Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous cosent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 5, 2006, at 4:15 p.m. to hold a hearing on nominations.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is nice to be back after having nearly a month break. It is a good opportunity to come back and see what the rest of the world is like. I think we have a lot of great challenges before us, and I hope we can accomplish a great deal. To do that, we are going to have to have some agreement among the folks here. I am compelled to come to the Chamber because there has been a great deal of criticism on the floor today of the Congress and the lack of activity in the Congress over time, and certainly all of us agree we could do more and we need to do more. In order to do that, we have to come to some sort of an agreement. One of the problems with getting things done with 55 votes is that anyone can object, and it takes 60 votes to override that, and we have had a lot of that experience from our friends on the other side of the aisle. So we need to do a great deal more than we have been able to do. I am hopeful we can begin to talk more about issues. There is a difference of view about issues. That is what the Senate is all about. There are differences of views everywhere. We ought to talk about the issues and not just talk about politics. So I hope we can address those issues in a more direct way and not just simply be critical in order to talk about the future in terms of the Congress. I am here to say we haven't done all we would like to do. No one would argue with that. On the other hand, we have accomplished quite a number of things over a period of time. We have a great deal to do and a great many challenges. Securing the homeland has been one of the top issues, of course, because of the threats we have going back to 11 September and the continuing threats we hear about, whether it be in London or whether it be in the Middle East. There is a terror problem in this world. We have a PATRIOT Act that gives us much more strength to be able to deal with the kinds of things that are going on. We have secured the borders much more than we have in the past. Is there more to do? Absolutely. We have 14,000 agents and 25,000 beds to deal with the problem at the border. I am one who believes we ought to be doing something on immigration. I believe we ought to continue to tighten the border. We ought to initiate efforts to define who is illegal and who isn't. We should be able to get employers to report whom they have as illegal and so on, and we need to do some of those things. I am not for giving amnesty, but we can deal with the problems we have, and I hope we can come together and do some things. We have funded the war on terror, and there is a war on terror. Securing America's prosperity. We have heard a great deal about the economy in the last few days with the latest reports. We have created 5.3 million jobs over the last couple of years. That is a lot of work. That is a lot of jobs. We have had a reduction in unemployment. We have had a good deal more activity in the economic sector, and there is no question about that. Now, some places are different from others. In my State, we have had a great deal of economic opportunity. We have lower unemployment than we have had for a very long time. We have managed to reduce taxes. I think that is a good thing. That is what has encouraged the economy. That is what has created these new job opportunities. We cut taxes by $70 billion. Most of us agree that we ought to be able to keep the taxes as low as we can and continue to provide the services. We have cut entitlement growth in terms of trying to deal with the deficit. We need to do much more with the deficit, but we have cut entitlement growth--$100 billion in the 10 years to come. There are things that we are doing. We have accomplished a good deal, although there is much more to do. There is no question about that. But we ought to do it by planning together, by deciding together. The idea of just making this criticism doesn't get much done. We have worked on energy. We have done a great deal on energy. Certainly we wish prices were still lower, but the fact is, we have had the energy, and that is an interesting thing. With all the dislocation there has been in the Middle East, with all the dependency we have had on energy in the Middle East, we have still been able to keep our energy supply going. Now, interestingly enough, gas prices are going down. There are new discoveries in the gulf coast which we in the Congress opened recently. That is a very important thing to help us with energy. It could create a real opportunity for us to have lower energy prices. But the fact is, over time we have to find some new sources of energy. We have an energy bill that is in place, an energy policy passed in this Congress for the first time in years. Now, of course, we are working on alternative sources. Those do not happen overnight, so it will be 15 or 20 years before some of these new sources become important, but they will be, and that is the kind of looking forward that I believe we have to have. As a result of this Congress, we have an energy policy that is working out for alternative sources, working out for more efficiency and more conservation in our use. We have to do that over time. There is no question about that. These are very important things that have been done. If you just listen to the media and listen to what sometimes is said here, as it was this morning, you would think nothing has been done, and it has. As much as we want? Of course not. Everything we want? Of course not. Nevertheless, a good deal has been done. We have done some things in education. We increased the Pell grants for math and science competitiveness. We continue to strengthen our schools. More funding has gone to education. We have done that here. Those are positive things that are changing our country. We have had a good deal of trouble with lawsuits over a period of time. We had some class action reform this past year, and bankruptcy reform, so people are treated better under the law. We have had gun liability reform, which means a lot to many people. I guess I continue to repeat myself, but I think it is so unfair to say that things haven't been done, that we haven't done anything, the do-nothing Congress. It is not true. Could we do more? Of course. As I said, one of the reasons we have not done more is because, under the system, the minority can object and can stop things from happening, and has a great deal. We have done a good deal more with our infrastructure, with highways. We have had great changes in that. On health care--one of the things that is most important to us and which has great challenges--we have done a great deal with drugs, the Part D drug benefit. That gives more opportunities--83 percent of the people in Wyoming who are eligible have signed up for the Part D health care. I happen to work as cochairman of the group on rural health care. Rural health care is a little different, and we have to take a look at some of the problems that are different from metropolitan areas. We have accomplished a great deal, having more providers be there. We have made the cost payments equal in rural areas. So we have done a good deal there. We have worked on adult stem cell therapy with cord blood. We have done those things. There has been work on technology, work that needed to be done. On the Supreme Court, of course, two judges have been put on the Supreme Court, 14 circuit judges, and 34 district court judges. Does that mean we have done nothing in the Congress? I don't believe that is true. We have more to do. There is always that thought. I am disappointed we have not moved faster on the appropriations bills. Traditionally, we should be further along than we are. Part of the problem, of course, is there are real problems with spending. We have to do something about spending. We can't continue to spend at the rate that we had to spend because we had emergencies, such as Katrina and such as the war on terror and Iraq. When you do that in your business or your family, you have to change; go back and make the changes to pick up what you had to do in the emergency. That is where we are now, seeking to make those differences. Within Government we have done some lobbying reform. It needed to be done. We have done some of that. We have worked on the Voting Rights Act. I guess I am a little impatient, coming back from having worked in my State where people are reasonably happy with what is happening, and then listening to the total negative reaction we have on the floor this morning about having done nothing when that is not the case. Could we do more? Of course, we should do more. I will not take much more time, although it looks as if I could take as much time as I choose this morning. I am sure we will get on into it. We have a lot of challenges. There is no question about that. Homeland security is one of those challenges. We have other things we need to deal with. I wish we could deal with immigration. That is one of the things I would like to do. I am very much involved in energy, in the Energy Committee. My State is an energy State. We have a lot to do there to move forward. In any event, I guess I am really saying we need an attitude that is a do-something attitude. We absolutely disagree about some of the issues. That is part of the system. We are going to have that as we are getting into an election. That is part of the system. But we need to be honest about the fact that we have done some things. We have things to do, and we need to work together to get them done. It seems to me that is our challenge. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I understand we are in morning business; is that correct?

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have had a long and important discussion about energy. Indeed, there is nothing more important to this country than to proceed with that. I am proud to say we have an energy policy that is quite broad. Of course, our challenge now is to implement that policy. I rise today in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. I begin by saying that the economy is doing well; that we require greater supplies of energy is proof of that fact. There is more demand than there has been in the past because our economy is strong. This is not to say that Americans are not struggling with the costs of energy. Of course, they are. We are. The price of gas, the cost of heating and cooling their homes, the need for electricity provides for difficult problems. This is true in Wyoming, where we must drive long distances, and we have cold winter seasons. We know how to solve the problem. We need to increase our supplies. The bill we are discussing today will provide 1.26 billion barrels, 5.8 trillion cubic feet of American oil and natural gas. There are, of course, many other things we must pursue. I understand as well as anyone that we cannot drill our way out of the energy problems we face. We must support alternative fuels, renewable energy, clean coal plants, new nuclear capacity, and increased efficiencies. Many of these efforts will take place over the longer term. Hydrogen cars, FutureGen, and the next generation of nuclear plants will take time. There are plenty of good ideas to look for in the future. It is important, however, that we be realistic about what we can and should do to provide for our needs in the meantime. Many of my colleagues have their own energy proposals. I have introduced a bill that would reduce the cost of energy for Americans, and it would do so comprehensively by addressing production, refining, infrastructure mileage standards, and other conservation measures. We need to pass the measure before us today, however. The bill we are debating is a delicately crafted compromise. Chairman Domenici is to be applauded for his hard work on the measure. The bill we are debating today will increase domestic supplies of oil and gas. It will do so in a way that is sensitive to the environment. It will make us more secure and strengthen our economy, and that, of course, is the goal. It represents an agreement between the States that are most directly impacted by the gulf coast production. The timing of this debate coincides with the release of second quarter financial statements. We heard this morning from the distinguished minority whip about energy company profits. I feel compelled to respond to the issue. As I said before, there are many Members who have energy proposals. Some of them are bad ideas. Among the bad ideas is a windfall profits tax, and that is one of the worst. It does not work. I raise this because the idea or the notion of punishing companies is a knee-jerk reaction we deal with every time another fiscal quarter comes to an end. It should go away. As we talk about the massive profits energy companies reap, we need to remember these are massive companies. It is inaccurate and misleading to look at the dollar amounts. A more accurate measure is to look at how the energy industry is doing relative to other sectors of the economy. Let's take a look at the second quarter of the last year as an example. In terms of cents earned per dollar sales, the average across the U.S. industry was 7.9 cents per dollar. Oil and natural gas earned 7.6 cents on the dollar, a reasonable return on investment. Insurance companies earned 10.7 cents on the dollar. Software companies earned 17 cents on the dollar. Pharmaceutical companies earned 18.6 cents on the dollar. If we are going to talk about placing punitive taxes on successful businesses that bring so much prosperity to my State, that is fine. Please know that I will ensure the inclusion of Connecticut's insurance firms, California's software industry, and New Jersey's pharmaceutical companies in that discussion as well. Energy companies are making massive investments. Drilling rigs, pipelines, refineries, exploration, and other business requirements are not cheap. They do profit from having made these investments, but it is not out of proportion to other industries that operate in our global economy. That is the truth. Unfortunately, this sort of talk is not only part of our discussion that must be further clarified. When we talk about reducing prices for consumers in the short to midterm, it is clear that increasing supplies is the effective way to do so. It is troublesome that those who complain most loudly about energy costs are the same ones who stand in the way of responsible and effective measures to do something about it. Wyoming has been doing its part in the national supply of energy for a good long time. We need other States to follow. If you are not part of the production solution, don't stand in the way of States that are. It is in fashion to oppose new development, for some reason. People do so under the auspices of protecting the environment. We can produce energy with very minimal impacts. We do it every day in my home State of Wyoming. It would be possible in places such as ANWR, too, if a minority of Members would not stand in the way. We talk about NIMBY, the ``not in my backyard'' mentality. Now we are going to be told that it can't happen in someone else's backyard. We should respect that in much the same way we are respecting the concerns of Florida in this bill, and we should respect the other Gulf States desiring to allow development off their coasts. Yes, they stand to benefit from the revenues generated by new production under this bill. I understand this production happens as far away as 50 miles from their shores. These energy products have to make their way onshore at some point, however. That requires infrastructure and ship traffic to maintain the rigs. There are impacts associated with that. We ought to help States with those impacts if they are willing to produce energy for our country. These States are host to a significant amount of offshore infrastructure as well. The 4,000 offshore platforms in the gulf are accompanied by dozens of refineries and countless production, transportation, and marketing facilities. Personally, I would like to see the revenues from offshore production used to reduce the national debt. We must base these decisions on the realities that exist, however. We must recognize the burdens to be shouldered by the producing Gulf States. They provide nearly 30 percent of our oil and 20 percent of our natural gas. If we act in good faith toward them, I am hopeful other States will recognize the value and benefits of taking part in offshore production as well. There are 19.3 billion barrels of oil and 83.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the ocean that are completely off limits right now. This does not make sense. We need those resources. But what we need more right now is a bill on which we can agree. We need something that can make a difference in the short term. This bill achieves that goal. It recognizes the value of increased production and strikes the necessary balance to make those activities a reality. I look forward to the passage of this bill, to move it forward to have more production, to increase production and reduce the costs to American users. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to join in the conversation and the discussion about energy and in support of S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy bill. We are coming up on the anniversary of the Energy Policy Act which we passed sometime back. It is comprehensive energy legislation that recognizes the difficulties we have in this country, recognizes the directions we need to go, recognizes in general terms where we have to be, whether it is increased production, whether it is efficiency and conservation, whether it is alternative methods, whatever. All those issues are excellent, and I am glad we did that. Of course, now we are in the position of implementing those policies and implementing the policies, of course, is what will have an impact on people in this country, what will have an impact on the costs. Despite the Energy bill, prices, of course, have risen. They have increased because we haven't been able to implement the bill to bolster production. There are a number of things going on, and I think we have to continue to remember that there are at least two aspects of the future in terms of energy. One is, out 20 years, we will be looking at all new kinds of sources, all new kinds of supplies, whether they be wind energy, sun energy, but those are down the road. We are not there yet. On the other hand, we need to be talking about how we are going to supply our cars and how we are going to take care of the costs for American families this year, next year, and 5 years from now. So there are two aspects that are very much involved. One of the reasons, of course, is we haven't been able to move. There has been some resistance to including production in measures. The recent jump in prices has been linked directly to that resistance. It is time to do something about U.S. production. I echo the comments the senior Senator from Louisiana made earlier today that we cannot drill our way to energy independence and we cannot conserve our way to energy independence. We have to do both. We have to have production, we have to have efficiency, we have to have conservation. Oil and gas is the easiest way we know to do this. I come from Wyoming, one of the large production States of oil, gas, and coal, the largest producer of fossil fuels. We know how to do these things, but we have to find new sources, new ways of moving toward the energy that is there. For the sake of security, we must do more. We must reduce our increased reliance on foreign sources of energy. Obviously, as the world changes--and we see every day on the TV how difficult it is to continue to do that--the Outer Continental Shelf holds great promise for accomplishing that goal. The higher prices we have seen recently are the result of many factors, and we need to address those factors. We all agree increased supply lowers prices. We need to produce more energy in the United States, and, of course, this is a politically charged issue. Many people have proposals they believe will help. I have my own bill to reduce prices that Americans pay for energy, increase efficiency, new refineries, and better infrastructure and all the things we must do. We cannot deny the basic economic principle that increased supply reduces cost. It is simple. The bill we are debating today will increase domestic supplies of gas and oil. It will do so in ways that are sensitive to the environment, that will make us more secure and bolster economic opportunities. And it represents an agreement between the States that are most directly impacted by gulf coast production. Too often people complain about the high energy prices and attempt to blame others. We have an opportunity to do something about that cost of energy today. In 6 months' time it will be winter. I am certain that Members will complain about the cost of energy then, too. I am also sure there will be a call for more money to spend on LIHEAP and other programs. I ask that we deal with those problems now and not later. The American people are paying close attention to this bill and want us to continue with this debate and make some improvement in domestic production. If we do not increase supply now, the American people will know who to blame. There are, of course, other things that Congress needs to be doing on energy. Coal conversion technologies need our full support. We have over 200 years' worth of coal in the United States that can be cheaply produced. Wyoming supplies a third of our Nation's current coal needs. We put this coal on railcars and send it across the Nation. That is increasingly becoming expensive. We want to put the coal in pipelines and convert it to diesel and electric power for cleaner power. Our electric transmission grid needs to be modernized. Several hundred thousand people lost power this last week in California, Missouri, Illinois, and New York. The grid is stressed, and we need to encourage investments to strengthen it. I would like all of our coasts opened to responsible production. This bill makes 1.3 billion barrels of oil and 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available. That is a good thing. Let's not forget there is an additional 19.3 billion barrels and 83 trillion cubic feet of oil and gas off our coasts that are currently off limits. This bill does not make those areas available. Yes, I prefer that revenues from these activities be used to reduce our Nation's debt. There is continued resistance to all of these broader approaches, however. I hope that lease sale 181 can serve as an example to other coastal States that offshore production works. What we need now is a bill on which we can agree, and we have it before us. We need something that can make a difference in the short term. This bill is a pragmatic approach that achieves these goals. This is something we know can happen. We know how to produce it. It is available. It recognizes the value of increased production and strikes the necessary balance to make those activities a reality. We are faced with a broad challenge in energy, of course, a long-term challenge. We have all kinds of approaches to it. But here is one before us that we know how to handle, that we can handle, it has an impact, and it is prepared for us to do today. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. This morning we will have approximately 1 hour of debate prior to the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the Gulf of Mexico energy security bill. The vote will occur at about 10 o'clock today, and immediately following that vote we will recess for the 11 o'clock joint meeting. I remind my colleagues to remain in the Chamber following that vote so that we may proceed at 10:40 this morning to the Hall of the House of Representatives to hear the address by the Prime Minister of Iraq. I thank all Senators for their attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a true patriot and tireless advocate of the great State of Wyoming, U.S. Senator Malcolm Wallop. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Enzi and Representative Cubin in this tribute. Malcolm hails from Big Horn, WY, born into a hard-working family with a long history of public service. Malcolm continued this family tradition by serving in the U.S. Army as a first lieutenant, then in the Wyoming State Legislature from 1969 to 1976. He followed this with a distinguished 18-year career representing the people of the State of Wyoming in the U.S. Senate. Throughout his tenure in the Senate, Malcolm held true to his convictions--maintaining a strong national defense, a Federal Government that works best when it is smaller, individual liberties and freedoms are the core of our Nation, and States rights must be protected from encroachment by the Federal Government. His unwillingness to compromise his forthright beliefs earned him the respect of his Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Levin said about Malcolm: While we disagreed, again, probably as often as we agreed, that did not stand in the way of my admiration for the quality, the characteristic that he had of letting you know precisely where he stood and why. And his patriotism is second to none in this body. His depth of understanding and knowledge on defense policy was widely respected. In 1978, Senator Wallop became the first elected official to propose a space based missile defense system, a program that later became part of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Given the proliferation of new missiles today, it is remarkable how profound his ideas and observations were at the time. Although Senator Wallop retired from the Senate in 1994, he remains engaged in the debate on key issues confronting our Nation. He is currently a senior fellow with the Heritage Foundation where he writes and speaks on issues of foreign policy and national defense. Malcolm also chairs the Frontiers of Freedom, a nonprofit organization he established upon retiring from the Senate. And he remains a strong and respected voice on individual property rights, Endangered Species Act reform, Social Security privatization and civil liberties. Malcolm's contributions to Wyoming, and the Nation as a whole, are remarkable. The Wyoming State Legislature recently passed a joint resolution establishing July 8, 2006 as Malcolm Wallop Appreciation Day. With your permission, I will submit the resolution for the Record. He remains an intelligent, articulate individual with incredible foresight. We are pleased to take this moment to express our gratitude to Senator Wallop for his service, and extremely proud to have such a distinguished and respected individual call Wyoming home. Although many have tried to sum up the man, President Reagan may have said it best when he said, ``Leadership, hard work, experience, loyalty to Wyoming--that's what Malcolm Wallop is all about.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish to address the nomination of Henry Paulson to be Secretary of the Treasury. I believe there is no question that Mr. Paulson is more than qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury, and it is to his credit that he is willing to give up the helm of Goldman-Sachs to serve his country in such a significant way. I am pleased that we have a nominee of this caliber. However, I have raised concerns stemming from Mr. Paulson's well- known personal views on conservation and affiliations with groups such as the Nature Conservancy. Representing a State where about half of the land is already federally owned, and much more is otherwise federally restricted as to use, private property rights a very big concern. Similarly, our vast energy resources in the State of Wyoming are essential to our country's national energy policy, and we struggle to maintain a balance between development of those resources and the quality of life we enjoy in Wyoming. I submitted several written questions to Mr. Paulson after our Committee on Finance hearing, and we have had good follow-up discussion on these issues. He has assured me that he is a strong advocate for personal property rights and has committed to working with me and the Senate to pursue a sensible policy. I am pleased to be able to lend my support to Mr. Paulson, and I look forward to working with him.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments on the bill before us. I have heard a great deal of discussion and, as always, there should be a lot of discussion, different ideas about it, the idea of protecting free speech, and none of us disagree with that. I think the difference here is the fact that the flag represents our right and our freedom for free speech as well as all of our other freedoms. So I am proud and honored to be one of the 59 original cosponsors of the flag protection amendment. Having served in the Marine Corps, I stood before the flag and understood that it represented the things that we stand for. It represented the freedoms we have. It represented the things that we sacrifice for. I believe it should receive special protection because that is what it symbolizes to the citizens of the United States. I understand there are concerns about limiting free speech. This amendment does not limit speech; it simply gives Congress the authority to prohibit physical desecration of the flag. To me, that is pretty easy to determine. It is something we should protect. It is something that we have given a great deal to protect. It is symbolic of the things that mean so much to us. Since the Supreme Court decision that said desecrating the flag is protected speech, there has been an overwhelming amount of public support to protect the flag. All 50 States have passed resolutions calling for Congress to pass a flag amendment. I understand that amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly, but burning or defacing or trampling the flag sends the wrong message to people who have given so much, including their lives, for the defense of this country, so certainly that should not be taken lightly. Throughout history, in times of war, peace, and uncertainty, our Nation always turns to the flag as a sign of resolve, as a sign of commitment, as a sign of strength. After the attacks of September 11, our Nation unfurled the flag at the Pentagon and raised it from the rubble at Ground Zero. It is a symbol of national unity and identity. This symbol needs to be held in the highest regard. Generations of American soldiers have died under the flag and the ideals it stands for. The flag is a strong symbol for those who fought in wartime. The American flag is a national asset. Just as it is unlawful to desecrate the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, and the graves at Arlington, it should be unlawful to desecrate the flag. Aren't there some things like symbols of freedom that should rise above politics? It seems to me that they should. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can send it to the States for ratification and ultimately let the people of America decide. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish today to express our Nation's deepest thanks and gratitude to a special man and his family. I recently received word of the untimely death of LTC Charles Munier of Wheatland, WY, while serving his country in the war on terrorism. Lieutenant Colonel Munier passed away on Monday, June 12, 2006, at Walter Reed Hospital following a stroke suffered while serving in Afghanistan where he was helping to train the Afghan army. Lieutenant Colonel Munier served in Wyoming National Guard as facilities manager for Camp Guernsey, Wyoming's training center for both Guard and Active-Duty military. He is remembered by his brother soldiers as a pivotal member of the Camp Guernsey staff and an outstanding officer who took his duties as a citizen soldier very seriously. In his civilian life, Lieutenant Colonel Munier worked for the Platte County Sheriff's Office as the jail administrator. Lieutenant Colonel Munier epitomized the ethos of the citizen soldier. He did not hesitate to put down the plowshare and pick up the rifle when his country needed him. It is because of people like Charles Munier that we continue to live safe and free. America's men and women who answer the call of service and wear our Nation's uniform deserve respect and recognition for the enormous burden that they willingly bear. They put everything on the line every day, and because of these folks, our Nation remains free and strong in the face of danger. Lieutenant Colonel Munier is survived by his wife Nancy, his daughter Victoria Rice, and her husband Tim, and his brothers and sisters in arms of the Wyoming National Guard. Today we say goodbye to a husband, a father, and an American soldier. Our Nation pays its deepest respect to LTC Charles E. Munier for his courage, his love of country, and his sacrifice, so that we may remain free. He was a hero in life, and he remains a hero in death. All of Wyoming and, indeed, the entire Nation are proud of him.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Some of us have other things to do.

Mr. THOMAS. I object.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity, R-HoPE, Act of 2006 with Senator Conrad, Senator Harkin, Senator Roberts, and fellow Senate Rural Health Caucus members Senators Collins, Dayton, Salazar, Burns, Domenici, Dorgan, Thune, Johnson, Ben Nelson, and Murkowski. As always, it is important to note that rural health care legislation has a long history of bipartisan collaboration and cooperation. The 108th Congress reaped unparalleled successes in terms of rural health care legislation. When Congress enacted the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, it included a comprehensive health care package specifically tailored with rural communities, hospitals, and providers in mind. This was the largest rural provider payment package ever considered by Congress. As Republican cochairman of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, I was proud to help lead the effort to put rural providers on a level playing field with their urban neighbors. We enacted commonsense Medicare payment equity provisions critical to maintaining access to quality health care in isolated and underserved areas. Rural America achieved a significant victory, and we have much to celebrate. However, our mission is not complete. Several of the MMA's rural health provisions have expired, or are set to expire this year. That is why I have introduced the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act--to finish the work we started 3 years ago. This legislation not only reauthorizes expiring rural MMA provisions but also takes additional steps to address inequities in the Medicare payment system that continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. My bill recognizes the unique needs of rural hospitals and levels the playing field between rural and urban providers. Rural hospitals are more dependent on Medicare payments as part of their total revenue. In fact, Medicare accounts for almost 70 percent of total revenue for small, rural hospitals. Rural hospitals have lower patient volumes, but must compete nationally to recruit providers due to the nursing--and other health professional--workforce shortages. Additional burdens are placed on rural hospitals and providers because of higher uninsured and underinsured rates in rural America. Also, seniors living in rural areas tend to be poorer and have more chronic conditions than their urban and suburban counterparts. First, the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act recognizes the special circumstances rural hospitals face and addresses these issues by equalizing Medicare disproportionate share hospital, DSH, payments. These add-on payments help hospitals cover the costs of serving a high proportion of low-income and uninsured patients. Current law allows urban facilities to receive unlimited add-ons corresponding with the amount of patients served. However, small or rural hospital add-on payments are capped at 12 percent. This measure eliminates the rural hospital cap, bringing their payments in line with the benefits urban facilities receive. Second, the bill recognizes that low-volume hospitals have a higher cost per case which results in negative operating margins. To alleviate this problem, we established a low-volume inpatient payment adjustment for hospitals that have less than 2000 annual discharges per year and are located more than 15 miles from another hospital. This provision will improve payments for approximately one-third of all rural hospitals. In addition to these Medicare payment reforms, this legislation strengthens the over 3,000 rural health clinics that serve many rural Americans. Under current law, rural health clinics receive an all- inclusive payment rate that is capped at approximately $63. This payment has not been adjusted--except for inflation--since 1988. To recognize the rising costs of health care, this bill raises the rural health clinic cap to $82, making it comparable to the rate Community Health Centers receive. By caring for folks in underserved areas, rural health clinics and community health centers are a key component of the rural health care delivery system. As not every small town can sustain a hospital, we need to ensure these types of facilities are paid adequately and are provided enough flexibility to meet the health care needs of the communities they serve. Home health care agencies are another critical element of the continuum of care in rural areas. These providers face unique circumstances in the distances they are required to travel to provide services. The current Medicare payment system does not make adequate adjustments to reflect the reality of rural and frontier health care. This bill recognizes the situation these providers face by ensuring their Medicare payments cover their costs to provide Medicare services. As you all may know, there are approximately 1,165 hospitals nationwide that have converted to critical access hospital, CAH, status. This program was created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to ensure folks in small, rural communities would have access to 24-hour emergency services as well as some hospital care in their hometowns. Fifty-two percent of my State's hospitals have downsized to Critical Access Hospital status. The measure I have introduced contains several provisions to strengthen this important rural hospital program. The Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act will also ensure rural areas can maintain access to important emergency medical services, EMS. Rural EMS providers are primarily volunteers who have difficulty recruiting, retaining, and educating EMS personnel. Rural EMS providers also have less capital to buy and upgrade essential, lifesaving equipment. The legislation will assist ambulance providers in collecting payments for transporting patients to the hospital after answering a 911 call regardless of the final diagnosis. This is a commonsense approach and ensures that all aspects of emergency care are operating under the same definition of emergency. It is important for the Federal Government to remember that one payment system does not fit all. Rural providers care for patients under much different circumstances than their urban counterparts. This legislation is designed to ensure rural hospitals, rural health clinics, rural ambulance providers, rural home health agencies, rural mental health providers, rural physicians, and other critical allied health clinicians are paid accurately and fairly. I strongly encourage all my colleagues with an interest in rural health to cosponsor this legislation. Finally, I want to thank the American Hospital Association, the National Rural Health Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, the National Association for Home Care, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, the American Ambulance Association, and the Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, for their work and support in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity, R-HoPE, Act of 2006 with Senator Conrad, Senator Harkin, Senator Roberts, and fellow Senate Rural Health Caucus members Senators Collins, Dayton, Salazar, Burns, Domenici, Dorgan, Thune, Johnson, Ben Nelson, and Murkowski. As always, it is important to note that rural health care legislation has a long history of bipartisan collaboration and cooperation. The 108th Congress reaped unparalleled successes in terms of rural health care legislation. When Congress enacted the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, it included a comprehensive health care package specifically tailored with rural communities, hospitals, and providers in mind. This was the largest rural provider payment package ever considered by Congress. As Republican cochairman of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, I was proud to help lead the effort to put rural providers on a level playing field with their urban neighbors. We enacted commonsense Medicare payment equity provisions critical to maintaining access to quality health care in isolated and underserved areas. Rural America achieved a significant victory, and we have much to celebrate. However, our mission is not complete. Several of the MMA's rural health provisions have expired, or are set to expire this year. That is why I have introduced the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act--to finish the work we started 3 years ago. This legislation not only reauthorizes expiring rural MMA provisions but also takes additional steps to address inequities in the Medicare payment system that continually place rural providers at a disadvantage. My bill recognizes the unique needs of rural hospitals and levels the playing field between rural and urban providers. Rural hospitals are more dependent on Medicare payments as part of their total revenue. In fact, Medicare accounts for almost 70 percent of total revenue for small, rural hospitals. Rural hospitals have lower patient volumes, but must compete nationally to recruit providers due to the nursing--and other health professional--workforce shortages. Additional burdens are placed on rural hospitals and providers because of higher uninsured and underinsured rates in rural America. Also, seniors living in rural areas tend to be poorer and have more chronic conditions than their urban and suburban counterparts. First, the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act recognizes the special circumstances rural hospitals face and addresses these issues by equalizing Medicare disproportionate share hospital, DSH, payments. These add-on payments help hospitals cover the costs of serving a high proportion of low-income and uninsured patients. Current law allows urban facilities to receive unlimited add-ons corresponding with the amount of patients served. However, small or rural hospital add-on payments are capped at 12 percent. This measure eliminates the rural hospital cap, bringing their payments in line with the benefits urban facilities receive. Second, the bill recognizes that low-volume hospitals have a higher cost per case which results in negative operating margins. To alleviate this problem, we established a low-volume inpatient payment adjustment for hospitals that have less than 2000 annual discharges per year and are located more than 15 miles from another hospital. This provision will improve payments for approximately one-third of all rural hospitals. In addition to these Medicare payment reforms, this legislation strengthens the over 3,000 rural health clinics that serve many rural Americans. Under current law, rural health clinics receive an all- inclusive payment rate that is capped at approximately $63. This payment has not been adjusted--except for inflation--since 1988. To recognize the rising costs of health care, this bill raises the rural health clinic cap to $82, making it comparable to the rate Community Health Centers receive. By caring for folks in underserved areas, rural health clinics and community health centers are a key component of the rural health care delivery system. As not every small town can sustain a hospital, we need to ensure these types of facilities are paid adequately and are provided enough flexibility to meet the health care needs of the communities they serve. Home health care agencies are another critical element of the continuum of care in rural areas. These providers face unique circumstances in the distances they are required to travel to provide services. The current Medicare payment system does not make adequate adjustments to reflect the reality of rural and frontier health care. This bill recognizes the situation these providers face by ensuring their Medicare payments cover their costs to provide Medicare services. As you all may know, there are approximately 1,165 hospitals nationwide that have converted to critical access hospital, CAH, status. This program was created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to ensure folks in small, rural communities would have access to 24-hour emergency services as well as some hospital care in their hometowns. Fifty-two percent of my State's hospitals have downsized to Critical Access Hospital status. The measure I have introduced contains several provisions to strengthen this important rural hospital program. The Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act will also ensure rural areas can maintain access to important emergency medical services, EMS. Rural EMS providers are primarily volunteers who have difficulty recruiting, retaining, and educating EMS personnel. Rural EMS providers also have less capital to buy and upgrade essential, lifesaving equipment. The legislation will assist ambulance providers in collecting payments for transporting patients to the hospital after answering a 911 call regardless of the final diagnosis. This is a commonsense approach and ensures that all aspects of emergency care are operating under the same definition of emergency. It is important for the Federal Government to remember that one payment system does not fit all. Rural providers care for patients under much different circumstances than their urban counterparts. This legislation is designed to ensure rural hospitals, rural health clinics, rural ambulance providers, rural home health agencies, rural mental health providers, rural physicians, and other critical allied health clinicians are paid accurately and fairly. I strongly encourage all my colleagues with an interest in rural health to cosponsor this legislation. Finally, I want to thank the American Hospital Association, the National Rural Health Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, the National Association for Home Care, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, the American Ambulance Association, and the Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, for their work and support in this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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 of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, June 22, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 574, a bill to amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to increase the authorization of appropriations and modify the date on which the authority of the Secretary of the Interior terminates under the Act; S. 1387, a bill to provide for an update of the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, to extend the authority of the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission, to authorize the undertaking of a special resource study of sites and landscape features within the Corridor, and to authorize additional appropriations for the Corridor; S. 1721, a bill to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to extend the authorization for certain national heritage areas, and for other purposes; S. 2037, a bill to establish the Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; and S. 2645, a bill to establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 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 Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161, David Szymanski at (202) 224-6293, or Sara Zecher at (202) 224-8276.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing previously scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. has been rescheduled for Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the National Park Service's Revised Draft Management Policies, including potential impact of the policies on park operations, park resources, wilderness areas, recreation, and interaction with gateway communities. 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 Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161, David Szymanski at (202) 224-6293, or Sara Zecher at (202) 224-8276. Subcommittee on National Parks

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to discuss the nominee who is before the Senate. I am chairman of the Trade Subcommittee on the Finance Committee, so I have had an opportunity to deal with some of these issues for some time. I was also chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Rim. These are areas about which I feel strongly. Fortunately, I had a good deal of opportunity to visit with Susan Schwab, the President's nominee for U.S. Trade Representative. Obviously, this is a very important position, the position that Rob Portman had over the past 9 months or a year. He has done an excellent job of representing the United States in a situation that is not easy. The United States is a little different from most countries in the world. They see us a little differently. They expect more from us than we should be asked to give, but nevertheless that continues to be the case. We have to seek to find equality and fairness. Based on my discussions with her, I think she is an outstanding selection. Senator Grassley talked about her background, and certainly she is well prepared for the position. Her credentials speak for themselves. That is very important in this issue. Trade is very easy to talk about. Some of my friends on the other side talk about trade is all bad and there is nothing right about it. There is a lot to trade that we have to figure out. We have a lot of demand for overseas goods and, of course, we are the biggest buyer in the world; therefore, we are the biggest trader in the world. So it feels a little differently. It doesn't mean we should not have fair and equal treatment. That is what we seek to have, and that will be the task she undertakes. She will be a strong voice for American trade policy. I believe that is excellent, and I am so pleased. We are the largest trading nation in the world, and the world is changing, as we know. Twenty years ago, it was quite different. Everyone was fairly isolated. Now, with the kind of communications we have and the kind of transportation that is available--why, there are billions of dollars moving around the world every day. It becomes quite difficult. The countries are changing very fast. We deal with China today much differently than we did 10 years ago, as we will have to in the future. Foreign trade is not an easy matter with which to deal. What we need to seek and do seek is fairness. Frankly, that is a little difficult in the world because everyone thinks that because we are such a prosperous country, they should have special treatment. But our effort has been to have fair trade, and that ought to be what we do, and that is what we are seeking. I have met with Susan Schwab and talked about that point, and the fact that we are the largest trading country in the world should not give others an unfair advantage. We need to trade in a fair way, and I think that is what she is committed to do, and certainly I support her for that. We are the largest trading nation in the world. So, of course, we are the target of most everyone who wants to increase their sales. We also, however, have some opportunities to increase our sales as well, and we are doing some of that. Our demand, because the size of our economy, of course, is large, and we are interested in pursuing those kinds of opportunities. So trade is going to happen, and it is going to increasingly happen as times change and the world becomes smaller. Simply because of our ability to communicate and our ability to move around the world, it will become smaller. So the challenge is how we can trade fairly with these other countries. Many of them think, Oh, you are the big, rich country; you ought to be able to give us a lot of things. That really ought not to be what we are dealing with. We ought to be dealing with fair trade. I think that is the point. It is what I have talked to Susan Schwab about, and she certainly is agreeable to that. More than 25 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product is tied to trade, so it is an important aspect of our economy. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers live outside of the United States. So in terms of our production, we need to be involved in world trade and we need to make it fair. And that really, of course, is the challenge. It is easy to be critical about everything we do in trade. The fact is, particularly with some of the commodities in my State of Wyoming, trade is about selling our markets somewhere else. So we need to understand that. Again, the key is fair trade and that is what we are talking about. We need to find ways to open the world market to our goods and our services, and we ought to be able to enter into the market on the same basis as anyone else, and at the same time hold others to the same considerations that we have when they come here. We need to pursue both bilateral and multilateral negotiations, and of course that is what we are doing. And we need strong leadership to do it and to represent our interests in these discussions. So I think that is exactly what we will be able to do. We are making progress. My colleague mentioned the fact of the cow business in Japan. Well, that is a problem. Frankly, it is not a trade problem as much as it is a mad cow disease problem. It has been handled wrong, and we are working toward getting that resolved. Our best potential and the largest growth we have in the beef industry and exports has been in Asia. That is where we are now. We have been able to open up the markets in Australia and in South Korea, and we had the markets pretty much open in Japan until the mad cow disease came along, and now we are in the process, hopefully, of getting them open again. So that is very important, and we need to continue certainly to do that. We need a strong leader to represent our interests. I think that is exactly what we will get with Susan Schwab, and that leadership is what we need. Bob Portman has done a very good job, and she has worked with him, of course, in getting us into this position. So we need to have good leadership to walk away from some of the bad agreements, the tough agreements that we have had. The world is sometimes difficult to deal with, but Susan Schwab will provide that leadership. During her testimony before the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, she stated: It will take more than a willing spirit to forge good trade policy in the next 5 years. It will require us to keep the multilateral process on track in the WTO, to negotiate commercially significant free trade agreements, and to enforce vigorously the terms of those agreements and to uphold the rules of trade. So that is what we are really faced with. These smaller countries, these countries that frankly generally have less economic strength than we do and they always want special treatment: Well, you guys can afford that. What we need is fair trade, and that is what trade is all about, and that is why it takes a leader to do that. So I am very pleased that she is there and that she is willing to do this. She is well trained to do it. She further stated that her success may require: An honest, sometimes blunt, but always respectful exchange of views, along with a willingness to compromise when possible and the strength to stand firm when necessary. The strength to stand firm when necessary. To me, that is probably the most important element of the trade negotiations that we enter into, is to be able to stand firm on what we agree on, and we ought to be in a position to do that when we are as big a buyer as we are. We also need to have some muscle on the other side, and we can do that. I am pleased with the commitment she has made to reach out and listen and consult with Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Engaging Congress in a bipartisan way upfront and throughout the process will be crucial, and she will do that. Ms. Schwab understands this, and I am confident that she will follow through. So I look forward to working with her. I am looking forward to one of the important elements of our economy, and that is world trade, and doing it in a fair manner. Mr. President, I yield back all time on behalf of Republicans and Democrats and ask for a vote.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, how much time is on this side?

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 of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday June 15, 2006, at 2:30 pm in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the National Park Service's Revised Draft Management Policies, including potential impact of the policies on park operations, park resources, wilderness areas, recreation, and interaction with gateway communities. 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 Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161, David Szymanski at (202) 224-6293, or Sara Zecher at (202) 224-8276.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments with respect to the bill before us now. I just came from meeting with Wyoming youngsters who were here with the National Guard, helping young people finishing up with their GEDs, and so on. It was very impressive, very impressive to have young people moving forward and being able, hopefully, to be successful. That has a little to do with what we are talking about here today. The fact is, the question of how we treat people who have been successful, in terms of their business, in terms of their operations, is something we are talking about here. We have had, of course, a number of discussions on the matter of estate taxes. It seems like we have been back and forth on it for a very long time. The problem is still there. I think this is a great opportunity for us to do something significant about that. I have to tell you, in a State such as Wyoming where a lot of people are in small businesses and ranches and farms, this is a particularly important one. A family works all their lives--several families. They put together an operation--not wealthy families, but the value of the property is such that when the time comes that the older members of the family pass away, they have to sell the property in order to pay the tax. It takes it away from the continuation in that family and the business. I know that is not a brand new idea. I think it is the important aspect here, that people have paid taxes all through their processes-- whenever there is a profit, there is a tax; whenever there is a sale, there would be a tax. But to force the family to have to sell to accommodate the tax as an estate tax seems to me effectively a death tax, and that is not the way it ought to be. Here is an opportunity for us to do something. I hope we can eliminate the tax. If we can't, we need to at least make a reasonable agreement as to how it might be done in a way that allows people to continue to pass their businesses and their farms and their ranches on to their families, and to be able to do it without being forced to dispose of the property before their family can continue to do it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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