Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes, and then yield to my friend from Tennessee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Ohio for his very excellent comments about education. There is certainly nothing more important in this country than education. There is nothing more important to the President, and nothing more important to this Congress and to the people of the country than to do something to strengthen education. Hopefully, we are on the verge of moving into that area. We have talked about it now for a good long time. It has been on the agenda and we are ready to move on it. Hopefully, we can do that very quickly. I think the conversation and the dispute has been somewhat about the notion of funding. I understand that. Obviously, funding is vital to education. I just came from Casper, WY. One of the board members wrote in our local paper about funding and how important it is. But at the same time there are other issues. Funding alone does not make a successful education program. I feel very strongly about that. We have to have accountability. We have to have choices. We have to have some measurement of productivity in order to have an education program and the kind that we want. I am hopeful our friends on the other side of the aisle will not continue to hold up this matter. I think we ought to get on with it. Is there disagreement on some issues? Of course. There will always be. But there is agreement on our goal. And our goal is to strengthen education in this country. We are not going to do it if we continue to hold off and be unwilling to move forward. I hope we do that. Republicans have a strong agenda: returning control to parents, giving them charter schools, giving them the opportunity, if the school is not performing, to move their child to another public school, sending dollars to the classroom, giving families greater education choice, supporting exceptional teachers, and focusing on basic education. I think these are the areas that are so important. The delivery of these programs, of course, is quite different, whether you are in Chugwater, WY, or Cincinnati, OH. So there has to be flexibility that is left to the people in local leadership positions to decide how they can best use those dollars. I think the one-size-fits- all approach does not work. Underlying this education debate is a basic philosophical difference. Some folks do not like the idea of letting local people make the decisions. We went through that for almost 8 years, where Washington had to decide what the Federal money was going to be used for. Now we are in a position where we do not need to do that. We do not need the education bureaucracy calling all the shots. It is local people--not the Federal bureaucrats--who know what needs to be done. Then how do you have accountability? We do that by having some kind of testing, a measurement of progress, so kids in Wyoming who want to move to California when they are older have a basic education that will allow them to compete because they have had a productive education. I think the important thing to remember, too, is that since Republicans took control of the Congress in 1995, Federal education spending has exploded. This President is asking for more money for education than the previous President. So we need to do those things. This is a direction in which we need to head. We need to do it now. I am getting a little exasperated, as many Members are, that we cannot seem to move forward. We were prepared last week to talk about this. We did not even get a chance to get to it. So we need to produce a bipartisan education proposal which accomplishes the goals of increasing accountability for student performance, supporting programs that work, reducing bureaucracy, increasing flexibility, and empowering parents. By focusing on solutions rather than rhetoric, we will be able to accomplish those things. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my friend from Tennessee. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are, of course, poised this week to take on one of the most important issues we will face during this year. That is the issue of education. As we talk about issues over the country and as we take polls, education is the first issue the American people are interested in, and very understandably so. Certainly there is nothing more important to us than education. I think nothing is more important than the future of our country with respect to the training of our children who obviously will be the leaders of the country. I am looking forward to that. I think certainly there are many things that can be done and that Congress can do. Clearly, in my view, the principal responsibility for public education lies with the States, with the communities, and the decisions that are made with respect to the schools ought to be made primarily based on the needs of those schools as defined by the local leadership. The role of the Federal Government then is one that is always debated in the Senate, and properly so. It is one on which there are different views as to what the role of the Federal Government is and should be. The amount of financial contribution made to the elementary and secondary schools is approximately 6 percent to 7 percent of the total cost. It is relatively small, but it is very important. Often it is oriented specifically to special education--to a particular need, and so on. That is good. We will, hopefully, have a bill before us that will provide for some commonsense education and a reform plan that will help all children attain their potential so they can be successful. In increasing the accountability for student performance, money is obviously the key factor. Money alone, however, is not enough. Money just doesn't do it unless there is some other accountability there so we can measure performance. We need to support the programs that work and take a look at those that do not work. Obviously, there are some of each. I think we need to reduce the bureaucracy so that officials in Washington are not deciding what we ought to do in Sundance, WY, or Philadelphia. The people in other parts of the country ought to have the opportunity. We need to empower parents to be able to make decisions with respect to their own children's future. Part of what we will be talking about in consideration of the bill will be to hold schools accountable with annual reading and math assessments and annual testing that gives parents the information they need to be able to determine whether or not their children are learning. Testing is somewhat controversial, particularly national testing. I hope we can give the States as much flexibility as possible as to how they do that. On the other hand, with the kind of movement we have among children as they get out of school and go to other places, we need to ensure that as they are trained in Colorado, they are prepared to work in California; that their educational background will give them the ability to do that. Testing gives educators the information they need to know what works, to see what is working in classroom and to improve skills and improve teaching effectively. That is part of what we will be doing. Federal dollars should not follow failure. We need to ensure that the programs that are funded by Federal dollars are programs that are useful and programs that are producing results. I think we need to make sure we support the programs that are effective and that are research-based programs. Schools need to be held accountable, of course. School boards need to do a lot of that. Parents need to do a great deal of that. We need flexibility, of course, As I mentioned, school districts are quite different. They need to know that school districts are different. It is really not appropriate to send dollars, saying they have to be used to reduce the size of the class when in fact the size of the class is not the issue; computers are the issue or the building is the issue or teacher training is the issue. We need to do that. Parents need to be empowered, of course, to be able to determine the quality of education the children are receiving so they can make some decisions. I think there has to be clear accountability. In many cases, I think the idea that you can have some choice among public schools is the way parents can have some accountability as well. In my hometown of Casper, WY, we have a number of charter schools--schools that are different from public schools--so that children have a chance to go to different places and do different things. We will be talking about the Educational Opportunities Act. We will try to respond to the declining student performance we all hear about in our public schools. We need to change what is going on if our purpose is to have higher performance. The Educational Opportunities Act is designed to support learning efforts in all 50 States and helping local leaders determine what those programs need to have. Also, we will be talking about how to help disadvantaged children meet the high standards and providing schools and teachers with greater decisionmaking authority to make the changes that will result in better performance and schools more responsive to the needs. For any school that fails to help its students over a period of time and make adequate progress, perhaps there can be an opportunity either for that school to be restructured or, indeed, in many instances for the parents to have an opportunity to send their kids to other public schools. I don't think in the beginning that the proposal will have the voucher aspect of it, even though that is very controversial. But we can have the charter idea, and we can have the notion that people can choose. There is nothing more important in education than the teacher. Give them a better opportunity for training. Alternative certification may be helpful to continuing learning opportunities. Teacher empowerment will be one of the programs. We will have enrichment initiatives where there can be different programs designed for the 21st century learning centers, where you can have special kinds of schools and special kinds of programs happening for kids. There is also the gifted and talented program, the advanced placement program, and help for neglected, delinquent, and at-risk students. There are all kinds of programs that are necessary. Obviously, safe and drug-free schools is something we want. We used to think about the problem of talking out loud or chewing gum in schools, and so on, as problems in school. Now problems are much more serious than that. There are drug problems, shooting problems, and other kinds of safety problems. So we are going to address that issue. There is a title on educational opportunity initiatives where we can help children with the establishment of charter schools. More of that will be done. It is pretty much a local initiative. We can help students across the digital divide so they are computer literate in the eighth grade and ready to do the things that now need to be done to be successful in the private sector. There is bilingual education and educational enhancement. I think there needs to be some focus on students who speak limited English so that they have a better chance to succeed when they go out into the world. Obviously, the students will want to maintain their own choice of language, and that is great. But if they are going to be successful in this country, they have to be competent in English. I think that is something that can be done. There is also impact aid. Of course, we have schools that are different, schools that are in communities that are largely Federal. For example, they do not have the same kind of tax structure and opportunities that others do. We have schools on Indian reservations and schools for Native Alaskans, and so on, that need special care. In Wyoming, we have reservations that need special attention. We can provide that special attention. So these are the issues that will be involved in the educational bill that is upcoming. There is great concern over the amount of money that will be put in education. The Republican bill has more money in the budget than the President has asked. There will still be arguments made about needing more money. Of course, one of the issues is that when there is a ``surplus,'' there is never enough spending to suit some people. Others think there ought to be a limitation on the role of the Federal Government. I happen to agree with that in terms of its involvement in elementary and secondary education. So I think we will have a spirited debate. It is interesting, though. Everyone in the debate, I believe, would agree that we have a real responsibility and are determined to help strengthen the educational system in this country. The question will be, how do we do it? How do we best do it? What are the areas in which we can have the most impact? I have to confess, frankly--and I know there is testing, and so on--I am pretty proud of the system that we have and the young people with whom I have occasion to deal. Frankly, my wife is a special ed teacher, so I have a little insight into that. As I tour around our State, I am pretty darn proud of the young people in my State. I think they do a great job. Quite frankly, many of them are better prepared for life when they get out of school than I was or perhaps some of us were that are a little older. So are we where we should be? No, of course not. Are there areas that are particularly in need? I think so. And we are in one of those areas right now. The results in the District of Columbia are not up to the normal performance levels. There are many of those areas. So we need to work on that. But we also have lots of dedicated teachers who do a great job and lots of school districts that do a great job. So I am anxious for us to move on this matter of education. I think we will be on it today. Certainly we will be on it for some days. Indeed, we should be. As we deal with this question --or any question, for that matter, but this one maybe even more than others--we need to set some goals for ourselves as to where we want to be in 10 years, where we want to be in 15 years, what we want our children to be able to do, what opportunities we want to be able to provide for them, so that as we deal with today's issues, and the issues that are in this bill and are before us--each one is a rather small step--that those steps are directed for the attainment of a goal with which we can all agree. It seems to me that is very important to having a successful discussion of an issue of this kind. We need to have defined what our values are, what our goals are, where we are headed, and what it is we want to have as a result of the efforts we have made. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Hampshire. Certainly no one in the Senate is more knowledgeable than he about the bill, about the funding, and about the opportunities we have to strengthen education in this country. This week, as was mentioned, we are going to take up, hopefully, commonsense reform. It means increasing accountability for student performance. It means supporting programs that work, reducing bureaucracy, increasing flexibility, and empowering parents. I think these are the goals we seek to attain. Certainly all of us have to establish goals, to establish where we want to be, and then, as the details come forth, see if indeed what we are proposing to do leads us towards the accomplishment of those goals. I think that is where we are. When we talk to people about the issues in Washington, certainly education is always at the top of the list. In general terms, I want to share a little bit of my view of what we ought to be talking about. It seems to me that America stands at the dawn of a new century, a shining moment of opportunity certainly for all of us, a moment of hope that our families can, more fully than in the past, achieve the American dream. We dream of peace and continued prosperity in a world where every nation looks to America for leadership. We are challenged to develop new technologies that will improve our lives and find medical breakthroughs to cure cancer and AIDS and Alzheimer's. If America is to fulfill its dreams in a new century, we cannot forget that tomorrow's leaders, tomorrow's Nobel prize winners, are sitting in the classroom today. We must ask ourselves, do we have a first-class public education system that teaches our children how to think and how to succeed in this century? Average is not good enough. That is why I am committed to helping parents, teachers, and local leaders build a foundation of excellence and opportunity for every child. That means making sure all children have the best teachers, can learn in safe schools, and they can learn right from wrong in addition to the ABCs. Fifty years ago, the principal obstacles to learning in schools were talking out of turn or chewing gum in class. Today--just turn on the news--it is violence; it is drug abuse; it is teenage pregnancy. Our test scores, as compared to those of children in other countries, are still too low. The achievement gap between poor and middle-income students is still too wide. Too many students do not read at their own grade level or meet minimum standards in math or science. Too many are unfairly promoted and fall further and further behind. Too many enter college unprepared and have to take remedial courses to improve their basic skills. That is wrong. It does not have to be that way. Republicans at every level-- Congress, governors, local officials--are committed to help children learn and to build better, safer schools for a new century. Education is first, last, and always, of course, about children. Success is defined by how much our children learn. We must make sure parents, teachers, and local leaders have the power to use Federal dollars as they are needed to meet our children's most important needs. Those closest to the classroom, of course, know better than bureaucrats in Washington what the students need, be it more teachers, math and reading tutors, better textbooks, or new classrooms and computers. I just returned from Wyoming and have been again reminded of the difference in the needs from Sundance, WY, to Pittsburgh, PA. We ought to have the flexibility to do what needs to be done in that community to make education the most effective. Who cares more about children's future, parents or bureaucrats? Our children's future should not be limited by what seems right in Washington, DC but what is wrong with the schools they attend. We are spending more money. Republicans are for spending more money on education than the President has requested. The issue, as pointed out by my friend from New Hampshire, is who sets the priorities. We are for more construction, putting more teachers in schools, putting more computers into schools, but we believe State and local administrators, working with parents, ought to decide on how to prioritize those issues based on their needs. The Senate will begin debate, probably tomorrow, on the Education Opportunities Act, a bill which returns more money, more power, and more flexibility to States and local officials so they can set the educational priorities that are right for their students. As you know, the vast majority of money for our schools comes from the State and local governments. The Federal Government provides only about 6 percent of all elementary and secondary education funds. Yet these Federal dollars require more paperwork and carry the most red tape. I hear about this often. My wife is a special education teacher in a public high school. Special ed teachers spend more time on forms than they really should have to, almost as much as they do dealing with kids. That is wrong. That ought to be changed. Washington has created a system that wastes about 35 cents out of every dollar in bureaucracy. That is money that never reaches the classroom. Recently in the newspapers we read about hundreds of millions of dollars that were unaccounted for, that didn't reach the classroom to help kids. Congress needs to work to make sure the Federal dollars actually get where they can be spent and where they can be effective, with the fewest possible strings attached. We need more innovators and fewer bureaucrats. Stop and think back to your own education. Each of us can remember at least one teacher who made a positive difference in our lives, a positive impact. Why should such great teachers be rare? Our children deserve the best teachers, teachers who are qualified, teachers who are experts in the subjects they teach. Local officials should be able to set high teacher standards and reward the best teachers with more pay. I want not only the best teachers but also the best schools. I am sure you do as well. To achieve that goal we must hold schools and school districts accountable. Unfortunately, reports show the schools in the District are not what we would like them to be. Madam President, 75 percent of fourth graders can barely read. Only 5 percent of eighth graders do eighth grade work in math and science. Forty percent of all high school students drop out before they graduate. That is not good. That is not good at all. Just this year, the superintendent announced there were 70,762 students in the District--the first time, apparently, they have known the total. We need to change that. No child should be trapped in an education system that is unworkable. Parents have the right to choose the best public school for their child. Students should have the opportunity for scholarships that allow them to escape failing schools. Schools that fail year after year and refuse to change must be overhauled from top to bottom. Administrators should be changed and new teachers should be hired. It is wrong to do anything less. We must, of course, do more to make sure our schools do not fail a different kind of test--providing for a safe learning environment. We should empower teachers and principals to remove dangerous students from the classroom. They cannot be allowed to keep other children from learning. Local officials must have the power to put troubled students in special classrooms where they can get the attention they need when they need it. None of us want any child to fall through the cracks. We must demand that our schools be safe and drug free. For those young people who refuse to change or endanger the lives of their classmates or teachers, we need to get tough. If they refuse to change, they must be punished. If they can only learn one lesson, it must be that society's laws mean something. It is a Federal crime to bring a gun to school. In 1998, more than 6,000 students were expelled for bringing firearms to school, but the Clinton-Gore administration only prosecuted 8 students--8. What kind of signal does that send? We should not tolerate one more school shooting. When our society gets used to it, our society is finished. We all had an exposure to this just last week with the anniversary of Columbine, and it affected all our schools and affected the kids who were there. Certainly there is one more thing that ought to be mentioned--it is probably the most important factor in determining a child's success in school--and that is parents. We are the child's first and most important teachers. The most difficult truth is that the reason our schools are failing, sometimes, is because a lot of families are failing to do their part. Teachers are there to teach. They are not there to raise our children. We cannot expect them to be the best teachers they can be unless they have the support of mom and dad. Nothing is more important to us than education. It is hard to determine sometimes--and we will argue about it at great length--the role of the Federal Government vis-a-vis State and local. We will talk about where money ought to go and what ought to be required in terms of accountability. Indeed, we should. But to really know, we should pause for a while and ask: What do we want the outcome to be? What is it that we visualize for ourselves and our family and our community? What do we think education ought to be? We have a responsibility as parents particularly in terms of determining how that can be accomplished. The role I think for the Federal Government is to help provide some additional funding--be it a relatively small percentage. I think it is important we have some kind of testing that is common throughout the country as most of our kids move around when they graduate from college or high school. We need to ensure our schools in Casper, WY, are preparing students as well as they are in Denver or Los Angeles. That is part of today's world. I think we have a great opportunity now for better education, and one of which I hope we will certainly take full advantage. As I mentioned before, the Republican plan puts more money in education than the President asked for. But money alone does not provide a good education. I don't think you can have good education without it, but there are other requirements as well. You have to have some accountability and much more. I am delighted and excited about the opportunity to deal with this bill, S. 1. Why? Because it was considered to be the most important issue before the Congress. This was the issue that the President talked more about than any other and it is the issue that has more to do with the future of this country. The people run the Government. The people must be prepared to do that as well as being successful in a free country and a free market. Thank you, Madam President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr President, I rise today as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to speak to S. Res. 66. As we are all now aware, at 9:15 a.m. local time on April 1, 2001, a collision occurred between a United States military EP-3E Aries II reconnaissance aircraft flying off the coast of the People's Republic of China, PRC and one of two F-8 jet fighters from the People's Liberation Army-Air Force sent to intercept it. Both countries agree that the collision occurred in international airspace over the South China Sea near the Chinese island province of Hainan. Due to the damage incurred in the accidental collision, the F-8 and its pilot were lost at sea and the EP-3E was required to make a ``Mayday'' distress call on the internationally recognized emergency radio frequency. In fact, the damage to our plane was so bad that it effectuated an emergency landing at a military airbase at Lingshui, Hainan. Upon landing, the twenty-four United States military personnel aboard the EP-3E were removed from the aircraft by Chinese military personnel and detained in an undisclosed location, notwithstanding the fact that the crew of an aircraft forced to land on foreign soil in an emergency is considered under international norms to have sovereign immunity. Chinese authorities then unnecessarily prevented United States military and consular officials from meeting with the crew members until April 3, 2001, and even then permitted only a short, supervised visit. There is absolutely no reason why we should not have been allowed at the very least telephone access to our military people. China is not a technologically backward country without phone service; our people are not being held in some isolated mountain village in the middle of a jungle. China's behavior in this case in purposefully keeping us from contacting the aircrew is, to me, disturbing. In addition, I am also concerned that in contravention of international norms, Chinese officials have boarded the aircraft and have apparently removed portions of the equipment from it. International law recognizes both the right of the crew of an aircraft in distress to land safely on foreign soil and the inviolable sovereignty of an aircraft in distress that has landed on foreign soil; it also recognizes the right of a nation which has had an aircraft land in distress on foreign soil to have its citizens and aircraft returned safely and without undue delay. China's flaunting of these conventions disturbs me not just because of the ramifications in this particular case, but also because it has the capability of wrecking greater havoc on the overall bilateral US- PRC relationship, a relationship I believe to be our most important in Asia along with Japan and South Korea. The Chinese government needs to realize that this issue is bigger than just this crew and this plane. This is about trust, about whether the PRC can be trusted to live up to its word, to live up to international agreements which it has signed, and to be a part of the world community of nations. So far, they have turned their backs on those agreements, and on their obligations. They have shown me, and other Members of Congress, that whether they can be trusted is presently open to question. If this matter is not resolved immediately and satisfactorily, then the Congress needs to rethink whether Beijing can be trusted to fulfill its obligations as a member of the WTO. And while I have previously stated that I believe it would be a mistake to include such materiel as Aegis-equipped destroyers in this year's weapons sales to Taiwan, if Beijing remains intransigent and continues to violate norms of decent international behavior in this case, then I--for one--will begin to reassess whether Taiwan is not justified in its mistrust of the PRC and whether such sales might not now be justified. It would truly be a shame if, at the beginning of a new Administration, an Administration that has not even had a chance yet to formulate or articulate its China policy, this situation poisoned the well. The resolution is simple. It expresses our regret over the damage to the aircraft and the loss of life resulting from the collision. It calls on the Chinese government to release the crew, who are, of course, utmost in our thoughts and concern; the aircraft, and the equipment from the aircraft. Finally, it supports President Bush in his efforts. I am pleased that the resolution has a bipartisan list of seventy-five cosponsors, including the ranking member of the East Asia Subcommittee [Mr. Kerry]; the very distinguished President pro tempore [Mr. Thurmond]; the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee [Mr. Warner]; the Chairman of the Energy Committee [Mr. Murkowski]; three members and the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], Mr. Smith of Oregon and Mr. Brownback, and Senator Biden; two Senators who I consider among the most knowledgeable on China in the Senate, Senator Feinstein and Senator Baucus; and one of our newest members, Senator Clinton. I hope that we will act to put the Senate on record on this issue.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect two crown jewels of the National Park Service, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The ``Yellowstone and Teton Scenic Overflight Act of 2001'' is similar to legislation I introduced last Congress regarding an important issue facing these two parks. Specifically, this legislation would prohibit all scenic flights--both fixed wing and helicopter--over Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Recently, a proposed scenic helicopter tour operation near Grand Teton had many folks concerned about the impact its operations would have on these magnificent areas. This legislation is designed to protect Yellowstone and Teton and the natural and historic values of these parks in the interest of all who visit and enjoy these areas. I am aware of that the National Parks Air Tour Management Act, which became law during the 106th Congress, provides a process that attempts to address scenic overflight operations in our parks. Unfortunately, the regulations being developed for the Act continue to be delayed and it is unclear when they will ultimately be published. The unique nature of Yellowstone and Teton parks requires us to act in a quick and decisive manner to address this issue as soon as possible. Grand Teton National Park is home to the only airport in the continental United States that is entirely within a national park. Commercial air tours by their very nature, fly passengers purposefully over the parks, at low altitudes, often to the very locations and attractions favored by ground-based visitors. The threats posed by these operations to Yellowstone and Teton require our quick action. As Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks and Historic Preservation, I understand the importance of our nation's parks. They are our national treasures and deserve to be protected to the best of our ability. I hope the Senate will take quick action on this legislation so that visitors can enjoy the sounds of nature at Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks now and in the future.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to protect two crown jewels of the National Park Service, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. The ``Yellowstone and Teton Scenic Overflight Act of 2001'' is similar to legislation I introduced last Congress regarding an important issue facing these two parks. Specifically, this legislation would prohibit all scenic flights--both fixed wing and helicopter--over Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. Recently, a proposed scenic helicopter tour operation near Grand Teton had many folks concerned about the impact its operations would have on these magnificent areas. This legislation is designed to protect Yellowstone and Teton and the natural and historic values of these parks in the interest of all who visit and enjoy these areas. I am aware of that the National Parks Air Tour Management Act, which became law during the 106th Congress, provides a process that attempts to address scenic overflight operations in our parks. Unfortunately, the regulations being developed for the Act continue to be delayed and it is unclear when they will ultimately be published. The unique nature of Yellowstone and Teton parks requires us to act in a quick and decisive manner to address this issue as soon as possible. Grand Teton National Park is home to the only airport in the continental United States that is entirely within a national park. Commercial air tours by their very nature, fly passengers purposefully over the parks, at low altitudes, often to the very locations and attractions favored by ground-based visitors. The threats posed by these operations to Yellowstone and Teton require our quick action. As Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks and Historic Preservation, I understand the importance of our nation's parks. They are our national treasures and deserve to be protected to the best of our ability. I hope the Senate will take quick action on this legislation so that visitors can enjoy the sounds of nature at Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks now and in the future.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 9:20 a.m. on the census.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on Department of Defense policies pertaining to the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance, be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 28, 2001 to hear testimony on Preserving and Protecting Main Street, USA.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 10:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 210, A bill to authorize the integration and consolidation of alcohol and substance abuse programs and services provided by Indian tribal governments, and for other purposes; S. 214, a bill to elevate the position of Director of the Indian Health Service within the Department of Health and Human Services to Assistant Secretary for Indian Health, and for other purposes; and S. 535, the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Advocating for Patients: Health Information for Consumers during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 28, 2001, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are having a little pause in the subject of campaign finance reform, thankfully. We have been at it for some time. Hopefully, we will be through this week soon. It is a very important issue, but I am anxious, as most of us are, to move on to some of the other issues before us. Probably the most important one is that of the budget. Each session, of course, is important and vital. It is important for us to have a budget. You can argue about the details of the budget, but the fact is that a budget is more than just a piece of paper with our spending plans on it. The budget is what defines where we are going to go over the next 2 years and into the future. It defines, as well, what our priorities are, which is a very important issue. It causes us to look ahead as to where we ought to be doing things that strengthen America, things that we ought to be doing that help put this economy back in place. Hopefully, we will be working on that budget next week. The President has put forth a budget. Our Budget Committee will come forth with a budget. I believe the Republican budget addresses the priorities of the American people. It puts us on the continued road of a balanced Federal budget which, of course, for many years we didn't have. We had deficit spending and we continued to increase the debt. We now, largely because of a strong economy, have a situation where we have not only a balanced budget, but a surplus which is, of course, in many ways a very happy thing to have. We have a priority, I hope, of continuing to save Social Security for seniors, not only for the immediate future but for a distance in the future where young people will be able to have benefits from the Social Security they pay in from the very first day on the job. We can commit ourselves to do that by assuring the dollars that come in that are designed for Social Security are used for Social Security. We have a priority to improve and strengthen Medicare--obviously, one of the things that affects many people. We have to deal with pharmaceuticals and with many of the things that go together to strengthen the Medicare. In terms of dealing with the future and dealing with young people, we need to deal with our national debt which, of course, is very large. I believe we have a responsibility to begin to pay that down. Some people want to pay it down immediately, which is not practical in terms of the fact that the money is invested. But over a period of 10 years under this budget, we can pay that publicly held debt off. I think that is what we ought to do. We have an obligation to do that. We have spent the money and now we should not leave the debt over to the other people. We are committed to improve educational funding, and we need to do that, to give every school an opportunity. We always get into the argument--of course, a valid argument--about which I feel strongly, and that is whether or not dollars that go from the Federal Government out to education should be used only for purposes that are defined in Washington, which I think is wrong, or should there be an opportunity given for people in local and State levels to use the money as they determine it is most needed for their particular school. And then, finally, we have an opportunity, which I hope we will take full advantage of, to return the surplus tax overcharges to the American taxpayers. Return the money to the people who have paid. Of course, we also have a challenge with our economy weakening. It has weakened over the past year. We have an opportunity to do something more immediate on tax changes and put more money back into the economy in the short run. I am hopeful that we will do that. The budget the President has proposed, the budget we will be talking about, does strengthen and reform education. It provides the Education Department with the largest percentage increase of any Federal department. It triples the funding for children's reading programs. It does protect Social Security. It preserves Social Security by locking away all of the $2.6 trillion Social Security payments that will be paid in and the surplus for Social Security. It strengthens defense, which has to necessarily be one of our priorities. We have not, over the past several years, done what we have needed to do to keep our defense the toughest in the world, or have the oversight to make an evaluation of where we are on weapons, or to do something for the volunteer service to encourage people to be in the military, or to do something about the living conditions of our military personnel. We need to protect the environment. Right now we are faced with a challenge, a crisis in energy, and much of that will have to be resolved by more production, by, as in my State of Wyoming, producing more resources for energy. As we do that, we must equally be concerned about protecting the environment. We are being challenged by organizations that say: If you are going to protect the environment, you cannot have access, you cannot use those lands at all. Those are not the choices. We can, indeed, have access to public land. We can, indeed, utilize those resources and allow people to hike, hunt, produce on those lands, and, at the same time, protect the environment. Next week is going to be one of the most challenging weeks as we deal with the budget, our priorities, and what we are going to do about the surpluses. Americans are paying the highest percentage of tax of gross national product, higher than World War II. That should not be the case, and we have an opportunity to change it. We have an opportunity to let local people and the States be involved in the decisions rather than dictating from Washington, as we have become accustomed to over the last number of years. We have an opportunity to do some things, and I am excited about that opportunity. It is very important we pass a budget. If we do not do that, we will not be able to deal with tax reductions, which I think are terribly important, not only as a matter of fairness to the American people but as a matter of helping this economy and moving it forward as quickly as we can. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I think 10 minutes, if that is satisfactory.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hagel for the time and also thank Senator Hagel for the work he has put in on this bill. I supported this bill in the beginning, last year--I was an original cosponsor--because I think it deals with the issue that is before us, and deals with it in a way that is relatively simple, that we can understand, and does the things that, in the final analysis, we want to have happen. I have the notion that after spending all last week and another week this week on this whole matter of campaign reform, it is not very clear as to what has been done, what is being suggested, where we will be when it is over, which is the most important thing. What is it that we would like to have happen? I must confess, it has been very confused. That is why I supported the Hagel bill; it makes it rather clear that it does the things we want to do. It ends up providing an opportunity for more participation in the election process and for a constitutional limit, if there are some limits, and the strong parties which, of course, is the way we govern ourselves. First of all is the constitutional importance of free speech. That is the most important thing we have to protect. This country was founded on the principle that people could express themselves and express themselves in the political process and be able to participate in it. Kids ask often: How did you get to be in politics? I can tell you how. I got involved in issues. I got involved in agriculture, in talking about the process. It became very clear as I worked in the Wyoming Legislature that politics is the way we govern ourselves. The decisions by the people are made in the political process, are passed through the governmental process, and that is how it works. That is how I became involved. I think it is a way many people have become involved and, indeed, they need to be involved that way. The first amendment is based primarily on a premise that if free society is to flourish, there has to be unfettered access and willingness to participate. McCain-Feingold, I believe, has unintended consequences. It limits political expression, certainly specifically 30 days before the primary and 60 days before the general election. We had some amendments about that yesterday. We need to be very careful about that in terms of our ability to participate and our ability to exercise that right of ours that is constitutional--free speech. The Supreme Court upholds laws which prevent ``the appearance of corruption,'' but surely that doesn't mean the Congress ought to ban the freedom of speech. In fact, in the Buckley case: Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order ``to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.'' That is what it is all about. State parties would be limited. My background and involvement as I moved through this process was being active in the State party. I was secretary of our State party. State parties are out there to encourage people to participate, to organize in counties, to bring county organizations and chairmen and young people into the party to represent the views they share. That is what parties are for. To limit the opportunity for those parties to do those things seems to me to be very difficult. Parties cannot, under this process, use already-regulated soft money for party building. I think that is wrong. McCain-Feingold, in my view, federalizes elections. We already allow for a mix of Federal and State funds to be used for basic participation. Parties would be able to assist challengers. We should not make it terribly advantageous to be an incumbent. There ought to be challengers so we can make changes. State parties do that. These are the issues that are very important and we need to preserve them and we need to understand them. We need to be clear about. It is my view that McCain-Feingold would decrease voter turnout, would decrease the interest in participation in elections. That is the strength of this country, for people to come together with different views and express those views in elections so the people, indeed, are represented. It would devastate the parties if McCain-Feingold were passed as it is proposed. It would devastate grassroots activity. Political involvement ought not be limited only to professionals or people who have expert legal advice on the intricacies of Federal legislation. I just came from a meeting with some folks who were talking about how difficult it is for trade associations to deal with people within their trade associations unless they get some kind of approval from the company and it can only last for 3 years and they can only do it in one company. Those are the kinds of restrictions that should not exist. Frankly, I get a little weary of the corruption idea all the time, as if everyone in this Chamber votes because of somebody providing money. In my view and in my experience, you go out and campaign and tell people what your philosophy is, you tell people where you are going to be on issues, and they vote either up or down to support you. The idea that every time there is a dollar out there you change your vote is ridiculous. I am offended by that idea, frankly. I do not think it is the way it really is. In any event, McCain-Feingold fails on a number of points. It presents constitutional roadblocks regarding speech and restricts State parties from energizing voters. The Hagel bill deals clearly with many things. It increases the opportunity for hard money, brings it up to date for inflation. No. 2, it provides a limit to soft money at a level that can be controllable. Most important, it provides for disclosure. It provides the opportunity for voters to see who is participating in the financial aspect of it. Then they can make their decisions. I think it is something that brings accountability to campaign finance. It is something the President will reform. I am very pleased to be a supporter of the Hagel bill. I urge my friends in the Senate to support it as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been consumed over the last week, and will be for the remainder of this week, with campaign finance reform, an issue that has been about for some time and has been stressed by a number of Members of the Senate. I have indicated before that, certainly, it is an important issue. However, it is time we complete that issue, as there are many others that probably are of more importance to most people than that of campaign finance reform. Nevertheless, that is the commitment. It has been an interesting debate. It will continue to be an interesting debate. I am hopeful we will come up with some kind of a proposition when it is over and not have wasted the entire 2 weeks discussing the various aspects of it. This evening we will hear the introduction of the Hagel proposal, of which I am an original cosponsor. It is an important issue to be debated, one that deals with campaign finance reform more clearly than does the floor bill, which is the McCain-Feingold approach. One has to make a decision as to whether or not they want the Federal Government to be managing elections or whether, under the Constitution, elections should be comprised primarily of freedom of speech and an opportunity for people to participate. In terms of elections, it would be wrong if we found ourselves in a position of seeking to limit the opportunities for people to express themselves. The Hagel bill, which he will discuss in great detail, deals with the most important aspect of campaign finance reform; that is, disclosure. Whenever dollars are given to a candidate for the purpose of election, they are disclosed, disclosed immediately so voters can then determine for themselves whether they think that is a legitimate expenditure or not. The bill also provides for an increase in the level of hard money that goes to candidates. That was set in law in the 1970s. It has not been changed since that time. Obviously, the amount of money represented in the 1970s through inflation is not nearly as expansive as it is today. It changes that. It also puts a limit on soft money. I am hopeful that when the bill comes forward we will be able to discuss an alternative which I believe is a more reasonable alternative than the one that has been discussed. Then we can move on to some items of dire importance: Obviously, taxes--giving people an opportunity to keep more of their own money. When we find American taxpayers paying more today than they have ever paid in history as a percentage of gross national product, paying more now than they did in World War II, that doesn't seem appropriate. Where should the money go? It should go back to the people who have paid it in. We will also be discussing the economy, an issue that needs to be talked about immediately. We will be talking about the opportunity of tax relief to assist in strengthening the economy. I am sure we will be talking more clearly about the idea of putting some money back into the economy more immediately, some $60 billion that is in surplus of this year's needs for the budget and could be placed back into the economy in some method or other. Those are topics that need to be debated. We say education is an issue that means more to people than any other individual subject. We ought to be talking about that. We ought to be talking about the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We ought to be debating whether or not Federal dollars for education ought to be designated in terms of where they go by the Federal Government, or should they be sent to local and State governments to decide for themselves where their needs are. I am from Wyoming. Certainly, the needs in Chugwater, WY, are different from those in Pittsburgh, PA. We ought to have the opportunity and the flexibility to send those dollars there. Certainly, we need to be discussing preserving Social Security as we have in the past, making sure those dollars are there. We need to be talking about paying down the debt, which we have an opportunity to do now. We ought to be discussing doing something with health care to provide more availability for people all over the country. There are many topics we ought to be debating, and hopefully we will be able to move to those. One of them, of course, is energy and the environment. We now find ourselves in a position of facing great difficulty with energy, made more visible and accentuated by the problems existing in California. The California problems are not necessarily typical of energy concerns throughout the country. Indeed, many of them have been brought on by some unusual efforts in terms of electric reregulation in which California chose to put limits on the cost of retail electricity but not wholesale. We can imagine that that is not a workable situation, and it has caused many problems, not only in California but throughout the West as well. We will be talking about energy, and we should be. Often when we discuss energy, we also have to talk about the environment, although the environment is an issue that we need to be concerned with all of the time, in my judgment. One of the reasons energy and the environment are of particular importance to me and to others in the West is the fact that the Federal Government is a principal owner of lands in the western United States. I brought this visual display to show what Federal land ownership is in each State. Most people are surprised by the percentage. In my State of Wyoming, nearly half of the land belongs to the Federal Government. Some States, of course, are even higher than that. In Alaska, almost 68 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government. In Nevada, almost 85 percent is owned by the Federal Government. So the kinds of regulations that are put into place, the kinds of issues that arise in terms of the environment and the usage of public lands, become very important to us. That, of course, is not the only aspect of the environment, but it is one that is very important and, frankly, quite difficult. The point I want to make is, as we go about a number of the problems that we have before us, and a number of the opportunities to solve them, unfortunately, we find ourselves with environmental groups and many Members of the Senate making the case, let's either protect the environment or ruin it by using it. I suggest to you that those are not the only two alternatives. You can access the lands; you can use the lands as multiple-use lands, yet continue to protect the environment. In Wyoming we think we have done that pretty well. We have had mining, oil production, hunting, fishing, and we have had access to the lands for more than 100 years now. We are pretty proud of the environment we have there. So this idea that is often out here that you have to choose between the opportunity to have multiple use and the opportunity to protect the environment is wrong. Certainly, protecting the resources is a high priority for most everyone. I happen to be chairman of the parks subcommittee. Certainly, regarding our national parks, the basic, No. 1 issue is to protect the resource and, 2, to let the owners, the American people, enjoy those resources. That is really the purpose of having a park. We find ourselves, from time to time, in conflict with that, in that protecting the resources, to some people, means we should not let anybody have access to enjoy those resources. One of the issues is to allow access. We have seen a great deal about that lately. One of the things that prompts me to visit about it this morning is, Members of this Senate have been, in the last few days, getting up and saying this administration is anti-environment because they have changed some of the regulations that were put in place in the last administration. Well, I think it was a legitimate, reasonable thing for a new administration to do, to look at those literally hundreds of regulations that were put in the day before the administration left, to see if indeed they are reasonable and consistent with the efforts of the new administration. I think that is not unusual at all. We also now have the issue of energy. Of course, much of the energy comes from land. Whether it be coal, oil, natural gas, hydro or water, it comes from various uses of the land. I think we find ourselves now with a real issue as to what is the best way to preserve the environment and to be able to meet the needs of domestic energy production. That is kind of where we are. The complaints about this administration are not valid. I think they are totally political, and we ought to really examine them in terms of where they are. One of the reasons we are having problems, of course, is that we have let ourselves, over the last year, go along without an energy policy, without a decision on a national level on what we want to do with respect to energy--what kinds of energy we want to promote. But more importantly, do we want to let ourselves get into the position of becoming totally dependent on foreign imports--in this case, OPEC? That is basically what we have allowed ourselves to do. The prediction is that we will have 60-percent dependency on foreign oil within the next couple of years. We are now 55- or 56-percent dependent. When OPEC decides, as they recently did, to reduce production, we find ourselves going to the gas pump with higher prices or, even worse, finding ourselves without the kind of energy we need to continue to have the economy that we have now and want to have in the future. So I think one of the things that is happening that is very helpful is that this administration, with the leadership of the President, has assigned Vice President Dick Cheney to a work group to define where we need to be in terms of energy and in terms of the economy in the future. They are due to have a report in about 6 weeks or a month from now which will put us in the position of having a national policy on energy for the first time in many years. Hopefully, that will give us some direction as to how we can resolve that. There are lots of alternatives, of course, in energy policy. We need to talk about the diversity of energy--not all natural gas. We also have coal, our largest resource. In the budget, we have some opportunities to research some more in coal, to make it a cleaner fuel so it is a fuel for stationary electric production. We can use something in hydro, one of the renewables that in the last administration there were efforts made to reduce, to tear down some of the dams that are there that provide those kinds of resources. So there are a lot of things that can be done. We are talking more about the opportunity for nuclear power, which is one of the cleanest opportunities for electric generation, of course. First of all, we need to find a place to store nuclear waste. We have been fighting over that for a number of years. We need to finally make a determination. Despite the fact that we have spent billions of dollars already at the Yucca Mountain storage site in Nevada, we haven't resolved that completely. There is an opportunity for renewables--sun and wind. We can do more with that. We need research to make those things more economical and more well placed. Also, of course, one of the things we need to do is look at ourselves in terms of conservation and areas where we can do a better job of using energy so that we can reduce demand, as demand continues to go up--in the case of California, very sharply--and production does not go up. You know you have a wreck coming when that sort of thing happens. So we are looking forward to that kind of an opportunity. Beyond that, of course, I suggest that all of us are in the position of wanting to protect the environment. Obviously, we want to protect our lands. We are very pleased with the lands. We have talked for a number of months now in Wyoming about what we want our State to look like in 15, 20 years. We called it Vision 20/20, which is an opportunity to get an idea where we want to go. One of the things we want to have, of course, is open space. That has been a very vital part of the West and of Wyoming. We also want to have fish and wildlife--again, a vital part of what we want to do. In order to do that, we have to protect the environment. We are prepared to do that, and, at the same time, we want to be able to produce many of the things that need to be done to provide power and energy for this country. We have recently heard--I am sorry to hear this--accusations that this administration is turning around some of the useful things that have been done over the last 8 years. I am here to tell you that not all those things have been based on facts. Not all of them have been based on research. This idea that the administration is a ``charm offensive'' turned into a ``harm offensive'' is a ridiculous statement to make. It doesn't have any basis in fact at all. Talking about CO2, for example, CO2 was included in regulations put out just as this administration went out. CO2 is not included and identified as a pollutant. Do we want to work at doing something? Of course, we do. CO2 also has a lot to do with the ability to generate electricity. In the Agriculture Committee we are looking for tradeoffs, where you can use timber, grasslands to absorb CO2, and some of the things we can do there. But to suggest that is a terrific environmental problem is simply not supported by facts. The same thing is basically true of arsenic. The new Administrator of the EPA delayed the recommendations that were put in on arsenic. Why? Because there wasn't sufficient study, there weren't sufficient scientific bases. Furthermore, under the original plan, there were another 2 years to establish that level. She has assured that there will be a level. But this one was not scientifically put into place in terms of water projects for communities throughout the country. This idea that it is setting back 8 years of progress is ridiculous. We ought to be working together to find a way for our communities to have a good water supply and at the same time be affordable. I think we can do that. Another one of our friends said George Bush has declared war on the environment. That is a ridiculous idea. No one is declaring war on the environment. The environment is something all of us want to protect. The question is how do we do that and at the same time let people enjoy the resources. We have had an interesting debate about the roadless areas in the Federal lands of the West. The Forest Service put out a regulation on roadless areas. I happened to attend some of the meetings. They called for local meetings. Not even the local Forest Service people knew what they were talking about. We have national forest plans. New plans are developed every 10 years. The Forest Service goes through a very complex system of setting up a forest plan designed to deal with forests differently because they are, indeed, different. This was an idea that came from the Department of Agriculture deciding that all forests should be dealt with in the same way. It does not work. It does not work that way. Do we want roads everywhere? Of course not, and there is no need to have them everywhere. But we do have to have some if people are going to have access. The environmentalists claim it is just the timber people. I heard from a lot of folks, including disabled veterans, who said: How are we going to enjoy these public lands if we don't have access to them? I agree with them. Limit the roads? Of course. Roadless does not seem to work. In Yellowstone Park, the people have an opportunity to see Yellowstone Park in the wintertime and they can see it with snow machines. The park did not manage them at all. They sat and watched it for years, and all of a sudden, they decided the parks cannot have this happen and wanted to discontinue allowing snow machines. We have suggested, rather than that, to take a look at those snow machines. Get EPA to do their job and set some standards for emissions and noise and then the park can say: Look, if you want to come to the park, you have to have a machine that meets these standards. It can be done, and the manufacturers say they can do it. It is a good idea. People can have access. Instead, this past administration said: We are tired of it; we are going to do away with it, without even making an effort. If there are too many there, manage them. They are talking now about west Yellowstone where too many of them pile up at the gate, and the park ranger is getting a sore throat, or something. We should not do that. There is a way to manage them. Agencies seem to have a hard time figuring out how to manage it. When there is a problem, everybody else manages it and changes it. We can do that. Access is something that I think is important. All I am suggesting and hoping is that this administration will seek some reasonable approaches to the things that need to be done. The Clean Water Act--do we like clean water? Of course, everybody likes clean water. This EPA last year came up with the clean water action plan that had about 100 different proposals in it, some of which were not authorized under the law, and sought to put those into place. This administration is taking another look at them and, indeed, they should. We can find ways to have clean water and allow the lands to be used. Those are the kinds of changes this administration is seeking to make that are being called ``a war on the environment.'' I do not think we can come to reasonable decisions in this body if Members take far-end positions such as if you are for the environment, you cannot be for using it. That is what we find ourselves faced with. That is not a workable answer. I am hopeful we can move toward finding solutions that are, indeed, useful and at the same time, of course, protect the environment. Getting back to carbon monoxide, this was largely a product of the Kyoto agreement sometime back, signed by the United States as a treaty and brought to this body. We unanimously decided not to consider it. Now we find complaints because CO2 changes have been made and it was not even considered as part of the Kyoto agreement. Do we want to have clean air? Of course. These are some issues we need to look at in a balanced way, with good science and not just political decisions. We can consider ways to preserve those resources and at the same time utilize them. These are the issues which we ought to be talking about. I am distressed, frankly, when I hear on this floor statements such as ``going from charm to harm''; ``going to destroy the environment''; ``declared war on the environment.'' That is not a fair presentation. It is not a logical presentation. I hope we can, indeed, look at some responsible answers rather than looking for a political issue for the next election. Mr. President, I will shortly be joined by the Senator from Alaska. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 12 noon. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the campaign finance reform bill, with Senator Wellstone to be recognized to offer an amendment. At 2 p.m. the Senate will begin consideration of S.J. Res. 4, a constitutional amendment regarding election contributions and expenditures. Debate will continue for up to 4 hours, with the vote scheduled at 6 p.m. Any votes ordered in relation to the amendments to the campaign finance reform bill will be stacked to follow the 6 p.m. vote this evening. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will address an issue that I ran into last weekend at home regarding some of the tragedies that have happened and continue to happen in high schools. We had a threat in one of our schools. Fortunately, it was dealt with before anything tragic happened as in Columbine and some of the other schools. One of the judges indicated he thought it would be useful, and I tend to agree with him, if we could find a way to get one of the agencies-- perhaps the FBI or Education, including someone in psychiatry and others--to try to come up with a plan that schools can put into effect to try to avoid the problem of terrorism, shootings and guns and, more importantly perhaps, describe a better system. It seems in many cases the young people who sought to carry out these deeds had indicated they were going to do that prior thereto. I believe his view was not all communities and not all schools are prepared to deal with those threats. Perhaps it would be useful if, indeed, we had some assistance putting together a combination of educators, law enforcement, psychologists and a program that could be put into place in a school to try to avoid tragedies of violence; and also, when there was some evidence of it, in this case even a note written of people this student intended to deal with; and then if it does happen, what you do when those things occur. I imagine there are techniques which could be applied, more professional techniques than most schools are capable of on their own. I suggest, perhaps some Federal agencies, there could be some kind of meeting of the involved people to come up with what they think are the most useful techniques for dealing with this kind of violence in communities and high schools and in detecting it and doing something about it, in dealing with it, if it does happen, and to provide that kind of leadership to communities and to the very school districts throughout the country that would be interested in that type of assistance. I don't think it is particularly a legislative question, but to encourage the administration and, as I said, particularly the Department of Education, or perhaps the law enforcement department, to try to come up with some things that could be used by communities so we can avoid, whenever possible, the kinds of things that have happened around the country, and I suppose will continue to be a threat. I think it will be worthwhile. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce ``The Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 2001'' with Senators Conrad, Daschle, Roberts and Johnson. As with all rural health legislation I have worked on, I am proud of the bipartisan effort behind this bill. ``The Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 2001'' will provide assistance to rural providers to maintain access to important emergency medical services, EMS. This legislation is necessary because rural EMS providers are primarily volunteers who have difficulty recruiting, retaining and educating EMS personnel. Rural EMS providers also have less capital to buy and upgrade essential, life- saving equipment. The first section of this legislation is the authorization of an annual $50 million competitive grant program. Grantees can use these funds for recruiting volunteers, training emergency personnel, using new technologies to educate providers, acquiring EMS vehicles such as ambulances and acquiring emergency medical equipment. I think it is important to note that all of the above eligible uses of funds were priority concerns of State EMS Directors in a recently conducted Rural EMS Survey with recruitment and retention ranking as number one. The second part of this legislation applies the prudent layperson standard for emergency services currently used in hospital emergency rooms to ambulance services. This provision will assist ambulance providers in collecting payments for transporting patients to the hospital after answering a 911 call regardless of the final diagnosis. This is a common sense approach and ensures that all aspects of emergency care are operating under the same definition of emergency. I believe this legislation is an important part of ensuring rural residents have access to emergency services. It is also flexible so communities can decide for themselves what is their most imminent EMS need. Our bill is supported by the National Association of State EMS Directors, the National Rural Health Association and the American Ambulance Association. I strongly urge all my colleagues interested in rural health to consider cosponsoring ``The Sustaining Access to Vital Emergency Medical Services Act of 2001.''