Key, Rod Knight, Mike Padilla and David Hutchinson. We pray that this outstanding team will never have to put into practice what it has trained to do over countless hours. However, it is also encouraging to know that such teams are deployed throughout mining country and stand ready to perform the sorts of heroic feats that we all witnessed a few weeks ago in Pennsylvania and coal country. All of us in Wyoming are very proud of the accomplishments of the FMC Mine Rescue Team and salute all of those involved in the mining industry for their dedication to safety.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Republican leader.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts about this day. We all have memories, of course, of a year ago. They are so clear after a year. Nothing like that has ever happened in this country. We remember it as we see it again on TV today. We have had a year to react, to recognize and accept the fact that it did happen. The unbelievable thing, shocking as it was, did happen. But we have also had the time to change from the immediate anger that we had, and the disbelief, to a commitment and resolution to do all that is necessary to make certain that it does not happen again. We have had this year to increase our loyalty to our country and to our flag, to increase our understanding of the values of freedom and democracy, to commit our resolve to help and support those who have lost loved ones, family members, and friends, to accept the reality that here in the Congress we can disagree and have different views on normal, daily issues, but when it comes to protecting our country and to preserving freedom, we all come together. The events of September 11 have clearly changed the way Americans view the world. We watched the events unfold. No one will ever forget. Everyone around the world has been touched, and we see some of that now. We are embroiled in a struggle against people who do not care about their lives and have set out to ruin ours. Sadly, we lost lives, but we regained a strong commitment to preserving our freedom and our integrity. So all and all, it has been a year of shock, disbelief, anger, followed by commitment, caring, sharing, patriotism, and determination. I think we should be very proud of our fellow Americans for their commitment, their willingness to sacrifice and to give--whether it be on the battlegrounds overseas, whether it be in rescue missions or law enforcement, in charity to the needy, leadership in our country both at the community and national level, or just caring for our friends and neighbors and loving our families. This year has put an emphasis in all these values. The United States will survive and will strengthen. Freedom will endure, and we thank God for the opportunity to be able to ensure that for our future. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, recently ABC ran a series of stories about the National Park Service and discussed the $4.9 billion backlog of deferred maintenance nationwide in our National Park System. One segment mentioned that some operations and park programs may need to be curtailed or discontinued as a result of budget shortfalls at Yellowstone National Park. To be absolutely fair, over the past few years both Senator Byrd and Senator Burns have been very generous to the National Park Service and to Yellowstone in particular. Yellowstone is the world's first national park, created in 1872, and one of the biggest. It stretches across volcanic plateaus in northwest Wyoming and into southern Montana and Idaho, and contains more than 2 million acres of geysers, lakes, waterfalls, forests, bison, bears, and tourists. But more than that, Yellowstone is very rich in cultural, historical and natural resources, and in fact, represents--in one part--the multiple facets of park operations and programs found in the individual 285 units of the System. My amendment would use Yellowstone as a demonstration project for business transformation. The National Park Service depends upon several sources of revenue to sustain operations and modernize facilities, including but not limited to, appropriations, fee income and revenue from concessioners, lease holders and permittees. These funding sources need to be managed in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible to ensure improvement of services to the park visitor and for the protection of natural and cultural resources. Toward this end, I believe that improved state-of-the-art business practices need to be established in the National Park Service. This amendment would require the Secretary of the Interior to contract for an independent and comprehensive management, operational, performance, and financial review of Yellowstone National Park. As I have already stated Yellowstone National Park has a wide range of a natural and cultural resources, programs and visitor services and provides an optimal environment in which to identify and make recommendations for improved management and operational practices that can be proliferated throughout the National Park Service and transform management to provide cost-effective, efficient and responsive programs. I know, the lessons that we will learn from Yellowstone will have application to the rest of the units within the System. I would suggest that the eventual cost savings, redirection of expenditures, and cost efficiencies will more than pay for the cost of this study. We all are aware that there is a backlog of maintenance, and Congress has attempted to address the situation. But, I have to say that throwing money at the problem does not guarantee that there will not be a deferred maintenance backlog ten years from now. Unfortunately, we have never systematically evaluated the management programs that contributed to the backlog in the first place. I believe this is a compelling need to establish new and better modern business practices within the National Park Service. With the passage of this amendment we can take advantage of the expertise that the private business sector has to offer so that we can redirect funds to address the backlog where we can, and more importantly, ensure that measures are taken to prevent a re-occurrence of programs and policies which led to the backlog we face today. I believe we can achieve these goals while maintaining important park program and operations. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I spoke some about this yesterday on the floor in terms of it being part of the Interior bill. Certainly I support this amendment. This is the only way we have to relieve the kinds of economic disasters that have occurred in the West and over the country, as a matter of fact. One of the issues is going to be how this is administered and how it is divided. Certainly, often you read about so much an acre for the crops and so on. I want to make the point again, this is also for livestock. This is for cattle, sheep, for the people who have not had grazing either on their own lands or on the lands that are leased. As we look at this, agriculture includes livestock. We need to make sure that is the case and that the distribution be made fairly throughout. I appreciate very much the opportunity for us to actually do something. Hopefully, the expenditures, even though not a formal offset, will be offset actually by the reduction in costs in the farm bill, and this makes it a little more practical in terms of the finances. I am supportive of the bill and hope we can move forward with the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will talk a little about the issue we are currently dealing with in this Chamber, which is the Interior appropriations bill. It is a bill that is very important to those of us from the West. Being from Wyoming, it is a particularly interesting and important issue. I listened to the assistant majority floor leader talk a little this morning about the importance of moving on with the issues we have before us. He enumerated the very many issues he considers apparently to be of primary importance. We are going to have to move forward, but we are going to have to make some priorities. We obviously do not have a great deal of time. Many of the issues the Senator from Nevada mentioned are issues that have been around for a long time, without much push from the leadership to do anything about them until now. I hope we do not find ourselves dealing with too many issues and dealing with them insufficiently. I hope we set priorities for where we are going to spend the rest of our time. My reaction is we need a little less talk and a lot more action. With regard to Interior, for those of us in the West, one of the issues--especially in the case of Wyoming--is that half of our State is Federal land and managed, to a large extent, by those agencies that are funded in the Interior bill. This is a bill of about $19.5 billion, which is a little more than last year but generally about the same. It is interesting that these agencies do create some revenues, mostly through royalties and minerals. About $6 billion worth of revenue comes from these activities. The Bureau of Land Management handles a great deal of the land in our State. It has a great deal to do with multiple use. It has a great deal to do with our opportunity to go ahead and use those lands for the various kinds of activities that are good for the local economy, good for the Nation, and good for energy, for example, and at the same time protect the environment, which is also key to what we are doing. I will comment further on PILT, payment in lieu of taxes. When a county could have as much as 80 percent of the land controlled and owned by the Federal Government, they have a real problem with tax revenues. Those lands would be earning revenue if they were in Maryland and owned privately. When they are owned by the Federal Government, there is no tax revenue. That is what the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program is designed to do. We also have the Wild Horse and Burro Program. We all want to preserve wild horses. They are spread over the country--some in Nevada, some in Wyoming, some in other States. However, we have a problem with overpopulation. It is an issue that exists with most wild critters. No one wants to do anything in particular to hold down the numbers. In the past, the numbers grew until there was not enough food and they starved to death. We do not want to do that. There has to be a particular number of wild horses, or elk, whatever, that can thrive; there is only so much vegetation for a certain number. Beyond that we have to do something. It is not an easy issue but we must deal with it. That is important. The Forest Service is one of our national treasures. We need to preserve the Forest Service; we need to preserve the forests. We have done a good job. This year has been extremely difficult when it comes to wildfires. We have lost 6 million acres. We are faced with the question of how to better prepare and eliminate some of those fires. There are programs out there. The administration has one now that will be included in an amendment to this bill that allows thinning and allows ways to avoid fires rather than putting our energy into fighting fires. I grew up next to the national forests in Wyoming. We were halfway between Cody, WY, and Yellowstone Park. It is a beautiful area with a great many trees and occasional threats from fires. There are cabins and buildings. We have a plan, if we could implement it, to hopefully avoid some of the fires. The National Park System is one of the big activities in the Interior Department. We have 385 national parks in this country. Some are large. In Wyoming, we have Yellowstone, the oldest and largest park in the country. We have had a chronic problem of maintaining the infrastructure of the parks. They have millions of visitors, generally on a seasonal basis, during a relatively short time. The administration has promised to put $4.5 million into infrastructure so we can keep the parks available for people to enjoy and visit. That is our responsibility. The Interior dollars are very important. Other activities of concern include the Fish and Wildlife Service, mining, as well as some research on energy and fossil technology and clean coal technology. Along with that is the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. We are providing the best service we can to Native Americans. We are providing an opportunity for them to continue to begin to build as strong an economy as possible. For a moment I will talk about the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. The Senate appropriates approximately $220 million for that PILT Program--more than it has ever received. We have not yet reached the appropriation to be equivalent to the authorization. Nevertheless, we have made some progress. This year, 67 of my colleagues joined in a request to increase PILT to help more than 2000 counties and local governments. When there is a county that has anywhere from 50 to 90 percent Federal lands, it is up to the county to provide the services necessary--whether it be law enforcement, fire, whatever. Those are county responsibilities. Therefore, there needs to be some revenues from the land. That is what these payments are about. We are moving toward that. I thank the committee for moving as they have toward reaching the authorization of the funds available. Certainly that authorization is not totally enough to fill all the needs, but it is an improvement over the past. This also gives an opportunity for those counties to create their own financial structure, much of which often is tourism, which, again, is costly. I thank the committee for what they have done with respect to payments in lieu of taxes to the counties. I hope we are able to include that. Our allocation is larger than the House and we need to bring that up so we have a satisfactory arrangement. In the West we have had 3 years of very low rainfall, actual drought. It is very difficult. In Washington, it is normal to have 50 inches of rain a year. In Wyoming, it is more likely to be an average of 16 or 17 inches. It is a low precipitation area at best. Therefore, we irrigate. Irrigation water generally comes from reservoirs, from the runoff of snowfall that is captured in the mountains and let down during the summer. We have had relatively slow snowfall over the last several years and therefore our reservoirs are getting low and have been very low this year. We have had, certainly, a bona fide drought problem--not only in Wyoming but all through the area, including the Dakotas and down. There has been a great deal of discussion about it. On the Agriculture Committee we talked about that a great deal. The Agriculture Committee bill as prepared does not deal with drought. We think they will get support in the area of crops, but it is based primarily on loans after the product is sold. If you did not produce a product, there is nothing there. That is why we need to have disaster assistance. There will be less spending in the Agriculture bill because there will be less crops grown--with a higher price because there are less--but many farmers and ranchers will not produce a crop. We should offset some of that to the farm bill spending. Whether we offset it or not, the fact is there will be less money spent in that area than could be spent. Therefore, what we spend here could replace what was there. I hope that is the approach we take. We should have some limitation on how much we have there, but, indeed, it is a big issue and it will be a $5.5 billion issue to be able to deal with the losses that agriculture has suffered. I hope, too, we do not simply focus on farm crops. Again, in my State, the biggest agricultural area is livestock. Livestock people have suffered as well. What has happened is there is no grass for grazing where the cattle are on private lands. In some cases where there has been grazing allowed, in the forests or BLM, Federal lands, there has not been a sufficient amount of grass. Ranchers have had to sell cattle because they have not had the feed and will not have the feed this winter. When we do talk about agriculture, the idea often--particularly in some Midwestern States--is that just refers to farmers. I want to tell you it is farmers, but it is also those who raise livestock, cattle, and sheep. People who are in that business need to be recognized as well, in terms of what we do here to help the agricultural industry during the drought. We will be dealing with that. We will come back to it. I say again I hope we can set some priorities for the relatively limited amount of time left of this Congress. I hope that we select those items that are timely, that need to be done. I understand when we come to the end of a session everybody has ideas of things that they would liked to have happened that did not happen, but we are not going to be able to do all those things. So what we have to do collectively is show some leadership as to which of those issues should be dealt with. Then we can do that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, Senator Smith had to leave the floor for a moment, so if I may speak.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe this is an important amendment, one I find great support for in the country. I believe it makes sense to arm qualified airline pilots, to add another layer of protection to our existing aviation security system. That is what we are seeking to do. We have had increased security, of course--increased screening requirements, fortified cockpit doors, increased numbers of sky marshals--since September 11. We must continue to do more and do all that we can. I recently wrote an op-ed in the Denver Post, as well as in a Wyoming paper, that indicated some 80 percent of American people, according to the polling, support this idea. This amendment mirrors the legislation introduced in both Houses of Congress and now passed by an overwhelming majority in the House to allow, but not require, carefully screened, properly trained and equipped airline pilots to be commissioned as Federal law enforcement officers and to carry firearms on the flight deck for defense. The U.S. Department of Transportation, which has had a change of position, proposed a limited arms pilot program, but the Smith amendment would be even stronger. The Smith amendment would prevent airlines from opting out of the program to avoid a situation where misguided liability concerns block pilots from volunteering. The Smith amendment would prevent airlines from discriminating against pilots who choose to participate. The Smith amendment would provide liability protection both for the airlines and for lawful actions of armed pilots preventing a terrorism tragedy turning into a feeding frenzy for the trial bar. Unfortunately, opponents of arming the pilots have fostered misplaced fears of the issue. Here are some of the facts. Pilots would use firearms only in the defense of aircraft after hijackers breached the cockpit door. No manmade door is impenetrable to determined attackers, of course. According to the May 2 House subcommittee testimony from Boeing's director of aviation safety, commercial planes are extremely unlikely to suffer catastrophic failure due to firearms on board. Aircraft are designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage resistance that even single or multiple handgun bullets would not create holes that would result in the loss of the aircraft. Even the worst possible mishap that could be brought about by an armed pilot is certainly not comparable to the alternatives. A plane destroyed by a missile fired from a U.S. fighter plane or that crashes into a ground target is simply not an acceptable outcome when there is a chance of preventing it by allowing federally commissioned, trained, screened, and volunteer pilots the means of mounting a last-ditch effort against terrorists and hijackers. I certainly hope we can support this important amendment and make our skies even safer for Americans to travel. I urge my friends to vote yes on the Smith amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I do.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to comment for a few minutes on the subject that is before the Senate. I am not a member of the committee. I have not spent as much time on it as have others. But I think there are probably different views and we have heard the same views now for quite a long time. Perhaps it would be well to talk a little bit about some of the other points of view that might be available and might be discussed later. I understand this is not actually on the issue but, rather, on a motion to proceed thereto. It is a very important issue, of course. Nothing could be more important than homeland security. We have talked about it and we continue to talk about it at great length. The fact is, it is a high priority, certainly, for all of us to protect the homeland. In order to do that, we need to have a homeland security department with the most effective management that we can have, the most effective employees, and a system that works as effectively as possible. So we support plans that protect workers through civil rights, equal opportunity guarantees, whistleblower protections, and all those fundamental rights which will be kept. Accountability is also a must, and giving the department flexibility in hiring and firing and creating a powerful deterrent for others to ensure they don't engage in behavior that would endanger homeland protection. The bill now before us will compromise national security and place more importance, frankly, on bureaucracy and bureaucratic security than on national security. That really is not the issue here. This is not a new issue. The President has the authority in every other agency, but there seems to be an inclination to be able to roll it back for the Department of Homeland Security. Under this bill, the President would have more flexibility to make decisions--or should have--for reasons of national security, and for HUD, for the Department of Education, he would have more than he does under this proposal. That seems strange to me. This is a proposal that deals with those kinds of emergencies--the things that are changeable--and flexibility needs to be there. So it seems to me that without some basic flexibility to manage, freedom to hire the right people, fire the wrong people, that national security would be at risk and not be secure. Here are some examples. The Senate bill prevents the President from holding services accountable. Last month, two America West pilots showed up to work drunk. They showed up on Monday and were fired on Tuesday. If they had been INS personnel, it would have taken 18 months--540 days--to be held accountable. These are the kinds of issues with which we have to deal. This is not the normal effort. There is a bottom line that the President does need to have sufficient flexibility. After all, it is the President and the people in the executive branch who are going to do the job. What we do is give them the opportunity and the flexibility to do it. Certainly there are controls. These controls will not be gone. But we have to provide the opportunity to the person who will be responsible for carrying out this role. It is easy to sit here and talk about all the restraints we should have because we do not have to do that job; someone else does. The Senate bill does not provide the new Department budget transfer authority. Without transfer authority, if intelligence indicated terrorists were developing a new type of biological weapon, the Secretary would be unable to transfer funds from one division to another to acquire additional medicines or vaccines or improve detection equipment. It does not provide the flexibility to attract, hire, and reward good performance or hold poor performers accountable. That is what we need to do in all of Government, but more particularly in this Department where they are going to face issues they have never before faced. The Office of Personnel Management reports it can take up to 5 months or more to hire a new Federal employee and 18 months to terminate. If one is not getting the job done, is this what we want in homeland defense? I do not think so. The bill does not provide for reorganization authority. The Senate bill will prevent the new Secretary from consolidating inspection work of the Customs Service, Border Patrol, and Agriculture inspectors at our ports of entry, leaving the current seam between these activities. Frankly, that has been the weakness in our system since September 11-- there is information here, there is information there, and we need to bring it together in a seamless way, and that is one of the strengths and one of the purposes of this whole operation. Yet this bill will not allow that to happen. It will strip the President of existing authority to act to preserve national security. The Senate would take away the President's existing authority to exempt agencies in the new Department of collective bargaining requirements where national security requires it. Ever since President Jimmy Carter used this important national security authority in time of war--we are in a war of terrorism. To weaken the President's authority seems to be contradictory of where we are or where we need to go. Certainly, there needs to be great discussion, and I admire the emphasis and effort that has been made. I certainly respect the judgment everyone brings to this Chamber, but there are differences of view, and they ought to be reflected, and they will be reflected, in the bill. We are getting the impression today, however, that there is nothing right about the bill, that the way the President has requested it is all wrong, and that cannot be the case. There has to be a balance, and I am sure there will be an effort to strike a balance. Of course, we have to recognize rules that do protect Federal workers. And, indeed, there should be rules. They represent the best in America, and they deserve strong civil service protections under the President's plan. Employees of the new Department will continue to be protected by important civil service laws, rules, and regulations that protect them against discrimination on the basis of age, disability, race, color, or religion. Those protections will be there, protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Hatch Act, Government ethical standards, and they should continue, and indeed they will. I know this is a very important issue. I know also that many Senators have worked very hard and are seeking to do what they believe is best to put together this homeland defense bill. But I do believe there has to be some recognition that this is different, that we are asking the executive branch to carry out a job that is unusual in a different time. It has to have some flexibility so that the decisions to accomplish what it is all about can be made. That is what the President and those who have put together this original proposition are for. A letter has been written by the former Governor of Pennsylvania that lays out the need for these flexibilities very persuasively. I happen to agree. Certainly there are limits to what we want to do, but we do want to make this a successful effort and give those who are in charge of handling it the flexibility to make it work. I hope we will balance this bill. Mr. President, I appreciate the time. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will visit for a few minutes about medical malpractice, which we will deal with tomorrow. Part of the bill originally had to do with pharmaceuticals. We have had a hard time focusing on pharmaceuticals. The amendment I will discuss expands health care access and has to do with the additional cost brought about by the difficulty arising with lawsuits and medical liability. We need some reform in this area. In my State of Wyoming, the Wyoming Medical Society has been very concerned. Insurers have been pulling out of the markets or increasing premiums that are above affordable levels. It is a substantial problem. The crisis is now in Casper, WY. Of course, it is all over the country as well. We are beginning to lose some of the practitioners. That is difficult, particularly in an underserved area. I rise today to support the McConnell amendment on medical malpractice tort reform. The Senate passed this exact language in 1995. There is little reason we should not pass it again. Physicians alone spent $6.3 billion in malpractice insurance premiums last year. This does not include what other providers such as hospitals have paid. This amendment is a good step in the right direction to reduce or limit the cost of health care to all persons. The McConnell amendment does a number of things, all of which are very important and necessary. It limits punitive damages to two times the sum of compensatory damages. The amendment only allows punitive damages in cases where the award has been by clear and convincing evidence. It also places limits on attorney's fees, limiting lawyers to collecting a third of the first $150,000 of an award and 25 percent of the award for amounts above $150,000. It requires lawsuits be filed within 2 years of the claimant's discovery of the injury. It encourages States to develop alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to help resolve issues before the court. It seems to me it is a step in the right direction in doing something about these costs. Some of the premiums that physicians are required to pay to practice are amazing. The result is many retreat from practice are particularly those in Medicare where relatively low fees are being paid. Median malpractice awards increased by 43 percent in 2002 to $1 million; 52 percent of all jury awards are now over $1 million. These excessive awards only contribute to the overall costs of health care for all Americans. Since awards drive up malpractice premiums and physicians must pass that on to their consumers, health insurance premiums for everyone continue to go up. Many Americans are not now able to afford health insurance. They are currently 40 million uninsured Americans. Recent reports show that medical malpractice is responsible for 7 percent or $5 billion of the overall increases in health care costs. Last year, one of the largest physician insurers in the Nation stopped its medical malpractice business. As a direct result, some doctors and hospitals see their premiums rising 20 to 100 percent. Some specialists are paying over $100,000 a year in premiums. Obstetrics is a particular problem. Hospitals in two rural counties in West Virginia have stopped delivering babies; half of 93 obstetricians in Clark County no longer accept new patients. One Nevada obstetrician closed her 10-year practice after her malpractice premiums went from $37,000 to $150,000. All of this, of course, must come from the patients. It is clear something needs to be done to address this growing crisis. According to the American Medical Association, 12 States are in crisis now; 30 are showing signs of being in crisis; 8 are currently OK. I hope as we talk about this tomorrow, we can do some things that start us moving in the right direction. The cost of health care is certainly an important issue to all of us. We have to deal with it in pharmaceutical costs. We have sought to deal with it by getting physicians into underserved areas by various means. But one of the ways that is important and has changed is the matter of the cost of medical malpractice tort reform. I hope we can deal with it tomorrow. I yield the floor. The ACTING President pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to use some of the time for the Republican side.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are moving on today, I am pleased to note, to deal with this business of pharmaceuticals. It is a very important issue, one that we have struggled with for some time. I am not particularly impressed with the system we have used. I am afraid it pretty much spells out the fact that it is going to be very difficult for us to come together with any real meaningful legislation with regard to pharmaceuticals. There are a couple of reasons for that. I think we could have done it a little differently. One, of course, is we do not have a budget. We have not brought up a budget resolution. So the question of funding always comes up. That is the reason for the votes this morning to try and waive a point of order on the budget. Not only does it affect this issue, of course, but the effect is that it is irresponsible not to have a budget for this coming year and be able to have the protections that a budget provides. We have been talking a long time about the failure of business to do things properly. This is certainly a failure, it seems to me, of the Congress not to have a budget resolution. We have not had it brought up. The other problem is we are dealing with the very broad subject of pharmaceuticals, which does not have before it a proposition that has been treated by the committee. Obviously, almost all the issues that come before the full Senate--and certainly there are those that are difficult issues--have gone through the committee, and much of the venting, much of the argument, much of the discussion has been done in the committee, and then the committee has come forth with a majority vote. This is the second time recently we have had bills come to the floor that are complicated and difficult without having had their exposure in the Senate committee. The energy bill, which we are still involved with, which was on the floor for several weeks, was pulled from the committee. It was not allowed to come through with a committee recommendation, and the same thing with the Finance Committee. So we find ourselves in a very difficult position. Nevertheless, that is where we are. We have several propositions before us. One is the Graham-Kennedy-Daschle bill, which was in the committee but apparently would not have received a majority vote in the committee, so it therefore was not brought to a vote. This creates a very large increase of Government bureaucracy and basically ultimately sets price controls in pharmaceuticals, has fairly restrictive formulas for the majority of managed-care companies. The Graham bill has plans to cover at least one name brand drug but not more than two in each therapeutic class. Pharmaceuticals is a difficult issue: How to provide them in terms of distribution; are they a part of this case in the Graham bill; and will they really become part of Medicare? The competing bill, they have done more in the private sector, and it is separate somewhat. It is a real tough job to encourage people to do it as economically as can be done. How will generics become hopefully more used and useful than they have in the past and therefore reduce some of the costs? How is the distribution done so consumers have some choices in terms of not only brands that are available to them but, frankly, some of us are concerned in States where we have low population whether or not there will be opportunities for consumers to have some choices, whether they will be able to use the local drugstore, or whether they will all have to be mail-in kinds of things. So it is a tough decision. There are differences in the two proposals. One will be a part of Medicare and will be handled by the Government. The other will be a private sector delivery system that will be set up. In the case of the Government system, of course, whoever does the distribution will not have to make any particular choices with regard to costs or helping to reduce them. But on the other hand, in the private sector the more they can make it economical, the more profitable it will be. So I am hopeful as we go through this, we can seek to set forth the best proposition that is possible, at the same time taking into account spending, and the spending in the two bills are quite different. The Democrat bill, the Graham bill, over a period of 7 years, is basically twice as expensive as the other bill. It costs in the area of $600 billion. The other one is very expensive as well, about $330 billion over the course of 10 years. So either one is going to be very expensive, but one quite less expensive than the other. Certainly we need to take a look at the expenses. The tripartisan plan seems truly to find some common ground between traditional Democrat and Republican views, and that is useful. It reforms Medicare. It provides a prescription drug benefit to ensure that seniors do have coverage more similar to employee-sponsored plans that, of course, we have been accustomed to in the past. I hoped this proposal could have been debated more--I have already mentioned that--in committees. It spends $330 billion over 10 years to provide prescription drugs for seniors. Even at that, whoever thought we would be talking about something in the area of $330 billion? Nevertheless, that is the case. It is a compromise between various proposals. In addition to simply the drug benefits, it spends $40 billion to make some overdue changes in Medicare Parts A and B, which need to be done. We have not made changes in Medicare for some time. The prices and payments have caused it to be difficult for people to get services. It tends to bring the Medicare into the 21st century. It does spend $370 billion over 10 years to make those changes, but I think it is a reasonable proposal. It has a monthly premium, which I think is reasonable if they are going to have these kinds of services. It has an annual deductible which, again, is not unusual in terms of insurance payments of these kinds. I think first dollar payments are very important in terms of any insurance program. It has a benefit cap. The Government pays 50 percent for seniors with drug costs up to $3,400. It has catastrophic coverage beginning at $3,700. Seniors will then be responsible for only 10 percent of the cost above that. So it is a tough program. It is one of the programs, however, that does deal with seeking to solve the problem without excessive expenditure. Low-income assistance below the 150 percent Federal poverty level is good for the entire structure. There is no so-called doughnut, middle ground, for low-income seniors, and that is good. This is the program that provides assistance, of course, to all seniors, and for their drug costs. It gives them access to discounted drug prices, and seniors generally now are the only group who pay full retail prices for drugs. So I am hopeful as we go into this afternoon's program, even though under the circumstances of bringing these bills this way without having a budget we will have to have 60 votes to get one passed, I hope we will give some thought to the only one that is indeed bipartisan, in fact, tripartisan, in nature, so we have the best opportunity of finding success in the Government to provide pharmaceutical and drug coverage to seniors, something that almost everyone agrees needs to be done. The question is how it is best done, and how we deal with the costs, the distribution; what ought to be the difference in access between low-income and those who are not; what we do to make some improvements in Medicare. This seems to be the proposition before the Senate that can provide for these benefits. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. That is the share the Republicans have?

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, how much time is remaining on the division in morning business?

Mr. THOMAS. I wish we could have divided the time up if we say we are going to.

Mr. THOMAS. And we were accorded 30 minutes, and we didn't get 30 minutes.