Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I think we need to recognize and thank the people on the ground, the agencies, the firefighters, for all they did. This is tough work. This is dangerous work. So I am very grateful for what has been done. I was out in the midst of it, out in Yellowstone during this last August. Certainly some of the problems were that there were not enough facilities; there were not enough airplanes; there were not enough firefighters; there was not enough equipment to deal with all these things that happened. Again, I am not blaming anyone for that, but it did make it much more difficult. In the appropriations bill with which we are now dealing, I have requested some additional funds for wildlife and fire management this fiscal year. I am very concerned, as the Senator from Idaho pointed out, that in many of these cases--not only firefighters but also maintenance and other kinds of things--this administration has put more emphasis on acquisition and purchase than they have on the management of the resources we have now. I think we need to take a look at that. I am chairman of the parks subcommittee. All of us know there are $4 billion or $5 billion in infrastructure repairs and maintenance needed. But that is not where this administration put the money. This land legacy thing was the one that had the emphasis. So there are some tough questions, I think, certainly not of motives but tough questions in terms of management, as to what our responsibility ought to be. I really am looking forward to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's oversight hearings when we can take a real, honest look at what we ought to do. What do the roadless areas we are talking about have to do with the ability to control fires? I think it has something to do with it. We have wilderness areas and parks, of course, that are managed differently. It is true that in a wilderness area you are not going to have roads. You have to deal with it another way. Most of these fires are not in the wilderness. If we had access to the fires early on, I think it would be helpful. Certainly harvesting, clearing out the underbrush, clearing out the fuel as it builds up, as it naturally does around mature trees--I have been in some places that are very nearly wilderness, again up around Cody, WY. When selective timbering is done, you go through and you hardly notice it having been harvested. But I tell you, there is much less likelihood of an uncontrollable fire in that area than in the condition in which it had been. Of course, the administration is quick to say it has properly managed the fires. This may not be the case, both from the standpoint of being as prepared financially as we should have been, and, of course, having some management techniques which many of the forest people, many of the people who are actually on the ground, recommend. They know there are things that can be done. I think this is an area we need to talk about. We need to talk about it now. Our focus, of course, has to be on the future and what we can do to limit the kinds of losses in our resources we had this year. I am very pleased to be able to work with my colleagues here, particularly the Senator from Idaho. I am looking forward to doing what we can to be prepared so in the future we will have less of a tragedy than we had this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Idaho, who has been a leader for a very long time in this area--not only on fires, of course, but the management of forests, which is really the issue we will finally have to get to here. I thank him for what he is doing and certainly for the hearings he will have in his committee, which I think will be extremely important and are now extremely appropriate. Wildfires are a very serious thing. They are very scary. They are damaging. They threaten not only the forest itself but, of course, facilities and homes in the forests. I grew up right next to the Shoshone forest next to Cody, WY, between Cody and Yellowstone and, as a matter of fact, participated on two occasions in fighting forest fires. It really is something you can hardly imagine, particularly if you are on a steep mountainside and the forest fire itself releases boulders that roll down. There are lots of scary things about it. As my colleague and most of us know now, wildfires in the West of the United States have ravaged literally thousands of acres this year, the worst experience we have had in forest fires for a very long time. Hopefully, that is now under control. There has been some change in the weather--snow, as a matter of fact, in some places. There has been some change also in the climate itself. We have had a very dry year in the West which has made it even more difficult. In my home State of Wyoming, we have had thousands of acres devastated. Let me share some of the actual numbers that I think are fairly startling. This is from the National Fire News. The National Interagency Fire Center puts this out from Boise, ID. They have a 13- year comparison of the losses that have taken place as of September 4, for the year 2000. The loss has been 6,566,000 acres this year. This year, of course, is not completed. There are always losses. Last year, in 1999, there were 4.4 million acres burned; the year before, 2 million, and 1 to 2 million has been the more common amount, although in 1996 it was 5.7 million acres that were destroyed. I guess the message is that we know there is going to be some burn. The burn, of course, is the natural way. There are those who argue: Let nature take its course. However, things are not the way they were 300 years ago or 200 years ago. There has to be some kind of different approach. In the States, of course: California, 214,000 acres; in Florida-- Florida which is outside the West--183,000; Idaho, being the hardest hit at this point, 1.2 million acres burned in Montana, nearly a million--900,000 acres. New Mexico had almost half a million acres burned. So it has been very devastating. Certainly our first obligation is to fund and do what we can now to stop the fires and to repair the immediate damages. I think it is interesting that in the long term, the total this year is 6.5 million acres burned, and burned for the last 10 years, 2.9 million--less than half. So we have had a very difficult experience this year. I ask unanimous consent a complete table of wildfire statistics be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion as to where we are going in these remaining, I guess, less than 20 days we have before us. Certainly, we have a great deal to do, as the leader has pointed out. We have 13 appropriations bills and just 2 that have been passed. So we have the responsibility, probably first of all, to deal with that to keep the Government moving forward in doing the kinds of things we must do to ensure that programs in place now are funded. There are a number of other things, of course, that will be talked about, a number of issues each of us, I suppose, have heard a great deal about when we were in our States. I come from a State in which nearly half the land belongs to the Federal Government. So you can imagine a good many of the things I heard about, and I am sure my partner in the Chair heard about, have to do with the public lands issue, the idea of access, multiple use. We, of course, have had the great unfortunate experience during this time of lots of forest fires, which, of course, have been very destructive. We need to take a long look at that, starting, of course, in commending the people who have worked so hard and risked so much to be able to control those fires and have done the very best job that could be done. On the other hand, we have to take a look at the policy that has to do with the control and the management of resources, in this case particularly the management of forests. I submit to you there does need to be management; unless we want nature's way of reducing forests by fire, then we have to do it in some other ways that can be used. So I do hope we will have an opportunity there, of course, to not only take a look at the necessary funding that will be required in order to give the utmost protection to those activities, but also to seek to avoid this kind of repetition in the future. We will be talking, of course, about normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China and additionally, shortly thereafter, WTO entry for Taiwan. I hope both of those things can happen, and happen shortly. We have postponed this activity for a very long time. I think most people understand that if we are going to move forward in today's world, we are going to have to move forward to seek to make some changes in mainland China. The best way to do that is to have some rules laid out for them to be part of a world organization, such as the WTO, and begin to move forward to increase the number of changes that have, indeed, been made there. I think that is very important. It is very important for our economy, but probably more so, it is important for the kinds of things we would like to have take place in China with regard to human rights, with regard to economic freedom, which are things we want to have happen today. So we will be moving forward certainly on that. We will have an opportunity to take another look at tax reductions for the taxpayers of this country in a couple of areas that seem to me to be largely based on fairness. For example, the marriage penalty, it is really very difficult to understand how we can be opposed to making that fair. Two people who are single, if you combine their incomes, are at a certain level, but if they were married, with the same level of income, they would pay more income taxes. That does not seem to be right. Fairness ought to be one of the areas vital to taxation. The same could be applied to the estate tax. As I suggested, our State of Wyoming has lots of small businesses, lots of farm and ranch families who have spent their lives--as did their predecessors-- developing these kinds of assets. Under present law, when those assets are subject to the death tax, we find they have to sell those lands in order to make it work out. Mr. President, I sense that you are about ready to rap the gavel, as you should. I just end by saying I hope we can address ourselves to the issues that are out there and not put ourselves off creating issues rather than resolving them. It seems to me that is our challenge. We have the opportunity to do that in the next several weeks. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the ``Rural Health Care in the 21st Century Act.'' I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues in crafting this bill that will address the needs of rural providers and beneficiaries as we begin the new century. This legislation establishes a grant and loan program to assist rural providers in acquiring the necessary technologies to improve patient safety and meet the continually changing records management requirements. Rural hospitals and other providers do not have the capital needed to purchase these expensive technologies nor the resources to train their staff. This new program will enable these providers to purchase such crucial equipment as patient tracking systems, bar code systems to avoid drug errors and software equipped with artificial intelligence. Another reason this legislation is so important is because it will bring equity to the Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program, which has been inherently biased against rural providers since it was implemented in 1986. The premise of this program is to give hospitals that provide a substantial amount of care to low-income patients additional funding to assist with the higher costs associated with caring for this population. Mr. President, the current DSH program does almost nothing for rural hospitals because different eligibility requirements have been established for rural and urban providers. To qualify for the increased payments the DSH program provides, urban hospitals are required to demonstrate that 15 percent of their patient load consists of Medicaid patients and Medicare patients eligible for Supplemental Security Income. However, rural hospitals must meet a higher threshold of 45 percent. Mr. President, there is no justification for this inequity. Our bill will level the playing field by applying the same eligibility threshold currently enjoyed by urban hospitals to all rural hospitals as well. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission this reform will open the door for 55 percent of all rural hospitals to benefit from the DSH program--a significant increase over the 15.6 percent of rural hospitals currently participating. The ``Rural Health Care in the 21st Century Act'' also addresses other inequities faced by rural providers because federal regulators do not adequately reflect the unique circumstances of delivering health care in rural America. This bill provides rural home health agencies with a 10 percent bonus payment as they have average per episode costs that are 20 percent higher than urban agencies. Rural Health Clinics and Critical Access Hospitals are a key component of maintaining access to primary and emergency services in rural communities. This legislation makes modifications to the Balanced Budget Act to ensure these providers will continue to be an integral part of the rural health care delivery system. Mr. President, I believe this bill is an important step in ensuring rural providers are treated equally under federal programs. This equalization must be accomplished so we can guarantee that rural Medicare beneficiaries have the same choices and access to services as their urban counterparts.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in introducing the ``Rural Health Care in the 21st Century Act.'' I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues in crafting this bill that will address the needs of rural providers and beneficiaries as we begin the new century. This legislation establishes a grant and loan program to assist rural providers in acquiring the necessary technologies to improve patient safety and meet the continually changing records management requirements. Rural hospitals and other providers do not have the capital needed to purchase these expensive technologies nor the resources to train their staff. This new program will enable these providers to purchase such crucial equipment as patient tracking systems, bar code systems to avoid drug errors and software equipped with artificial intelligence. Another reason this legislation is so important is because it will bring equity to the Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program, which has been inherently biased against rural providers since it was implemented in 1986. The premise of this program is to give hospitals that provide a substantial amount of care to low-income patients additional funding to assist with the higher costs associated with caring for this population. Mr. President, the current DSH program does almost nothing for rural hospitals because different eligibility requirements have been established for rural and urban providers. To qualify for the increased payments the DSH program provides, urban hospitals are required to demonstrate that 15 percent of their patient load consists of Medicaid patients and Medicare patients eligible for Supplemental Security Income. However, rural hospitals must meet a higher threshold of 45 percent. Mr. President, there is no justification for this inequity. Our bill will level the playing field by applying the same eligibility threshold currently enjoyed by urban hospitals to all rural hospitals as well. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission this reform will open the door for 55 percent of all rural hospitals to benefit from the DSH program--a significant increase over the 15.6 percent of rural hospitals currently participating. The ``Rural Health Care in the 21st Century Act'' also addresses other inequities faced by rural providers because federal regulators do not adequately reflect the unique circumstances of delivering health care in rural America. This bill provides rural home health agencies with a 10 percent bonus payment as they have average per episode costs that are 20 percent higher than urban agencies. Rural Health Clinics and Critical Access Hospitals are a key component of maintaining access to primary and emergency services in rural communities. This legislation makes modifications to the Balanced Budget Act to ensure these providers will continue to be an integral part of the rural health care delivery system. Mr. President, I believe this bill is an important step in ensuring rural providers are treated equally under federal programs. This equalization must be accomplished so we can guarantee that rural Medicare beneficiaries have the same choices and access to services as their urban counterparts.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute today to react to the news that has been all over, of course, in the last few days about the selection of a Wyoming person to be on the ticket with Governor Bush. We are very excited, of course, and very proud of Dick Cheney. We think he is certainly a great addition to anyone's ticket for national governance. We think he is a great choice. Mr. Cheney, of course, was most recently Secretary of Defense. He moved to Secretary of Defense from serving Wyoming for nearly 10 years in the Congress, in the House. I was fortunate enough to be able to replace Dick Cheney in the House, representing Wyoming, so I, of course, have followed his career closely. No one was more excited than I was when he left to go to Defense. In any event, not only that but of course he had worked in the White House. He had worked there as an administrative person, finally worked his way up to be Chief of Staff for President Ford. So really there is no one who has had a broader and better experience in National Government than Dick Cheney. Perhaps even more important than that, this is a person who is a real person. I am sure all of us get a little exasperated from time to time in politics, where it seems almost everything is spinning the issue, particularly in election times. You hear things. Someone asks a question and the question is never answered because they spin off into something that is entirely different to be advantageous to themselves. Not Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney is a guy who is real. He is a guy just like the rest of us. He grew up in Caspar, WY; went to school there. So all of us, including the Presiding Officer here, from Wyoming, are very proud of Dick Cheney and very pleased that he will be a part of this campaign, hopefully of governance in this country. Finally, for a couple of seconds I would like to say how disappointed I am that we are not moving forward, doing the business of the people of this country. We are down to where there are 4 days left this week, less than that, actually--a week when we had hoped to do, probably, three appropriations bills. We go out, then, in August for recess, come back in September, probably have less than 20 working days to accomplish the business of this country. Whether you like it or not, one of the major features of the Government is the appropriations process. It is determining what money is spent for, what programs are given priorities. Of course, that is what the appropriations process is all about. We are talking about $1.8 trillion, almost $700 billion of that being in appropriated funds. So our responsibility is to do that. Now we find ourselves being held up from going forward. I understand there are differences of opinion. That is what this is all about. There are supposed to be differences of opinion. But there is also a way to deal with those without holding up the progress of the entire Congress and ignoring the things we are designed to do, often simply to make an issue. We find ourselves, unfortunately, in Presidential years more interested in creating issues than we are in creating solutions. I think that is too bad. Obviously, issues are important. Obviously, differences of view are important. Obviously, there is generally a considerable amount of difference between the views on the other side of the aisle, the minority, and the majority. The minority, of course, is generally for spending more money, having more Government. They see the role of the Federal Government expanded greatly, where most of us on this side are more interested in holding down the size of government, moving government closer to the people and the States and in the counties and that sort of activity. It is discouraging when they use that leverage of basically shutting down the things we must do. Unfortunately, there is a history of that. In 1998, in the second session, the minority held up the education savings account, the protection of private property rights, product liability reform, NATO expansion, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, funding for the Treasury Department--all in the effort to use that leverage. Last year, of course, we had the obstruction of the Social Security lockbox--six times. We would go back to the same six times to make an issue out of it. Ed-Flex, the idea of giving more flexibility to education and letting people on the ground, in the States and on the school boards, have more determination as to what was done there, and bankruptcy reform--still in limbo. We had delay in such critical issues as the elementary-secondary education bill. That is something that ought to be moved. Marriage penalty tax relief--it took a very long time. You can make decisions on things, but to try to change it by avoiding moving forward is a very destructive kind of operation. That is where we find ourselves right now, unfortunately. The Ed-Flex bill, as I said, had to have five votes before we could break that. The lockbox legislation to protect Social Security, we went over and over that. Much of it is the idea somehow if we can put everything off until after the first of the year, there will perhaps be another opportunity to do something different. I think it is time for us to adjourn. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is my understanding we go in recess at 12:30.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his comments and his very strong feelings about friends, people with whom he has worked. I had a little different experience, I guess, with Paul Coverdell in that he was here when I came. So I was not in this business of leadership with him. Indeed, he took time to spend time with those of us who were new and to say: How can I help you? How can we work together? This was the kind of man that Paul Coverdell was. Certainly, he was an image that each of us should seek to perpetuate--that of caring, that of really feeling strongly about issues, and then, of course, being willing to do something about it. So I want to share with the leader my sorrow and sadness in not having Paul Coverdell here with us. I extend our condolences to his family.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take some time today to talk about some of the things we are doing, some of the goals I hope we have, and the position we find ourselves in now as we come down to the last week prior to the August recess. When we come back from the August recess, we will have, I suppose, about 20 working days to finish this 2-year session of Congress, the 106th session. We will have a great deal to do. As we go forward, as we take a look at the day-to-day tasks and activities that we have before us, I hope always that we look at where we want to go and what the goals are. Sometimes I feel as if we get wrapped up in the day-to-day operations and the day-to-day problems and we lose sight of where it is we want to be. But overall, as a Member of the Senate, or as an American citizen who is interested in Government, and as a voter, it seems to me that we ought to look at where we want to be over a period of time. Many things are involved, of course, in that. I think we have to take a look at where we are with respect to the Constitution. Most of us believe this Constitution has given us the greatest country in the world. This Constitution has given us more freedom, more opportunity, and more privileges than anywhere else in the world. Are we continuing to support that Constitution? Where will we be in 50 years? Where will we be in 10 years? With regard to the role of the Federal Government, where do we want to be? What is our goal in terms of the future? What is the role of the Federal Government with regard to individual freedoms? What is the role of the Federal Government with respect to local government--the States and counties? Do we want a Federal Government that dominates all the things that we do? I don't believe so. So as we do each of these steps, it seems to me that it is appropriate to try to evaluate a little what we are doing and how that contributes to where we want to go. I know it is difficult. I think it is a challenge for each of us as we go about what we are doing. I am, frankly, proud of what we have been able to do in this session. I am pleased about the direction the majority in the Senate has taken with regard to many of the issues; with regard to the balanced budget; with regard to Social Security; with regard to spending as it reflects Social Security and the changes that we have made to stabilize Social Security, making it strong; what we have done in terms of education; where we are in terms of the military and the security of this country, which is probably the No. 1 responsibility of the Federal Government. So I think we ought to look at where we are. We are close now to finishing up. We have a number of things to do. But our determination, I believe, should be to stay within the budget we established. We have a budget program in which early this year we established spending limitations that we wanted to live within. It is difficult to do that. Everyone has a good idea as to where we can spend money. There are thousands of opportunities to spend money. Frankly, when you have a surplus, spending becomes easier; it becomes something that everybody sort of gets into doing. We a have balanced budget. We maintain Social Security without spending Social Security dollars. We have been working on strengthening Medicare and pharmaceuticals, and we must continue to do that. We need to set up the technique for paying down the debt that we ought to pay. We have an obligation to pay that so our children don't have to. We are dedicated to returning the surplus back to the taxpayers, the people who have paid in the dollars. The surplus, indeed, should go back to them. So it seems to me that we have a principle in our party, in this majority of the Senate, and in the Senate generally, for fiscal responsibility, for preserving Social Security, tax relief, and education. I am very proud of what we have done. With regard to balancing the budget, actually in the last several years--it is the first time since the Eisenhower administration in 1957 that we balanced the budget with funds outside of Social Security. As the money comes in, of course, it comes in a unified budget. Social Security money has been borrowed and spent on programs other than Social Security. In 1995, when the Republicans took control of Congress, for the first time in 42 years, we began to balance the budget. I am pretty proud of that. I hope that we continue to be. In terms of Social Security, of course, the first obligation is to set aside those dollars so that they are not spent on something else. Under our system, all that we can do with Social Security dollars is to put them into the trust fund, a Federal investment, which yields a relatively low return. We are seeking to take a portion of the Social Security funds now and let that account belong to the individual, so that when young people take their first job and have 12.5 percent of their earnings set aside, a portion of that can be in an account that belongs to them, which can be invested in the private sector at their direction, which can return a much higher yield so that over time there will be benefits for young people, probably leaving the ones 55 and older not doing anything at all and making sure they stay as they are. Young people years from now will not have a return unless they do something different. We could increase taxes. Nobody is much interested in that. We could reduce benefits. That is not an answer. But we can increase the return on the trust funds. We are doing that. We are funding education at a higher level than before, at a higher level than the administration requested. But probably more important is the effort made to return the decisions made with regard to elementary and secondary education back to the schools--closer to the school districts and closer to the school boards, rather than having those decisions being made in Washington. I can tell you that the needs in Pine Bluffs, WY, are much different from those in Pittsburgh. You have to have some flexibility. We have the Ed-Flex bill so that those kinds of decisions can be made. I am pretty proud of that. I am very pleased with that. As the leader said, Senator Coverdell was the leader in doing those kinds of things. As for strengthening the military, we are finding ourselves, of course, at a time when we don't have the cold war, where the inclination is for the emphasis to be off the military. This is not a simple world. We find ourselves at times needing a strong defense. We have a voluntary military, which we should have. But you have to make it relatively attractive for people to go into the military and stay there. You bring people into the military and train them to be pilots and mechanics; then they leave. We have done something there. We have increased the appropriations. We have increased, hopefully, the pay. Of course, if you are going to have an up-to-date military, there has to be science moving forward in new weaponry. We have to have new weapons. It is most difficult to do that. This weekend I visited the Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, WY, one of the major bases. It is really one of the stable portions of our defense. We have to support that, of course. Health care, naturally, is one of the things that is most important. We have moved to improve some of the payments that were made. We made some reductions in the balanced budget amendment in 1996. However, the administration has made those even larger than was intended. We have to go back and reclaim some of those payments--particularly for outpatient care and hospitals. These are the things the majority party has worked toward and continues to work on. We find ourselves now in the appropriations process. There are 13 appropriations bills to be passed. Hopefully, we will get 11 of them passed by the time this week is over. But it is very difficult. We have to challenge the administration. If they don't get their way--if they don't get the money they want in a particular appropriations--they are going to veto it. The President has threatened to shut down the Government, as he did before, and blame the Congress, of course. We have to keep that from happening. Nobody wants to shut down the Federal Government. We have different points of view. We have a different philosophy. That is what this is all about. We debate those philosophies. Some people think government ought to be involved in all of life's activities. Others think there is no end to the amount of abuses that can take place. Others believe there ought to be some limit on the rules of the Federal Government. After we strengthen Medicare and pay down the debt, we ought to return additional money to those people who have made the payments. With regard to paying down the debt, I am hopeful we can consider the proposition of a plan to do that. Again, our goal is to pay off the national debt of $6 trillion. It seems to me we ought to do it in an organized way--do it a little as a mortgage where you decide every year you are going to pay off some on the debt--and move toward doing that. If you keep saying, we will pay it down one of these days, it never happens. The interest on that debt becomes one of the largest items in the budget. We can fix that if we are willing to do it. I am very proud of what we have accomplished in this Congress. I think we have established a philosophy and a direction of providing adequate programs for controlling the size and growth of expenditures of the Federal Government; doing those things that are necessary, yet moving many decisions back closer to the people and the local governments; taking care of the obligations we have, such as paying down the debt and returning those dollars. One of the real controversies, of course, is going to be the tax relief that passed the Senate. The tax relief is in two areas that seem to be particularly appropriate--the marriage penalty tax, where two people who are working for x amount of dollars get married, continue to make the same amount of dollars, and then pay more taxes. It is a fairness issue. There is something wrong with that. We have changed that. The President has threatened to veto it. The other one that needs to be changed, in my opinion--and the Presiding Officer has been a leader in this--is the death tax, the estate tax, the idea that when someone dies, up to 50 percent of their earnings throughout their life can be taken by the Federal Government. The alternative, of course, is to not let death be a trigger for taxes but, rather, let those moneys be passed on to whomever they wish to pass them on to, and whenever things are disposed of and sold, there is a capital gains tax, of course, on the growth that has taken place. It seems to me that is a fairness issue. That is where we are. Those are some of the exciting things that I think are happening, and things that fit in, I believe, with the goals most of us have in terms of moving forward with this Federal Government. We now have a fairly short time to continue doing what has to be done. Appropriations have to be done. We need to continue with our tax reductions and continue with strengthening education. We need to continue in health care. We are on the road to doing that. I am very pleased with how we are doing it. I yield the floor. 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. Mr. President, in the last part of our time here I want to follow up a little bit on your comments about the prospects for the Vice Presidential nomination for Dick Cheney. Partly, I guess, that is because it is a personal thing. As you mentioned, Dick Cheney is from Wyoming. Indeed, he is still a resident and now I understand he is voting in Wyoming. Certainly he is a friend. As a matter of fact, I took Dick Cheney's place in the House when he took the job as Secretary of Defense. I was more delighted about his promotion than anyone else, I suppose. Aside from that, I guess I am really impressed with the opportunities that might bring about. Of course, it is up to the Governor, Governor Bush, to do whatever he chooses. He has not yet made an announcement. But it seems to me it is satisfying to think of someone being on that ticket who is just a basic person, who has demonstrated his ability to do so many things in government and outside of government. I think it is kind of unusual in today's political scene for it to be someone who just says it like it is, not the great spin. I was thinking about that yesterday. I was hearing some things on the radio, trying to make one thing sound like another. That is not the way Dick Cheney does things. He just says it. He has a great background in government. He worked in the White House, was Chief of Staff. By the way, I saw him at the airport in Denver. He seems to be doing well. Of course, he was in the House of Representatives, I think, for six terms--a number of terms, anyway. He rose to leadership there. He was selected then, as you know, to be Secretary of Defense. He did a super job in the gulf war and the activities there. So it just seems to me he would bring to anyone's ticket this ideal of a strong, stable person, knowledgeable, ready to move in and do the kinds of things that are required of the leadership of this country. I guess I am a cheerleader for Dick Cheney. Hopefully, we will have a chance to continue to do that over the next several months. Mr. President, our time is nearly expired. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk on this issue. It is an important issue to this country; it is an important issue to my State. I suspect much of what I state may have perhaps already been said. Nevertheless, I think it is important that we take a continuing look at the facts of the issue. We have heard a lot of emotional discussion with respect to it. The fact is, we have been through this before. About every year we seem to go through the same discussion. It does impact many people. It is not something where just a few rich people are involved. It provides 420,000 jobs in 40 States. Many agriculture communities are dependent on sugar production, as are some in my State. Frankly, it is one of the few products that is processed on to retail use. It comes out of the State ready to put on the grocery store shelf. Seldom does that happen in my State. It provides a $26 billion annual economic activity and is a very high quality product, one that is changing. We talked about the candy and so on. Most of that comes from corn sweeteners. Nevertheless, it is very important. It is a very efficient industry; by world standards, we have the 18th lowest cost of production out of 96 producing countries, despite the fact that we have high-cost environmental standards and those kinds of costs. As the Senator from North Dakota made quite clear, we keep talking about the ``world'' price. It isn't the world price. It is the dump price. Almost all the countries are subsidized. After they raise more than the subsidy applies to, it is dumped on the market. That needs to be understood. We need to understand that consumers have benefited from this program. Retail sugar prices are virtually unchanged since 1990 and are 20 percent below the developed country average. It is about the most affordable in the entire world, as a matter of fact. We have talked about taxpayer benefits. Until this year, the sugar program has been a zero cost program for 15 years, since 1985. It generated $279 million in revenue since 1991 that was paid by the industry into the Government. It is WTO, NAFTA compliant. Prices have been very low for the producers, very low in the industry. Unfortunately, there has not been a passthrough. What we find is the grocery stores have not lowered their price. The price of sweetened products is up 7 to 9 percent. At the same time, the grower price has been down approximately 20 percent. We find a great deal of activity there. We have heard several times about the GAO report. The Senator talked about that. Certainly, the findings of USDA were such that they confused the world market with the dump price, as was pointed out. They also assumed that the lower costs were being passed on 100 percent through the retail market. That is not the case. Even though I am a great supporter of GAO, that study was not one that has been particularly useful. The wholesale price for refined sugar has been down, is down, 25.9 percent in the last 3\1/2\ years. At the same time, the price for refined retail sugar is about the same. Ice cream is up. Candy is up. Cookies are up. Cereal is up. We haven't seen that pass through to the product. I will not continue to go through this. I think we have covered many of the facts. This is a very important industry in my State. Our sugar beet production is one of the most efficient in the world. We have three refineries. It is very important to us. We have been through this whole discussion before. I think we agreed, then, this is an important matter to the country, to agriculture. I rise in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1734, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contribute funds for the establishment of an interpretative center on the life and contributions of President Abraham Lincoln; H.R. 3084, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contribute funds for the establishment of an interpretative center on the life and contributions of President Abraham Lincoln; S. 2345, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study concerning the preservation and public use of sites associated with Harriet Tubman located in Auburn, New York, and for other purposes; S. 2638, a bill to adjust the boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat Island, Mississippi; H.R. 2541, a bill to adjust the boundaries of the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat Island, Mississippi; and S. 2848, a bill to provide for a land exchange to benefit the Pecos National Historic Park in New Mexico. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 27, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole or Kevin Clark of the Committee staff at (202) 224-6969.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Montana and the other Members who have joined. There is no one in this place who is a stronger supporter of national parks than I. I continue to support the national parks. Here is a chance to find some alternative ways to do that. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for giving time. I do not intend to ask for a vote.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about an issue that is very important to many people. It is certainly important to me as chairman of the parks subcommittee in the Senate and as a supporter of parks. Having grown up right outside of Yellowstone Park, the parks there are very much a part of our lives. Let me quickly summarize what this amendment does. I can do it very quickly because it is quite simple. It deals with the idea and the concept of having access to national parks, when it is appropriate, for the use of individual snow machines--something we have done for some 20 years--frankly, without any particular objection until this last year, and without any real evidence that we can't make some changes that would allow us to continue to do that. Unfortunately, rather than looking for an opportunity to bring about some changes in the machines, or some changes in the way they are used, or to manage the way they are used, this administration has simply said: We are going to bring about a regulation unilaterally that will eliminate the use of snow machines in the parks of the United States. What this amendment does, simply, is provide some money--$400,000; and we have found a place to get that money--to conduct a study to determine how the national parks can do a couple of things: One, minimize the potential impact of snow machines and properly manage competing recreational activities in the National Park System. That is pretty logical stuff. In fact, you can almost ask yourself, haven't they done this? The answer is that they have not. Two, properly manage competing recreational activities in units of the national park. Again, that is pretty easy to do. In Yellowstone Park, where there is a great demand for using snow machines, on the one hand, and cross-country skiing, on the other, with management you can separate these two so that they are not conflicting uses. Of course, that requires some management. So then the second part of it is that no funds may be appropriated until such time, basically, as the Park Service has completed their study and submitted it back to the Committee on Appropriations in the House of Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate. So this doesn't put any long-time restriction on what can be done. It simply says: Here is some money; take a look at where we are, what the problems are, and what we can do about them, and bring that back and make some management decisions. It is fairly simple and, I think, fairly reasonable. That is what this amendment is all about. I guess the real issue comes about due to the fact that we have had a considerable amount of activity. What really brings it about is a winter use study that is going on now in Yellowstone and the Teton Parks. It has to do with the broad aspect of winter use and with buffalo moving out of the park and what kinds of things can be done there; and how people can get in and out of the parks and utilize them in the wintertime, which really brought about this whole thing. The Assistant Secretary of the Interior went out to look and came back with an idea--I think mostly of his own--that we ought to do away with snowmobile use. He did this without having any facts, science, or looking at what could be done so that you could be consistent with the purpose of the park. The purpose of a park is basically to maintain the resource and to maintain it in such a way that its owners can enjoy the use of it. Those things are not inconsistent. Those things are not inconsistent with snowmobiles, in my judgment. But whether it is my judgment or not, more importantly, the idea to come to the conclusion that they are inconsistent without any facts is something we ought not to accept. I am a little surprised that someone in this Congress would rise to defend the authority of the executive branch to go around the Congress and to do something without even including the Congress or the people. That is not the way this place is set up. That is not what we are here for. That is why we have a division between the executive and the legislative and the judicial--a very important division. It is, frankly, being ignored by this administration not only on this issue but on many of them. They are overtly saying: If we don't get approval, we will just do it. That is not the way things are supposed to happen. I am also a little surprised, frankly, that a representative of a public lands State would be interested in having the agencies that manage--in the case of Nevada--nearly 90 percent of the land and, in Wyoming, over half, making decisions without involving some of the people who should be involved, who are involved with living in these areas. I think we are really talking about a system of rulemaking--a system of regulation--and one that needs to be based on facts and based on the idea that you take a look at issues. Frankly, the substantial amount of evidence about what has been said about snowmobiles in west Yellowstone and other places simply isn't factual. I could go through all of that stuff, but I will not. But it is terribly important that we try to do things based on real facts. The Department of Interior has announced that it intends to ban snowmobiles in all but 12 of about 30 parks--not all in the West, as a matter of fact. We sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior some time ago with 12 signatures on it. They quickly came to the Senate from Maine, from Minnesota, from the west coast, and some from the Rocky Mountains. It is not only in the area that has limited interest; it has interest from all over the whole country. The Department claims that only a complete ban to curb snowmobiles on issues and noise will protect the wildlife. That simply isn't the only alternative that is available. I want to make it very clear that it is not my position, nor would I defend the notion that snowmobiles ought to continue to be used as they are currently being used. They can be changed substantially. We have had meetings with the manufacturers, which, by the way, have a very strong presence in Minnesota. Lots of jobs and lots of issues are involved. Jobs isn't really the issue. The issue is access to the land that belongs to the people of this country, but they can be changed. One of the things that has not happened and that should happen is there ought to have been some standard established for snowmobiles, saying here is the level of emissions that is acceptable, and here is the level of noise that is acceptable. If you want to use your machine in the park, you have to have one that complies with these regulations. There have been none. The same thing could be said about where you use the machine. If you are going to be in the same track as deer, it doesn't need to be that way. We have had failure on the part of management of the Park Service to do something to make these kinds of uses compatible with the purposes of the parks. Rather than do that, or rather than making efforts to do that, they simply say, no. They are just going to cut it out; they aren't going to do that. I object to that process. I don't think that is the kind of process that we ought to look forward to in this country--whether it is snowmobiles, or water, or whether it is automobiles, or whether it is food regulations, or whatever. We have to have something better. Interior has never considered a single management scheme to be able to make it better. Certainly I hear all the time: Well, the snow machine people should have done something better. Maybe so. I don't argue with that. However, if you were a developer of snow machines, if you were a manufacturer and you were going to invest a good deal of money to make changes in them, I think it would be important to you to know what the standard is going to be so you are able to meet those requirements and continue to be able to put out the machine that would comply. We have had hearings. We have met with those manufacturers. They testified they can and will produce and market the machine, if EPA will set the standard. It is kind of interesting that most of the parks, such as Yellowstone, are full of cars, buses, and all kinds of things in the summertime which do not seem to have an impact here. But in the wintertime, it seems that something much less in terms of numbers is what we are going to cut off. I want to deal largely with the concept that we ought to really pay attention to the purpose of these resources--to make them available, to have access to them, that we need to have a system that is based on findings of fact and science, and be able to come up with alternatives rather than simply making the bureaucrat decision downtown that we are going to do away with this or we are going to do away with that. We ought to put into effect a time that this agency can study this issue, look at the alternatives, provide some money to do that, have them bring their findings back, and then certainly make some choices. This amendment is simple and straightforward. I think that is better than the bureaucratic approach of just deciding somewhere in the bowels of the Interior Department we are going to do something. I find a great deal of reaction to it in my State, of course, and the surrounding States which are very much impacted. This is not a partisan issue. I have worked with the majority leader and the Senator from Montana to try to find a solution. We are looking for solutions. That is really what we need some time to be able to do.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. THOMAS. I will withdraw the amendment. I intend to withdraw the amendment to try to find a mutual resolution.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 12, 2000 at 10:00 a.m., in SD226.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The subcommittee will receive testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement implementing the October 1999 announcement by President Clinton to review approximately 40 million acres of national forest lands for increased protection.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., in Dirksen 226.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 12, 2000 at 2:30 p.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Building to conduct An Oversight Hearing on the reports of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the General Accounting Office on Risk Management and Tort Liability.

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 National Science Foundation: Exploring the Endless Frontier during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 12, 2000, at 10:00 a.m.