Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. What I am saying is there will be another opportunity to vote on the package that came out of the Finance Committee.

Mr. CONRAD. When we come back from conference committee.

Mr. CONRAD. No. It is unfortunate the Senator did not hear my remarks. I made it very clear in the remarks what I think will happen. We were missing one Senator because of a family obligation, missing another Senator because of illness. Senator Reid, of course, changed his vote to be on the prevailing side. That will provide the 60 votes required.

Mr. CONRAD. I think with the passage of time, I say to my colleague and friend, we will have more votes as people think about the consequences of the failure to get a stronger package; that there is time now to work out an agreement to add votes.

Mr. CONRAD. It could. I prefer to be an optimist. I prefer to think of the extraordinary vote we had out of the Finance Committee, a bipartisan vote, very strong, and the fact that we have more than a majority here with votes missing. Those votes are going to come back.

Mr. CONRAD. I hope. I believe before this year is out, we will have a chance to have a more comprehensive package than the one we will be able to move on this floor in the next several days. I believe it will be a package that will enjoy strong bipartisan support, just as the package did that came out of the Finance Committee.

Mr. CONRAD. Well, that would be a tragedy for the Nation, and those who would engage in that tactic, I think, would pay the consequences.

Mr. CONRAD. That is the great thing about our country. Some people do not want to advance on the question of reducing our dependence; some want to stay stuck where we have been; others want to move forward. I believe those who want to move forward are ultimately going to prevail.

Mr. CONRAD. That is a good thing for this country. I welcome this debate, because I think the American people think it is long overdue that we make this advance, and it is to the credit of this body that we are prepared to move forward tonight.

Mr. CONRAD. I say to my colleague and my friend, I was proud to support that bill. I was proud of the leadership shown by the Senator from New Mexico on that legislation. I am proud of the leadership shown by the Senators from New Mexico on this bill. I just think, at the end of the day, we are going to have even stronger legislation before we complete our work this year. That was the point I was making in my earlier remarks. Look, we all know the genius of this body is that there are those who agree and those who disagree; those who favor, those who oppose. Tonight we can celebrate together. We are making progress. That is important for the country, but more needs to be done. I don't think any Senator would leave here tonight saying this legislation alone is all we can do. We can do more this year, and we should. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 309 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 Budget Resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits for legislation that reauthorizes the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000, makes changes to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976, or both, so long as that legislation does not worsen the deficit over the period of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or fiscal years 2007 through 2017. I find that Senate amendment No. 1704 offered by Senator Baucus to Senate amendment No. 1502 satisfies the conditions of the deficit- neutral reserve fund for county payments legislation. Therefore, pursuant to section 309, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 6-8, the residents of Edinburg will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. The town of Edinburg is located on the edge of the Red River Valley and the western prairies. Although it is a small town, Edinburg has the drive, dreams, and heart of cities ten times its size. The father of Edinburg was a Norwegian by the name of Christian Buck. He became the first postmaster of Edinburg when the post office was established in 1882. The town of Edinburg was named in honor of the university where Mr. Buck obtained his college education. The first establishments in Edinburg included a blacksmith shop and a drug store. Despite a significant fire that destroyed nearly all of the town's businesses in 1900, Edinburg has grown and flourished since its beginning. Known as the Bird Capital of North Dakota, Edinburg offers many opportunities for bird enthusiasts to observe nature at its finest. A city park offers the chance for family gatherings and picnics. The Edinburg Fire Department is boasted as one of the best in the area. The town of Edinburg is a beautiful place for people to live and visitors to visit. To celebrate its 125th anniversary, the town will hold an all school reunion, a street dance, a parade and fireworks. I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Edinburg, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Edinburg and all other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Edinburg that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Edinburg has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to honor a community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 6-8, the residents of Lignite will celebrate their community's history and founding. Lignite is a vibrant community located in northwestern North Dakota. It was founded in April 1907 as a coal town. The first post office followed within the same month. Today the name Lignite pays tribute to the coal veins located in and around the town. Lignite is also the first town in North Dakota to drill an oil well within the city limits. Today, Lignite remains a small but thriving town with a strong sense of community. Many different local organizations are proud to call Lignite home. These include local chapters of 4-H, FFA, American Legion, and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America. There are also many recreational opportunities for the citizens of Lignite, from quilting to hunting, camping to golf, softball to ice fishing. The town also boasts a large public park for residents and campers alike. For its centennial celebration, Lignite has planned a four-day-long festival that includes softball and golf tournaments, a day-long street festival, and a local fashion show. I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Lignite, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well in the next century. By honoring Lignite and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great tradition of the pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Lignite that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Lignite has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 13-15, the residents of Petersburg will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Petersburg is a vibrant community in the northeastern part of North Dakota, not far from Grand Forks Air Force Base. Petersburg holds an important place in North Dakota's history. Founded by Levi Peterson and Martin N. Johnson, the name of the community was determined by a coin toss. Peterson won the coin toss and declared the city name Petersburg in honor of his birthplace in Petersborg, Norway. Today, Petersburg is a farming community with an assortment of clubs. Some of these organizations like the Sons of Norway, Red River Valley Scandinavian Singers Association, and the Norwegian Singers and Association of America are keeping the region's Scandinavian culture alive. Petersburg also takes much pride in its curling club. For those who call Petersburg home, it is a comfortable place to live, work, and play. The community has planned an exciting 125th anniversary weekend. There will be a parade, food, bands, dancing, a craft show, flea market, magicians, games, an all school reunion, and much more. I ask the U.S. Senate to join in me congratulating Petersburg, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and wishing them well in the future. By honoring Petersburg and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Petersburg that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Petersburg has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 5-8, the residents of Hope will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Founded in 1882, Hope is a small town in Steele County located in eastern North Dakota. The post office was established in 1881, and it became a city in 1904. The community was named in honor of Hope A. Hubbard Steele, wife of E.H. Steele, for whom the county was named. The residents of Hope describe their town as an active and close-knit community. When a function or task needs to be completed, the residents work together to accomplish it. Many of the recreational facilities, such as the outdoor swimming pool and the nine hole golf course, are supported by local organizations and the community. The local Sportsmen's Club purchased a building from the community for one dollar and converted it into a 24-hour youth recreational facility. A further investment into the community was made by residents when they purchased La Rinascente Pasta, a New Jersey based pasta company, that was relocated to Hope. The residents are excited to commemorate their upcoming anniversary with a weekend celebration that will include a parade, a Texas Hold 'em Tournament, a tractor pull, and many other activities. In addition, there will be a Veterans Memorial dedication that will feature a cannon from the Civil War. I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Hope, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Hope and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Hope that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Hope has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 207(f) of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 Budget resolution, directs the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to make appropriate adjustments in allocations, aggregates, discretionary spending limits, and other levels of new budget authority and outlays to reflect the difference between the budgetary impact of enacted legislation making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2007 and the corresponding levels assumed in S. Con. Res. 21. On May 25, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, became Public Law 110-28. As enacted, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, contains changes in new budget authority, outlays, revenues, and other levels that differ from those assumed in the 2008 budget resolution. In total, Public Law 110-28 contains approximately $4.2 billion less in budget authority both in fiscal year 2007 and over fiscal years 2007 through 2012. It also contains $810 million less in outlays in fiscal year 2007 and approximately $4 billion less in outlays over fiscal years 2007 through 2012. In addition, it contains $54 million less in on-budget revenues over fiscal years 2007 through 2012 than was assumed in the 2008 budget resolution. Most of the new budget authority and outlays contained in Public Law 110-28 was designated as an emergency pursuant to section 204 of the 2008 budget resolution. Those amounts are not counted for purposes of budget enforcement. As a result, the adjustments made for budget enforcement purposes differ from the total amount of the difference between Public Law 110-28 and the corresponding levels assumed in S. Con. Res. 21. For purposes of the allocation provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act and the discretionary spending limits provided pursuant to section 207(b) of the 2008 Budget Resolution, new budget authority is decreased by $188 million in fiscal year 2007 and new budget authority and outlays are increased by $1 million each in fiscal year 2008. Similar adjustments will be made for purposes of enforcing the 311 aggregates in the Senate for new budget authority and outlays in 2007 and 2008. The 311 aggregates additionally will be adjusted for differences in debt service resulting from Public Law 110-28 versus what was assumed in the 2008 budget resolution. For purposes of enforcing the 311 aggregates in the Senate, total on- budget revenues are adjusted downward by $17 million in fiscal year 2008 and by a total of $54 million over fiscal years 2008 through 2012, while off-budget Social Security revenues are adjusted upward by $17 million in fiscal year 2008 and by a total of $54 million over fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Finally, I am making a clarifying and technical adjustment to the Senate Committee allocations provided pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act and printed on pages 126 through 128 of House Report 110-153, the report accompanying S. Con. Res 21. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a set of tables which show the revised allocations, aggregates, and other levels for use in enforcing the 2008 budget resolution.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 1605 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of bold action on energy policy for this country. I am pleased and indebted to the chairman of the Energy Committee for his leadership. I think all of us know our country faces serious energy challenges. The most pressing is the fact that our Nation is far too dependent on foreign oil. For example, we currently import roughly 60 percent of the oil we consume. You can see that in 2006, 60 percent of our oil came from imports; only 40 percent was domestic. Not only does this make us increasingly dependent on the most unstable parts of the world, but it is also leading to a financial hemorrhage. It is leading us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars abroad that could otherwise be deployed here at home. Imported petroleum accounted for $272 billion of the U.S. trade deficit over the last year, equal to 32 percent of our total trade deficit--$272 billion that we spend in other countries that could have been spent here at home. Imagine the difference in this country's economy if we were spending $270 billion in America securing energy here instead of shipping it to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Nigeria, and all of the other countries from whom we buy foreign oil. We know much of this oil is coming from the most unstable parts of the world. That puts us at risk, not only at economic risk but at national security risk. We must also recognize that other countries, especially in the developing world, are going to consume growing amounts of energy as well. In fact, the Energy Information Administration projects world consumption of energy will increase 57 percent from 2004 to 2030. This chart shows it well. This is the current consumption level. This is what they project by 2030--a 57-percent increase. This growth in demand for energy will mean higher prices for energy, increased price volatility in the markets for oil, natural gas, uranium, and coal as transportation and refining networks are pushed to capacity. Unless we change course, we will become even more dependent on foreign energy sources. In fact, we are told now that while we are 60 percent dependent, we are headed for 75 percent dependence if we fail to act. In short, our addiction to foreign oil threatens our economic future and our national security. We need to take significant strides now to develop other sources of energy, ones we can rely on to be there in the future. I have said many times to my colleagues, instead of continuing our dependence on the Middle East, we need to look to the Midwest for increased energy supplies, because it is in the Midwest where we grow the feedstocks for ethanol and biodiesel, things that reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Fortunately, the United States has the domestic resources and the ingenuity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and meet our energy challenges. That is why I introduced the BOLD Act last year, Breaking Our Long-term Dependence. The BOLD Act would increase production of renewable energy and alternatives fuels, offer incentives to reward fuel savings and energy efficiency, increase research and development funding for new technologies, promote responsible development of domestic fossil fuel resources, and facilitate expansion and upgrades to our Nation's electricity grid. That is also one of the challenges facing us; we have gridlock on the energy grid. When we produce additional energy in North Dakota, we can't move it to the Chicago market because the capacity of the grid is full--in Minnesota, in Wisconsin. So when we put on new capacity in North Dakota through wind power, for example, where we have extraordinary potential, we can't move it to the Chicago market where it is needed because the grid itself is gridlocked. I am pleased the bill before us contains many of the provisions or similar provisions to what was in the BOLD Act I introduced last year. The renewable fuels standard is an important step. My BOLD Act required 30 billion gallons of renewable fuel use by 2025. This bill requires 36 billion gallons by 2022. Renewable fuels have tremendous potential to reduce our imports. By relying more on domestic crops to produce ethanol and biodiesel, we can reduce fuel prices, support economic development in rural areas, and improve our energy security. This energy bill also takes steps to develop an infrastructure of pipelines, rail lines, and trucks able to deliver increasing amounts of renewable fuels to market. These steps will allow us to substitute homegrown fuels for foreign oil, dramatically reducing our dependence on imported oil. Let me say that other countries have done this. Brazil is a perfect example. You can see, in the green bars, that in 1973 we were 35 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today, we are 60 percent. Look at Brazil. Brazil, in 1973, was 80 percent dependent on foreign oil. They have reduced that last year to 5 percent--a dramatic change. How have they done it? They have done it by promoting ethanol and biodiesel and by promoting flexible fuel vehicles. That is a program for success. Experts tell us the single most important thing we can do to reduce our reliance on foreign oil is to improve the efficiency of our cars and trucks. If our cars averaged 40 miles a gallon, we could save 2 to 3 million barrels of oil a day. In the short term, we clearly need to increase fuel efficiency. In the longer term, we need to develop alternative fuel technologies, such as plug-in hybrid and electric drive vehicles. This bill helps advance a long-term solution to the problem with research and development and demonstration programs for electric drive transportation technology. The bill also includes loan guarantees for facilities for the manufacture of parts for fuel- efficient vehicles, including hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles. We have abundant domestic sources of electricity, from a 250-year supply of coal to rapidly developing renewable sources such as wind energy. Let me say that my State is a leader in both. We have the greatest wind energy potential in North Dakota of any State in the Nation. I might add it is not because of our congressional delegation. No, this is wind generated by a higher power. I am glad I have been able to amuse the Chair. North Dakota has those constant prevailing winds. Already, we have seen hundreds of millions of dollars invested in wind energy, but much more could be done. And, of course, we have extraordinary deposits of coal as well. By plugging into these sources of energy to fuel our transportation sector, we can dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This bill also establishes long overdue efficiency standards for consumer appliances and industrial products, and promotes advanced lighting technologies that will cut down on a major source of our electricity load. Lastly, I am encouraged by the strong provisions in this bill to research, develop, and demonstrate our capacity to capture and store carbon dioxide. The largest carbon sequestration project in the world is going on in North Dakota, where the coal gasification plant that is run by Basin Electric--we call it the Dakota gasification plant--is shipping about half of the carbon dioxide it produces to Canada to repressure the oil fields there. This is the largest carbon sequestration project in the world. We are proud of it. We are demonstrating that this can be done, and that is a winner on every count. It reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it repressures oil fields in Canada to get more production so we are less reliant on more unstable sources. This is crucial work if we are to find the best response to global climate change. I look forward to taking up work in the Finance Committee next week to craft bold and thoughtful tax provisions to complement and expand upon the worthy objectives that are already in this bill. This bill takes important steps to set us on a path toward energy independence. Let me say it will be many years before we reach that objective, but we must act boldly now to take these initial steps. I wish to especially commend and thank the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, who has labored so hard and so long to produce this legislation. Senator Bingaman has taken on some of the toughest areas of energy policy. These are areas of real controversy, and he has taken them on with real leadership. We are proud of him. Senator Bingaman, I thank you for the legislation you have brought to the floor and for the effort you and your staff have put into this endeavor. It is important for our country. I believe, more broadly, it is important for the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I rise today to introduce the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, or R-HoPE. This proposal is the result of months of work with my friend and colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, who just passed away. In fact, Senator Thomas and I were getting ready to introduce this bill the week we lost him. This particular legislation is the product of work that Senator Thomas and I have done over many years as cochair of the rural health caucus. So it is a poignant moment for me to come to the floor to introduce this bill. I am asking my colleagues that we name this bill the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, as we pay tribute to the service of our colleague, Senator Thomas. I can think of no better champion of rural health than Senator Craig Thomas, and there is not a more appropriate way to honor his Senate career than by enacting this legislation that will carry his name. As Senator Thomas and I continually argued in this Chamber, Medicare shortchanges many rural hospitals and providers. Before the Medicare Modernization Act, rural providers received one-half the payments that urban areas received--one-half to provide exactly the same treatment for exactly the same illness. That was unfair. Senator Thomas and I teamed up at the time to make changes that were in the Medicare prescription drug bill that began to level the playing field, but those provisions are about to run out. I would be the first to admit that health care can be more expensive in urban areas than rural areas, but it is not twice as much. When I ask the doctors and hospital administrators of my State if they get a rural discount when they buy technology for hospitals, they laugh, they chuckle, they say, no, they don't get any rural discount. We know now it actually costs more to recruit doctors to rural parts of the country than it does more urban settings, and we know while there is some cost differential, it is not a 100-percent cost differential. The Medicare bill, the prescription drug bill recognized this disparity in reimbursement and took steps to close the gap. Even with the additional funding, many rural hospitals and providers continue to experience negative margins. If we are to maintain access to health care in rural areas, we cannot allow providers to lose 3 percent on nearly every patient they see. But that is what is occurring in rural America today. Congress needs to take steps to fairly reimburse rural providers for the care they provide. The Craig Thomas R-HoPE bill will build on the progress made in the medicare Prescription Drug Act and add new provisions that would protect access to rural health care. First, the bill will fulfill the promise made to those living and traveling in rural areas that they don't have to travel far for hospital care. The bill would also provide more reflective reimbursement for the cost of labor in rural areas. I should say reimbursement that more fairly reflects the costs in rural areas since they are often competing with more urban areas in the global health care marketplace. In addition, our proposal would provide the resources currently lacking in rural hospitals to repair crumbling buildings. It also includes two changes to the Critical Access Hospital Program and will put these facilities on a sounder financial footing. Second, R-HoPE will promise that rural Americans can see a doctor when they are sick. As is the case with most rural States, much of North Dakota is designated as a health professional shortage area. Recruiting doctors is extremely difficult. Our bill would extend the provision in current law that provides incentive payments for doctors who practice in rural areas. Third, our bill would guarantee that when there is an emergency, there is an ambulance there to respond. Many rural ambulance services are closing because of lower Medicare reimbursement, resulting in response times far above the national average. R-HOPE would protect rural ambulance services and those living and traveling in these parts of the country by providing a 5-percent bonus payment for 2008 and 2009. Finally, our bill takes a number of steps to help protect the availability of other health care providers, such as rural health clinics, home health agencies, and mental health professionals. This bill achieves the goal Senator Thomas and I have had for a number of years, that rural America enjoy the same level of health care access and affordability more urban areas enjoy. Rural America is the heart of our country. We cannot turn our backs on these areas and their health care needs. Before I close, I also want to recognize Senator Thomas's staff member, Erin Tuggle, who has worked tirelessly on this legislation on behalf of rural health care and served Senator Craig Thomas so very well. She played a key role in developing this legislation, along with my staff, and I thank her for her efforts. It is my hope this legislation, which will carry Senator Craig Thomas's name, will help strengthen our rural health care system. I can't think of a better tribute to my friend and our colleague, Senator Craig Thomas. At this point, I wish to indicate that Senator Roberts is my leading cosponsor, Senator Roberts of Kansas, and we are joined by Senator Harkin, Senator Salazar, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Snowe, Senator Murray, Senator Thune, Senator Dorgan, Senator Collins, Senator Johnson, and Senator Enzi. I ask unanimous consent that they all appear as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD. I should also indicate before I close that this bill has now been endorsed by the National Rural Health Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Ambulance Association, the American Telemedicine Association, the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, the North Dakota Hospital Association, and the Federation of American Hospitals, all of them joining together to send a message that this legislation is needed and it is needed now. This is one way we can pay a tangible tribute to the service of Senator Craig Thomas. I think all of us who knew him and worked with him knew him as a quintessential gentleman, and I hope very much that others of our colleagues will join us in cosponsoring this legislation in this tribute to Senator Thomas.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I rise today to introduce the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, or R-HoPE. This proposal is the result of months of work with my friend and colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, who just passed away. In fact, Senator Thomas and I were getting ready to introduce this bill the week we lost him. This particular legislation is the product of work that Senator Thomas and I have done over many years as cochair of the rural health caucus. So it is a poignant moment for me to come to the floor to introduce this bill. I am asking my colleagues that we name this bill the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, as we pay tribute to the service of our colleague, Senator Thomas. I can think of no better champion of rural health than Senator Craig Thomas, and there is not a more appropriate way to honor his Senate career than by enacting this legislation that will carry his name. As Senator Thomas and I continually argued in this Chamber, Medicare shortchanges many rural hospitals and providers. Before the Medicare Modernization Act, rural providers received one-half the payments that urban areas received--one-half to provide exactly the same treatment for exactly the same illness. That was unfair. Senator Thomas and I teamed up at the time to make changes that were in the Medicare prescription drug bill that began to level the playing field, but those provisions are about to run out. I would be the first to admit that health care can be more expensive in urban areas than rural areas, but it is not twice as much. When I ask the doctors and hospital administrators of my State if they get a rural discount when they buy technology for hospitals, they laugh, they chuckle, they say, no, they don't get any rural discount. We know now it actually costs more to recruit doctors to rural parts of the country than it does more urban settings, and we know while there is some cost differential, it is not a 100-percent cost differential. The Medicare bill, the prescription drug bill recognized this disparity in reimbursement and took steps to close the gap. Even with the additional funding, many rural hospitals and providers continue to experience negative margins. If we are to maintain access to health care in rural areas, we cannot allow providers to lose 3 percent on nearly every patient they see. But that is what is occurring in rural America today. Congress needs to take steps to fairly reimburse rural providers for the care they provide. The Craig Thomas R-HoPE bill will build on the progress made in the medicare Prescription Drug Act and add new provisions that would protect access to rural health care. First, the bill will fulfill the promise made to those living and traveling in rural areas that they don't have to travel far for hospital care. The bill would also provide more reflective reimbursement for the cost of labor in rural areas. I should say reimbursement that more fairly reflects the costs in rural areas since they are often competing with more urban areas in the global health care marketplace. In addition, our proposal would provide the resources currently lacking in rural hospitals to repair crumbling buildings. It also includes two changes to the Critical Access Hospital Program and will put these facilities on a sounder financial footing. Second, R-HoPE will promise that rural Americans can see a doctor when they are sick. As is the case with most rural States, much of North Dakota is designated as a health professional shortage area. Recruiting doctors is extremely difficult. Our bill would extend the provision in current law that provides incentive payments for doctors who practice in rural areas. Third, our bill would guarantee that when there is an emergency, there is an ambulance there to respond. Many rural ambulance services are closing because of lower Medicare reimbursement, resulting in response times far above the national average. R-HOPE would protect rural ambulance services and those living and traveling in these parts of the country by providing a 5-percent bonus payment for 2008 and 2009. Finally, our bill takes a number of steps to help protect the availability of other health care providers, such as rural health clinics, home health agencies, and mental health professionals. This bill achieves the goal Senator Thomas and I have had for a number of years, that rural America enjoy the same level of health care access and affordability more urban areas enjoy. Rural America is the heart of our country. We cannot turn our backs on these areas and their health care needs. Before I close, I also want to recognize Senator Thomas's staff member, Erin Tuggle, who has worked tirelessly on this legislation on behalf of rural health care and served Senator Craig Thomas so very well. She played a key role in developing this legislation, along with my staff, and I thank her for her efforts. It is my hope this legislation, which will carry Senator Craig Thomas's name, will help strengthen our rural health care system. I can't think of a better tribute to my friend and our colleague, Senator Craig Thomas. At this point, I wish to indicate that Senator Roberts is my leading cosponsor, Senator Roberts of Kansas, and we are joined by Senator Harkin, Senator Salazar, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, Senator Smith, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Snowe, Senator Murray, Senator Thune, Senator Dorgan, Senator Collins, Senator Johnson, and Senator Enzi. I ask unanimous consent that they all appear as cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. CONRAD. I should also indicate before I close that this bill has now been endorsed by the National Rural Health Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Ambulance Association, the American Telemedicine Association, the National Association for Home Care & Hospice, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, the North Dakota Hospital Association, and the Federation of American Hospitals, all of them joining together to send a message that this legislation is needed and it is needed now. This is one way we can pay a tangible tribute to the service of Senator Craig Thomas. I think all of us who knew him and worked with him knew him as a quintessential gentleman, and I hope very much that others of our colleagues will join us in cosponsoring this legislation in this tribute to Senator Thomas.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the issues surrounding the removal of eight U.S. attorneys last year. Attorney General Gonzales has claimed that he had no involvement in the firing of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, this is his statement. He said: I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the Attorney General. That is really a stunning claim. His own Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson, admitted the Attorney General misled the country. He is not alone. Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, said: I don't think the Attorney General's statement that he was not involved in any discussions . . . was accurate. I remember discussing with him this process of asking certain U.S. attorneys to resign. The Washington Post reported, on Michael Battle, the former Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and I quote from that story: The former Justice Department official who carried out the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year told Congress . . . that a memo on the firings was distributed at a November 27 meeting attended by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. NBC News reported on William Mercer, the Acting Associate Attorney General: Justice Department official William W. Mercer told congressional investigators on April 11 that he attended a meeting with the Attorney General . . . to discuss ``fired U.S. Attorney Carol Lamm's situation.'' It is simply not credible that the Attorney General of the United States had no role in the removal of eight U.S. attorneys. After all, he is the head of the Justice Department. To his credit, the Attorney General did eventually admit that he had misspoken in describing his lack of involvement. Given the growing public record, I don't think he had much choice. However, to the great disappointment of people on both sides of the aisle, the Attorney General failed miserably in his attempt to set the record straight. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Attorney General used the words, ``I don't recall,'' or a variant on those words, 64 times. ``I don't recall,'' ``I don't have any recollection,'' ``I have no memory''--64 times. Some counts have that number at over 70. Some even approach 90. Time after time, the Attorney General was unable to respond to even basic questions. He couldn't explain or couldn't remember why the U.S. attorneys were fired or how he was involved. Again, his performance was truly stunning. His inability or refusal to answer basic questions raises serious issues. Is he incompetent or is he simply playing the loyal soldier? Why were these U.S. attorneys removed? Unfortunately, the answer that immediately suggests itself is that these firings were politically motivated. Let's look at some of the fired U.S. attorneys and the possible political reasons for their dismissal. Here we have them. David Iglesias, New Mexico--there was a probe of Democrats not completed quickly enough. We had prominent Republicans complaining that he had not reached conclusion on a probe of Democrats quickly enough. Carol Lamm, in California--she secured the conviction of a Republican Congressman, also had indicted the No. 3 official at the CIA, and was investigating a Republican Congressman. Daniel Ogden, Nevada--investigated a Republican Governor and former Republican Congressman. Bud Cummins in Arkansas--was replaced by a Karl Rove operative. He investigated a Republican Governor of Missouri. John McCay, in Washington State--to the dismay of local GOP partisans, did not investigate the gubernatorial election won by a Democrat. Paul Charlton, Arizona--he investigated Republican Congressman Jim Colby and Rick Renzi. You start to connect the dots here. They said the reason these people were removed was because of poor performance. At least that is the assertion of the Attorney General. But if you look at the written reviews of these same U.S. attorneys, ones who had been removed and ones for whom you can find a clear partisan reason for their removal-- look at the written reviews of their performance, which is the reason given by the Attorney General for their removal. David Iglesias, New Mexico, written review: Respected by the judiciary, agencies and staff . . . complied with department priorities. Carol Lamm, California: Effective manager and respected leader. Daniel Ogden, Nevada: Overall evaluation was very positive. Bud Cummins of Arkansas: Very competent and highly regarded. John McCay, Washington State: Effective, well-regarded and capable leader. Paul Charlton, Arizona: Well respected . . . established goals that were appropriate to meet the priorities of the department. What do we have here? The Attorney General says he wasn't involved. Others of his own staff say he was involved. Then he says it was performance reasons for which these people were removed, but if you look at the written reviews of the people who were removed, their performance reviews were excellent. But what you do have is a clear political motivation in case after case involving these U.S. attorneys. When you go back to the reason the Attorney General is giving now, that it is performance based, here is what the former supervisor of these prosecutors said: Comey added that: The reasons given for their firings have not been consistent with my experience. . . . And that: I had very positive encounters with these folks. Comey was effusive in his praise of several of the fired prosecutors. Comey was the Deputy Attorney General, and he described Paul Charlton of Arizona as `` one of the best.'' He said he had a very positive view of David Iglesias of New Mexico, and called Daniel Ogden of Las Vegas ``straight as a Nevada highway and a fired-up guy.'' Of John McCay of Seattle, Comey said: I was inspired by him. Now, it doesn't take long to figure out what has happened. The Attorney General comes and testifies he can't recall, he doesn't remember, that he wasn't really a part of it. He is contradicted by his own staff. Then he says it is performance based, but the performance reviews are without exception positive for these people who have been fired. Their supervisor, who was Deputy Attorney General, has rave reviews for virtually all of them. Let's connect the dots. These are politically motivated firings. I don't know what other conclusion one can come to, and that is a very serious matter. I have been in the Senate for more than 20 years. I have never come to the floor and raised questions about the political motivation of an Attorney General--never. I do so now, and I do it because I believe this is a serious matter. When the administration of justice becomes politically tainted in this country, that is an enormously serious matter. There is no longer, in my mind, any question but that this Attorney General has tainted his office. That is only further demonstrated by his late night visit to the hospital bed of the Attorney General of the United States, at that time John Ashcroft, to get him to sign documents that he refused to sign about the legality of certain actions of this administration. We have seen enough. This Attorney General needs to leave his office. He has tainted his office. He does not deserve the high responsibility and enormous honor serving as Attorney General of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize a community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th anniversary. On June 29-July 1, the residents of Granville will gather to celebrate their community's history and founding. Granville is a friendly rural community located in northern North Dakota. William Christianson, along with his wife Minnie, were the first non-native people to settle the soon-to-be prairie town of Granville in 1895. William was an employee of the Great Northern Railway, and the town of Granville was named after Granville M. Dodge, a civil engineer for the railway. Established in 1901, the Granville State bank was one of the first businesses established. Granville was officially declared a city in 1907. Today, like so many smaller rural communities in North Dakota, Granville is a tight-knit town where everyone knows their neighbor. Granville is known for its welcoming hospitality and conversation and it is easy to witness this local atmosphere at Granville's Memorial Diner. A beautiful city park offers a chance for parents and their children to have fun and play together. The community of Granville is a wonderful place for its citizens to live and experience life together. The people of Granville take great pride in their community and all it has to offer. To celebrate their centennial anniversary, the town will be holding a barbeque, wagon train, parade, and fireworks. I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Granville, ND and its residents on their first 100 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Granville and all other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Granville that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Granville has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to honor a community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 5-8, the residents of Cooperstown will celebrate their community's history and founding. Cooperstown is a vibrant community located in east-central North Dakota. The town was founded in 1882 by Rollin and Thomas Cooper, who had previously been miners in Colorado. As with many communities in North Dakota, the arrival of the railroad in 1883 contributed greatly to Cooperstown's growth. The town's post office was established on December 28, 1882. The town continued to grow, becoming incorporated as a village in 1892 and as a city in 1906. Today, Cooperstown plays host to manufacturers, agricultural businesses, and many other local companies. Cooperstown is also proud to boast a strong community, with chapters of 4-H, the American Legion, and the Boy and Girl Scouts of America, in addition to several local community organizations. Tourism opportunities abound in Cooperstown. Sportsmen seek out hunting and fishing near Lake Ashtabula and the Red River Lake. The Cooper Theater hosts local plays, and the Griggs County Museum provides a window on Cooperstown's past. I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Cooperstown, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Cooperstown and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great tradition of the pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Cooperstown that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Cooperstown has a proud past and a bright future.