Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. We hear from the leader we will move forward. We have a lot of things to do. Yet we spend the whole day, frankly, accomplishing very little.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate very much of all the contributions, the great statements that have been made about my friend Paul Coverdell. I think now we are ready to move forward to some other topics.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to talk a little about energy. Of course, the appropriation before us is on energy and water, but the broader topic I think we are going to talk about here in the next couple of days as well is the whole notion of an energy policy and the implementation of a policy for this country. We have, as you know, gone now for a number of years without an energy policy. It has resulted in some things that we have felt recently. Frankly, I think we are very likely to feel them some more in the future. We felt it in California, of course, and continue to feel it, although it is a little less pressing now. We felt it in the price of gasoline and continue to feel it, although the price is down. But if we do not do something about the causes of this crisis, we will have it again. I come from a State, Wyoming, of course, where we are big in the production of energy. We are the No. 1 producer of coal. We are producing natural gas, methane gas--a grand, new operation there. So we also feel the up and down, in and out, of energy. Frankly, selfishly, I hope we can level things out a bit and get away from this boom-and-bust kind of economy that seems to be inherent in energy. To do that, it seems to me, we need to really take seriously this idea of having a national energy policy. I am very pleased the President and the Vice President have put forth an energy policy, as I said, for the first time, really, in a very long time. Now it is up to us in the Congress to take up the portions of that policy that have been laid out that need to have congressional action. Not all of it does, but a great part of it does, and we need to do so. The results of the lack of a policy over the years are pretty apparent in a couple of areas. One, obviously, is our dependence on overseas production. I suspect we will continue to have a good deal of overseas production, but we have allowed ourselves to become nearly 55- percent dependent on OPEC and other countries to fill our needs here, so we find ourselves in a position where, if the OPEC countries make a decision with regard to production, make a decision with regard to pricing, we are simply the victims of that. What is the solution? I suspect at least one of the solutions we need to consider seriously is an increase in domestic production. We have an opportunity to do that. There is a great deal of reserve energy here. There is a great deal of reserve in coal, for example, that we can depend on for a very long time. One of the impediments to that, of course, in the West particularly, has been access to public lands. In a State such as Wyoming, and even much more so in Nevada and some of the others, half of our State belongs to the Federal Government. In order to have production on those lands where minerals are available, you have to have reasonable access to those lands. I am not talking about wilderness. I am not talking about national parks. I am not talking about those lands that have been set aside for particular things--even in many cases parts of the forest reserve. I am talking more about Bureau of Land Management lands, the multiple-use lands. You have to understand how those lands became what they are before you can really have an idea of how they might be used. Parklands, obviously, were set aside. Forest reserves were set aside. BLM lands were simply the lands that remained there after the goals of the Homestead Act and so on were accomplished, and they remained in Federal hands. So they were never set aside for any particular reason, and therefore they are common land and should be available. Unfortunately, the access to those lands is much less available than it was just a small number of years ago. Some of the environmental groups have said: Oh, my goodness, they are 85 percent available. The fact is they might be, in terms of their designation, but when you get down to specific requirements that have been placed on the lands, the available lands are much less than they were just 10 years ago. I don't want to get into the ANWR thing, where we have been wrestling over that. There are lots of lands that we have shown and will continue to show can be explored, where minerals can be produced and those lands can be replaced and put back just as they were. Another problem we have had, that continues to be there and we will feel again, is the lack of infrastructure--the lack of refineries, for instance, for gasoline. We have not produced new refineries for years. Part of the reason for that is the indecision, where we are. Part of it has been the regulations that were there--14 or 15 different kinds of gasoline that had to be prepared for different areas, which makes it much more difficult. One of the more pressing problems is the transportation of available energy, whether it be through transmission lines for electricity or whether it be through lines for gas and oil. We have to get the energy from where it is produced to where it is used in the marketplace. We have not done that. These are some of the things that need to be considered. In addition, we have to take a long look at what we can do on renewables--continue to do more research so wind and solar and hydro become more and more a part of our future in energy. That can very easily happen. One of the things that has to be done, of course, is research. We have to do more of those kinds of things. The other is conservation. Conservation is much a part of where we are. I do not think we can solve the problem in the future with conservation, but that is one of the approaches that must be taken. I hope we continue to press to get the leadership of the Senate and leadership of the Congress to come to an accord on taking up the specifics of energy and not letting ourselves be fooled into thinking, because of this little pullback from the so-called crisis, that the problem has been solved; it has not. In order to avoid that happening again, really in any sort of project, we need to look ahead at what our needs are going to be, what kind of energy do we want available to us, and what do we need to have. Then we need to move to implement those things. I hope we hear more about that. I yield to my friend from Alaska, who is the ranking member and has been chairman of the Energy Committee and is probably one of the most knowledgeable of all of our Senators on this area.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my two colleagues. This is reasonable. I am concerned that when we have before us an important issue such as this energy bill, which really bears a lot on where we are going in this whole area of energy--and it is very important to me and to the American people--we get the amendments in. But this idea of having them filed by a certain time I think is really tough. We need a list perhaps. But thank you very much for this little change in direction.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I appreciate the time. I thank my friend from Arizona for his comments on energy. Certainly, I can't think of an issue that affects more people and is more likely to become a crisis again than energy. We had some touch of it and backed off of it a little. California is doing a little better than it was. Gas prices are tending to stabilize or even come down. The real cause of the problem is still there. I am surprised, frankly, that the Senate leadership hasn't been willing to go forward and at least give us a date as to the time in which we can undertake this question of energy and energy supply. We have gone now 8, 10 years without a policy regarding energy, not having any real direction with regard to what we are going to do. We have become 60-percent dependent on OPEC and overseas oil. We haven't developed refineries, new transmission lines, or pipelines in order to move energy from where it is to where it is needed, and still our leadership here refuses to move forward. I think we will again be facing the same kind of situation we just had if we don't move to find a long-term resolution, and we can. We now have a policy from the administration, one that deals with domestic production. There is access to public lands, much of it standing in Alaska or in many places that could indeed have production without damage to the environment. We can do that. We can talk about conservation. We can talk about renewables. We have to have a policy to cause us to do some of these things. The transportation is vitally important. In Wyoming, we have great supplies of coal, for example. In order to mine and move that energy to where the market is, you have to have some transmission. There are a number of ways to do that, and we can if we decide to and commit ourselves to do it. Research, clean coal: Our coal in Wyoming is clean, and it can be cleaner if we have research to do that. Diversity: We can't expect to have only one source of supply for all the energy we use. We are heavy energy users, and most of us are not willing to make many changes to that. I am grateful for the comments of my friend, and I hope we can get the leadership here to set the agenda to move toward doing something there.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I was going to ask the question the President pro tempore has already answered. Thank you.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I know it is now summer, but I will now talk about using snow machines in the Yellowstone Park in the wintertime. It is a question that has become quite political, as a matter of fact. There have been letters sent to the Department of the Interior from the Senate on both sides. For a number of years, in Grand Teton, in Yellowstone Park, and many of the other parks, the principal access people have had in the wintertime to enjoy their park was with snow machines. It has been done for a long time, really. Frankly, there hasn't been much management of that technique, unfortunately. The park officials have not had much to do with it. They have not sought to organize how and where it is done, separate the snow machines from the cross-country skiers, which can be done so each can have their own opportunity. It has to manage numbers sometimes, for instance, if they become too large around Christmas vacation. They can make changes, but they have not done that. They have an opportunity, and we have an opportunity to have much cleaner machines, which are less noisy and which are less polluting. The manufacturers have indicated they can and will do this. Of course, they need some assurance from EPA that having done it, they will be able to use these machines. But none of these things have happened. Instead, because of the difficulties that are, in fact, there and without management, an EIS study went on for several years. Unfortunately, toward the end, instead of going on through with the regular system of input, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior went out and said this is what the answer is going to be. The answer was to do away with individual snow machines in the parks over a period of a couple of years. That isn't what is designed to happen when you have EIS studies and when you involve local communities and local people and then have somebody from Washington come and make the decision. But that is what did happen. Furthermore, the regulation that was agreed to in the study was put before the public the last day of the last administration when there was no opportunity to do anything about it. So what has happened is that there has been a lawsuit filed. I have introduced a bill that would allow not to continue snow machines the way they have been but, rather, to do the management technique, manage the numbers and the sites, and also set specifications so that manufacturers can meet them and you can go forward. What is the purpose of the park? It is to preserve the resources and to allow the owners to enjoy them. This is the way that you have access in the wintertime. So this has become somewhat of a discussion, somewhat of a controversy. I am hopeful that they can come to an agreement--and this administration is working toward coming to an agreement--in which these changes could be made. Nobody is suggesting to continue to do it the way it has been done in the past. But there can be changes made that will indeed allow access and protect the environment and the animals and the rural environment at the same time. We can do those things. One other word on national parks. The Grand Teton National Park was expanded in 1950. When that was done, there were a number of lands that were brought into the park, and among them were several school sections that belonged to the State of Wyoming. They are now in the park as inholdings and therefore cannot be managed by the park but cannot be used for anything else. Therefore, we have two losers: One is the park which has these inholdings it cannot handle; second is the school sections are to finance education, and they are not bringing in revenue to the State of Wyoming. To make a long story short, I have a bill I hope will be before the committee soon to allow the Secretary of the Interior and the State of Wyoming to come to some agreement in finding a value for those lands by using an appraiser upon which they agree and then work out an arrangement to either trade those lands for other Federal lands outside the park, trade them for mineral royalties, or sell but come to some financial arrangement. I hope we can get some support for something that will be useful to Grand Teton National Park as well as the State of Wyoming. I think our time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I also join in congratulating the Senator from Arizona. This seems to be the most commonsense amendment we have seen since we have been discussing this issue. It provides choice and provides an opportunity for lower cost insurance, and it allows people to choose what they want to pay for, for what they get. So I urge support for the Senator's amendment and thank him for it.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have some time to speak on the bill on this side; is that correct?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, we have been on this bill now, it seems, for a very long time. It is very important, and indeed we should be on it. On the other hand, we also ought to be making some progress. It appears we are not. We hear all this talk about how we can get together, let's put it together, and we can agree. But I see nothing of that nature happening. It seems to me we continue to hear the same things coming forth. I hear a recitation of a great many people who are opposed to the bill listed off name by name. I suppose we can do that for the rest of the day. Here is a list of people opposed to the Kennedy bill. There are over 100 names of businesses and organizations. I could do that, but I don't know that there is great merit in doing that. We have talked about what we are for, and I think, indeed, we Republicans have certain principles, and we have talked about that: Medical decisions should be made by doctors; patients' rights legislation should make coverage more accessible, not less; coverage disputes should be settled quickly, without regard to excessive and protracted litigation. Most of us agree that employers that voluntarily provide health coverage to employees should not be exposed to lawsuits. That is reasonable. Congress should respect the traditional role of States in regulating health insurance. That is where we have been and what works. We intend to stand by those principles. I don't think that is hard to agree with. We have talked about the President's conversations with some of the people on the other side of the aisle who apparently say he wants a bill and they think we can get together. But I don't see any evidence of that. It seems to me if we are going to do that, we ought to do it. Instead, it seems we are in this kind of bait and switch sort of thing that we hear. I think the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill, as described by the sponsors, is a far cry from what is written. How many times have we been through that? The sponsors promise it would shield employers from lawsuits, that it would uphold the sanctity of employer health care contracts, and require going through appeals before going to court. However, when you look at the language of the bill, that is not what is there. One of the sponsors says: We actually specifically protect employers; employers cannot be sued under the bill. Yet you find in the bill itself exclusions of employers and other plan sponsors, and it again goes into causes of action. And then, unfortunately, the next provision says certain causes of action are permitted, and then it goes forward with how in fact they can be sued. They say, first of all, we specifically protect employers from lawsuits. Then it says in the bill that certain causes of action are permitted to sue them. So we don't seem to be making progress and meeting the kinds of agreements we have talked about. What we simply do is continue to get this conversation on the one hand, which is endless, and it isn't the same as what is in the bill. I don't know how long we can continue to do that. I am hopeful we can come to some agreement. I think people would like to have a Patients' Bill of Rights that ensures that what is in the contract is provided for the patient. I think we can indeed do some of those things. However, I have to say it seems to me if we intend to do it, we need to get a little more dedicated to the proposition of saying, all right, here is where we need to be on liability and let's see if we can work out the language to do that. We have been talking about it now for a week and a half. It is not there. All right. We are talking about the opportunity for holding to the contract, not going outside the contract. We need to have that language. So I think most of us are in favor of getting something done here, but we are getting a little impatient at the idea of continuing to recite the same things over and over again when in fact the bill does not say that. We ought to be making some propositions to be able to make the changes that indeed need to be made if that is our goal. Frankly, Mr. President, I hope that it is. I see other Members in the Chamber. I will be happy to yield the floor.

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 Hole 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. Ninety days 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. It is my hope that the Senate will seize this opportunity to improve upon efforts to provide services to the American public.

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 Hole 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. Ninety days 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. It is my hope that the Senate will seize this opportunity to improve upon efforts to provide services to the American public.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been involved now all week--and, I am sure, will be involved for some time longer--on the Patients' Bill of Rights. It is an issue that is very broad. Quite frankly, there are different points of view. I cringe a little bit when I constantly hear from the other side of the aisle that special interests are what is guiding it. I have to tell you, if there are special interests on one side, there are special interests on both sides. But I really do not think that. There are different points of view as to how we best help deliver health services. I am getting a little weary of this special interest idea, when it is perfectly legitimate for us to have different ideas about how we do it. That is what this is all about. I think we ought to maybe go back to some basics and talk about it a little bit. I do not think it ought to be a political issue. I do not think people on this side, who are concerned about driving up the costs or who are concerned about having an excess of litigation, are driven by special interests. They have views on that. I respect that. And I respect it on both sides. We have been dealing with a very complicated issue. In fact, this issue has been around the Senate now at least for 3 years. We have passed bills very similar, as a matter of fact, to what we are talking about now. We have tried to put them together with bills over in the House and have not succeeded in doing that. So there are differences of view in how you do it. It seems to me that it might be useful for us to take a little bit of time to go back to some fairly basic things and, I guess, examine, more than anything else, what our goals are, what it is, when this is over, we want to have accomplished. I get concerned sometimes that we get so involved in the details of everything, and get argumentative about this and about that, when really the purpose ought to be to achieve certain goals when we are through. I think from time to time we should go back and sort of refresh ourselves as to what our goal is. That would be very important. Everybody in this body wants to promote and provide for better health service. Is there a question about that? Of course not. Everybody wants to do that. I argue a little bit with the idea that our health care is not good. I think our health care is quite good, as a matter of fact. Could it be better? Of course. Should we have a Patients' Bill of Rights? Of course. We ought to ensure that people receive what they are entitled to receive. Everybody wants patients to be treated by medical providers and not by accountants. We agree on that, certainly. Everybody wants to pass a bill that will improve the fairness and ensure that patients receive what they are entitled to under their health contract. I say ``contract'' because I want to remind ourselves that those of us who have insurance buy a service. That service is defined, and what we should expect to receive is the service that we have purchased, the service that is in that contract. From the conversation that goes on in this Chamber, sometimes I get the notion that if this bill passes everything in health care will be provided. That is not the case. What this does is seek to ensure that what you are entitled to under your insurance is provided, and the definitions are made by medical providers and not by attorneys. I think all of us would support that. There are quite different views, of course. Indeed, that is legitimate. That is why we have debate. That is why we have discussion. Yesterday we had a little back and forth on whether we were holding this bill up. I do not think it has been held up at all. It is a very complicated issue. We talked about it all day. We should talk about it. We need to know what is in the bill. The newest bill was only put in the Record on Tuesday. So it is quite a healthy bill and, in fact, needs to be reviewed. That is what we are doing. Should we stall it? Of course not. But we should have a thorough discussion about it. What are our goals? I guess one of the obvious ones, as I mentioned, is to ensure, to the best of our ability, that whatever you are entitled to in your insurance coverage is made available to you. I think, along with that, we ought to say: made available to you as quickly as possible. This idea that somehow you feel as if you are being held up by some other decision, that you have to go to court to figure it out--I can tell you what, it may be a long time before you come to that decision, so there needs to be a method and methodology, of course, for coming to a nonbiased third party decision before you go to court. I think that should be one of them. What are some of the techniques that we ought to have? That is what we are really talking about. Are we talking about an independent medical appeal? It seems to me that makes a lot of sense. Or do we continue to talk about the fact that you have to go to court? Court is not a very satisfactory remedy for some kind of an argument in terms of health benefits. You usually need those resolved more quickly than would come from that. I think we have to talk a little about the costs. We talk all the time about the cost of insurance going up. We had what we called a series of 20/20 meetings in Wyoming, trying to get a vision of where we wanted to be over time, so that the decisions we make in the interim could help, hopefully, to get us there. I recall in one of the meetings--one of the last meetings we had in Casper, WY--the big emphasis was on small employers that couldn't afford insurance. Part of that is insurance. Part of that is the cost of health care, of course. So I guess my point is, health care can be the best in the world, but if we can't afford it, and it is out of our reach because it is unaffordable, then we have not accomplished a great deal. One of our goals ought to be to find ways to keep the costs of health care within a manageable range so that people can indeed take advantage and participate. We need to ensure that the insurance coverage used by many people--maybe most people--comes from their employer, that it is part of their job benefits. There are some disadvantages to that, of course. That is one of the reasons we find ourselves where we are with HMOs to some extent. The employees do not normally have much input into what kind of coverage they have. If the coverage is not what they choose, then that is something between them and the employer. But we need to make sure that we don't price, particularly small businesses, out of that coverage that people have become accustomed to and, indeed, is really a better way to provide it. The more we can bring people together, large employers, makes insurance coverage easier. The idea of health insurance was to bring together a number of people into a group so that those who are healthy and those who are a little less healthy could share the costs. Again, in my experience, I remember the Farm Bureau in Wyoming started Blue Cross. And after a little bit, we found that generally agricultural people were a little older and the costs that we had were higher. Our least expensive participants were finding cheaper insurance somewhere else and were selecting against us. That didn't work. So you need to have larger groups that employers help provide. These are some of the things that are part of this. We act like it doesn't matter what the system is, that we can make these changes and they will fix it. We do have to be a little more aware of how this thing is handled and what is going on. Again, we want employers to continue to provide insurance, but we have to ensure that they are not subject to all kinds of litigation, all kinds of liability. That is not clear in the bill. We hear from one side that it is one way; we hear from the other side that it is another way. What is our goal? Is our goal that we should, to the extent possible, eliminate the liability from employers in terms of them carrying and providing insurance? It seems to me that ought to be one of the results we seek. There are lots of pretty basic issues that we need to address and then take a look at the details to see if, in fact, those details are going to produce the kinds of a outcomes for which we are looking. Again, we ought to try to make certain that every patient, every covered person gets those things they are entitled to under their contract. Certainly that is what we need to do. We need to find the simplest, easiest, least expensive technique for ensuring that that is the way that it is done. We need, along with that, to ensure that we do not have an excessive cost which causes people to stop providing insurance and that we have a higher number of uninsureds than we now have. In order to do that, we have to make sure that unless there is an involvement in that decision with regard to the contract, employers should not be liable. Those are the kinds of things we hear from the sponsors of each of these bills. I appreciate the opportunity to talk on it. I hope we will move forward. I hope we end up with a bill that will provide the provisions we seek.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask that I be yielded 10 minutes of the time of the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator for this arrangement. I think alternating half hours is the way to do it. I hope the Presiding Officers will adhere to that. Further, I want to say that one of the reasons for waiting to proceed to the bill is that it is relatively new to many people. It is something we need to talk more about. Certainly, we will be prepared, as we go through the day, to be able to move on to the bill tomorrow. Thank you.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, the time is to change at 3:15 p.m. We ask that be done.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to use some of the time that is available for our side to talk a little about the bill. I have not said much in relation to this bill, but it certainly is one of the most important issues that we will talk about. We have a great opportunity to help make education stronger in our country. That is, of course, what we ought to be seeking to do. This discussion has gone on for a very long time. I hope we are nearing the end of the debate. I think we have spent nearly 4 weeks, off and on, on this proposition. It is time to bring it to a close. In my view, we have had an excessive amount of amendments; nevertheless, that is where we are. But now if we are really going to do our part, and if we are really going to be able to cause this to be something that is effective, then we need to focus a little bit, as we evaluate where we are, on what our goals are, what it is we are really seeking to do. I guess too often I get the notion that we get wrapped up around here in all the details, little items that mean something to someone, and we lose track of where it is we really want to go. What we ought to do is have a vision--hopefully, a fairly common vision--of what our goals are in terms of education, in terms of the role of the Federal Government in education, and to be able to measure what we are doing each day in terms of how we meet those goals. I think one of them that is quite important is, what is the role of the Federal Government in education? It has been my view, and continues to be my view, that the major responsibility for elementary and secondary education lies at the local level, lies with the community, lies with the school boards, and lies with the States. One of the reasons I think that is so important is there are very different needs in very different places because what you need in Chugwater, WY, is quite different than what you need in Pittsburgh, PA. They ought to be able to make those kinds of unique decisions locally. What is really needed to bring about change? We are all in favor of change, although I am not as pessimistic about schools as many people are. I think most of our schools do a pretty good job. One of the reasons I think that--and I realize this is not a broad sampling--is because of the young people who come to the Senate. They are evidence, it seems to me, that our schools are doing a pretty darn good job. We need to do better, and there are some schools that do better than others, but that ought to be part of our goal, to establish what is really needed to bring about change. Then we ought to measure it. I think too often when we get into these issues, much of our conversation begins to border on political rhetoric: Boy, if you are for education, then that's a great thing. But you have to kind of decide what it is that you are for. Everybody is for education. We have to talk a little bit about spending. This bill authorizes spending far beyond anything that we have ever thought about. Obviously, most of us would agree dollars alone don't bring about quality education. You can't have it without the dollars, but dollars alone don't do that. So I think there has to be some limit. With that, inevitably, goes a certain amount of direction and control from Washington. How much of that do you want? I think there are some things that we ought to think and talk about. As I understand it, the real purpose, as we started out with this S. 1, was to increase accountability for student performance. We do that some by testing. There has to be some accountability. We have to put out there funding, funding that really works and is not wasted, is not used up in bureaucracies. We have to have increased flexibility and local control if we really want to be able to deal with the problems that exist in our school systems. We need to empower parents to have a role in schools. We need there to be opportunities for students such as in charter schools. We need some changes in that respect. We need to provide options for students who are consistently failing or who are in danger at schools. We need to do something about that. But the responsibility really lies at the local level. That is why we elect school boards. That is why we have legislatures. We need to help, but there needs to be local flexibility. I think it is pretty clear from the debate that the bureaucracy and redtape have been real problems. My wife happens to be a special ed teacher. I can tell you, she spends more time with reports than is really necessary. When she ought to be working with the kids, she is having to fill out all these reports that come in and are required. There ought to be a limit to that. We ought to try to reduce the duplicative educational programs that are out there. Now over 50 percent of the Federal education dollars are spent on bureaucracy and overhead. That is unacceptable. The money needs to be there to help the kids. Burdensome regulations, unfunded mandates--talk to anybody who is an administrator at a school and see what they think about unfunded mandates and the burdens of regulation. We do not talk about that very much. We have had 150 amendments that bring about more regulations. We ought to make sure we avoid that. I think, again, we have to work to give the States and the locals unprecedented flexibility. The Federal Government has provided only about 6 or 7 percent of the funding for elementary and secondary education. We ought to do better than that. But keep in mind, the basic thrust is in the local community with the local dollars, the local decisions, the local leaders. That is where it belongs. We talk about schools failing. We ought to put a little responsibility on those who are responsible for those schools that are failing. Help them, yes, of course. But the idea that we are suddenly going to take over this whole educational system and change it, I don't think that is consistent with our notions of Government. So I just think we have a great opportunity. I think there are some very good things in this bill. I hope that we conclude it soon so we can get it moving and so we can get on to some other issues as well. But I hope we evaluate, as we go: What do we think the role of the Federal Government is? How should money be used that is sent to the local and State governments? How do we have accountability? And how, indeed, do we make sure this effort of ours is one that produces the best dividends and moves us towards our vision of what education in this country ought to be. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 with Senator Conrad and fellow Senate Rural Health Caucus members Senators Roberts, Johnson, Helms, Dorgan, Domenici, Daschle, Crapo, Bingaman, Bond, Lincoln, Cochran, Wellstone, Burns, Rockefeller, Hutchinson, Edwards, Harkin, and Jeffords. As always, it is important to note that rural health care legislation has a long history of bipartisan collaboration and cooperation. I want to thank the National Rural Health Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, the American Hospital Association and the College of American Pathologists for their work and support in this effort. The Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 will go a long way in addressing current inequities in the Medicare payment system that continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. This legislation recognizes the unique needs of rural hospitals and levels the playing field between rural and urban providers. First, the bill equalizes Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, payments. These add-on payments help hospitals cover the costs of serving a high proportion of low-income and uninsured patients. While urban facilities can receive unlimited add-ons corresponding with the amount of these types of patients served, rural add-on payments are capped at 5.25 percent. The ``Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001'' eliminates the rural hospital cap, bringing their payments in line with the benefits urban facilities receive. Second, this legislation closes the gap between urban and rural ``standardized payment'' levels. Inpatient hospital payments are calculated by multiplying several different factors, including a standardized payment amount. Under current law, hospitals located in cities with a population over 1 million receive a base payment amount 1.3 percent higher than those serving smaller populations, $4,130 vs. $4,197. This disparity is corrected in our bill by bringing the rural base payment up to the urban payment level. Third, the bill recognizes that low-volume hospitals have a higher cost per case, which results in negative operating margins. To address this problem, the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 establishes a low-volume inpatient payment adjustment for hospitals that have less than 800 annual discharges per year and are located more than 15 miles from another hospital. This provision will improve payments for approximately 900 rural facilities nationwide, which is just over one-third of all rural hospitals. In addition to these Medicare payment reforms, this legislation strengthens the over 3,000 rural health clinics that serve many rural Americans. Under current law, rural health clinics receive an all- inclusive payment rate that is capped at approximately $63. This payment has not been adjusted, except for inflation, since 1988. To recognize the rising costs of health care this bill raises the rural health clinic cap to $79. Certain provider services, such as those offered by physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and qualified psychologists are excluded from the consolidated payments made to skilled nursing facilities, SNFs, under the prospective payment system. However, the same services provided to SNFs by physicians and other providers employed by rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers are not excluded from the consolidated SNF payment. This bill includes a provision that ensures skilled nursing services, offered by rural health clinic and qualified health center providers, will receive the same payment treatment as services offered by providers employed in other settings. It is time for the Federal Government to recognize that the ``one payment system does not fit all.'' Rural providers care for patients under different circumstances than their urban counterparts and the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 ensures that rural hospitals, rural health clinics and qualified health centers are paid accurately and fairly. I strongly encourage all my colleagues with an interest in rural health to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 with Senator Conrad and fellow Senate Rural Health Caucus members Senators Roberts, Johnson, Helms, Dorgan, Domenici, Daschle, Crapo, Bingaman, Bond, Lincoln, Cochran, Wellstone, Burns, Rockefeller, Hutchinson, Edwards, Harkin, and Jeffords. As always, it is important to note that rural health care legislation has a long history of bipartisan collaboration and cooperation. I want to thank the National Rural Health Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, the American Hospital Association and the College of American Pathologists for their work and support in this effort. The Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 will go a long way in addressing current inequities in the Medicare payment system that continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. This legislation recognizes the unique needs of rural hospitals and levels the playing field between rural and urban providers. First, the bill equalizes Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, payments. These add-on payments help hospitals cover the costs of serving a high proportion of low-income and uninsured patients. While urban facilities can receive unlimited add-ons corresponding with the amount of these types of patients served, rural add-on payments are capped at 5.25 percent. The ``Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001'' eliminates the rural hospital cap, bringing their payments in line with the benefits urban facilities receive. Second, this legislation closes the gap between urban and rural ``standardized payment'' levels. Inpatient hospital payments are calculated by multiplying several different factors, including a standardized payment amount. Under current law, hospitals located in cities with a population over 1 million receive a base payment amount 1.3 percent higher than those serving smaller populations, $4,130 vs. $4,197. This disparity is corrected in our bill by bringing the rural base payment up to the urban payment level. Third, the bill recognizes that low-volume hospitals have a higher cost per case, which results in negative operating margins. To address this problem, the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 establishes a low-volume inpatient payment adjustment for hospitals that have less than 800 annual discharges per year and are located more than 15 miles from another hospital. This provision will improve payments for approximately 900 rural facilities nationwide, which is just over one-third of all rural hospitals. In addition to these Medicare payment reforms, this legislation strengthens the over 3,000 rural health clinics that serve many rural Americans. Under current law, rural health clinics receive an all- inclusive payment rate that is capped at approximately $63. This payment has not been adjusted, except for inflation, since 1988. To recognize the rising costs of health care this bill raises the rural health clinic cap to $79. Certain provider services, such as those offered by physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and qualified psychologists are excluded from the consolidated payments made to skilled nursing facilities, SNFs, under the prospective payment system. However, the same services provided to SNFs by physicians and other providers employed by rural health clinics and federally qualified health centers are not excluded from the consolidated SNF payment. This bill includes a provision that ensures skilled nursing services, offered by rural health clinic and qualified health center providers, will receive the same payment treatment as services offered by providers employed in other settings. It is time for the Federal Government to recognize that the ``one payment system does not fit all.'' Rural providers care for patients under different circumstances than their urban counterparts and the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2001 ensures that rural hospitals, rural health clinics and qualified health centers are paid accurately and fairly. I strongly encourage all my colleagues with an interest in rural health to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk about the direction the Senate has been taking. Certainly, we have many things to do. We have moved through a number of important issues --the budget and meaningful tax relief. We now move to education and energy. I have to respond to the comments of the Senator from Illinois on energy and suggest this energy crisis did not just happen in the last 5 months. It is interesting to note that for the past 8 years we have not had an energy policy. We have let ourselves get into a position where we are totally dependent on OPEC and foreign production, and it has put us in this position. It is also interesting to note that it may not always be a shortage of oil but that refining may have something to do with it. We have not built any new refineries over the last number of years, and the idea of accusing someone of causing the problem--we need to take a look at it. We have many things to do, there is no question, but we need to deal with domestic production and we need to deal with the transportation of energy. We in Wyoming could produce energy for California if we had a way to get it there. We need refineries to refine gasoline. We need to get away from having to develop 15 types of gasoline. It is easy to get away from the facts and get off into blaming somebody for this behavior. The Senate needs to move on to education. It has been on this issue for quite a long time. It has not moved. We have had a certain amount of obstruction. When there are still 300 amendments, it is a little hard to talk about wanting to move forward, but perhaps we will be able to do that. I hope when we do, we take a long look at where we want to be in education. Too often, we get so involved with little issues that are either political or they have to do with one minute thing. The fact is, we do not have a clear vision of what the role of the Federal Government is in education, and we need to define that role. In elementary and secondary education, the Federal Government provides about 7 percent of the funding. Why should they also provide all the rules and regulations that go with it? That has been the position many have taken: If we are going to give them any money, then we have to tell them how to do it. One of the arguments, of course, is how do we help support education, have a policy on education, but allow the differences that exist in the local education facilities. What is needed in Chugwater, WY, is different from what is needed in Pittsburgh, PA. We have to allow flexibility for local school boards and States. I hope to take a look at where we want to be and have a vision of where we are going. Of course, we want high-quality education. We want accountability for education. We have to have quality teachers. We need to have choices for families, whether it is charter schools or schools of choice as we have in my hometown. The public schools have a different approach to it. Parents can decide where they want to send their children. These are the items about which we have to have a vision instead of coming out every day and wrestling over something that has very little impact. Where do we want to be 10 years from now or 15 years from now with regard to education. Our hope as we change leadership--and that is not the end of the world--is that we move to govern and we move to do the things for the American people that we want to see happen over time: Where do we want to be and what is our role in getting there, that we can measure; high standards; we have to have funding that works; increased flexibility for local control; provide options for students. Those ought to be our goals. We should state how we will get there. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we, of course, have been dealing, over the last several weeks, with some of the most important issues that will be dealt with in this entire year, as we should. One, of course, is the budget. I think our success in the budget is holding down spending to something somewhat below what it has been in the past. Because we have had a surplus, the expenditures have gone up really more than you would imagine they would in terms of inflation and those kinds of things. So this budget was held--I think the President asked for 5 percent-- to a little in excess of that, but, nevertheless, a reasonable budget of which we can be proud. The question now, of course, is staying within the budget. The budget is not an imposition of a limit; it is a pattern and a scheme to try to stay within. But it does not necessarily ensure that. That will be the real challenge. The second thing we have dealt with, and have not yet completed, of course, is education. For most people in this country, education is the first issue they mention when they talk about issues. Again, there are some rather basic issues that really ought to be talked about and decided. One issue is, What is the role of the Federal Government in elementary and secondary education? I think most of us would agree--and our experience has been--that State and local governments have the principal responsibilities in education. With that certainly ought to go the opportunity to make the decisions on a local basis. The schools in Wyoming, obviously, have different needs, and have different uses for the dollars, than in areas of the country such as Pittsburgh or New York. And, therefore, local decisionmakers ought to have a chance to be able to use those dollars in the ways they are needed. Another issue in education, of course, is the basic question of, What is the role, in terms of expenditures, of the Federal Government? I think over the past number of years the Federal Government's contribution financially has been something less than 7 percent. So it is a relatively small contribution but a very important one and has caused us to have some of the programs that, of course, are very essential to our young people and very essential to education. The tax bill that has been talked about is probably the most important thing we will do for a very long time. Hopefully, we will conclude that this afternoon. We will return a substantial amount of the surplus to those people who have paid it in and, at the same time, retain enough money to do the things that most people believe are a high priority; that is, to pay down the debt--to pay down all of the debt that is available to be paid down--to do something more with Social Security and pharmaceuticals, to ensure that Medicare is strong and continues in the future, and, of course, to have some flexibility so that there will be money there for increased expenditures for the military and for security. I think all of those areas will be covered in this proposal that is before us. The next issue that has a much higher profile now than normally is the question of energy. Of course, one of the reasons that it is now on so many people's minds is because prices have gone up substantially. There is the difficulty in California, the shortages that have occurred there. You can talk in many ways about why it has happened and what was the cause, but, nevertheless, it is there. Certainly there are some fairly interesting things that have happened there that have brought about the difficulties in electric energy. But energy, of course, has been an issue for some time. It is not a brand new idea. It isn't hard to understand that when the market messages tell you that consumption is going up and production is going down that you are going to have a wreck inevitably and you need to do something about it. It is not hard to tell that we have put ourselves at risk when we find ourselves depending nearly 60 percent on oil imported into this country as opposed to domestic production. That is an increase that has changed substantially over the last several years. I suppose one might also say that it is not hard to imagine that you have some problems when you really have not had an energy policy for the past number of years, so that whatever has been done has not been part of a coherent plan to provide sufficient energy. So I am very pleased to applaud the President and Vice President Dick Cheney for the effort that they have put in--and immediately put in--to the energy issue. The White House energy tax force, chaired by Vice President Cheney, has produced an energy package that has now been presented to the public and to the Congress with some 105 proposals that need to be considered, some of which can be done by administrative fiat within the Government. Others will have to come to the Congress, of course, to be acted upon. I have been serving on the Energy Committee for some time and have been very interested in public lands and the interior. It has been very interesting that we focused entirely on the Department of Energy which, in turn, has not focused much on energy but, indeed, has had most of its focus, over the last several years, on one of its other responsibilities, which is nuclear: nuclear waste, nuclear security, Los Alamos. Those kinds of things have been almost the entire attention of the Department of Energy as opposed to energy. So it is significant to me that in this work group the Vice President has included not only the Secretary and the Department of Energy, as, of course, it should be, but also the Department of Interior, which manages our public lands--which have some of the greatest energy reserves--and also EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, which has had a great deal to do with the production of energy and the regulations that have been promulgated. So I think it was an excellent idea to have this collaborative effort, to bring several different agencies together. I hope they continue to be a part of dealing with the whole energy issue. So I certainly support a program that recognizes that we have significant energy demands and one that begins to look for a solution-- a solution that also includes conservation and the protection of the environment. I think those are very key elements. I come from the State of Wyoming. We have a good deal of energy production in our State. Some call it the Btu capital of the world. We have probably the largest reserve of coal in the United States, as well as natural gas and oil. We have uranium, all those kinds of things. We also have some of the most beautiful mountains and flats and prairies of any State in the Union. And we have, for a number of years, produced energy. We intend to continue to do that. We intend to continue to do it in such a way that you can protect the environment at the same time you have multiple uses of those lands. But there will be lands that will not be used for a multiple use. They have been set aside as wilderness. They have been set aside as national parks, and that is as it should be. And so we do have to differentiate. But in the policy, of course, we talk about energy and fuel diversity, which I think is very important. Certainly we are going to have a number of kinds of fuels that we can use, coal being one. There is emphasis on clean coal technology so we continue to research ways that coal, which now produces about 52 percent of our electric generation, can be used with less intrusion into the air. We can do that. In this plan there are opportunities for that. Renewables: We need to take a look at the long-term importance of renewables. Certainly all of us would like to see more power generated from wind and solar. Currently only about 1 percent of our consumption is produced by renewables. It can be greater, and we hope it will be. Hydro: Of course, we need to take a look at our opportunities for renewables in hydro. Interestingly enough, some of the environmentalists who are critical of the President's plan more recently were asking to tear down dams. It is sort of a paradox. Nuclear has a role, certainly. We have seen over the last few years that nuclear-generated power is probably the most clean power that is available and can be done in a safe manner. We need to do more there. We need to do something, however, about the waste storage, of course. That has not yet been resolved. These are some of the things that can be done, and I hope we do them. We have an opportunity to set out a policy and then use a combination of production and conservation to protect our environment. Those are the challenges we can indeed meet. I yield time to the Senator from Utah.