Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be our next Attorney General. Certainly his life story embodies the American dream: Son of immigrant farmers, the first in his family to go to college, attended Rice University, Harvard Law School, now nominee to be our Nation's first Hispanic top law enforcement officer. I am troubled by some remarks unfairly distorting his honorable record. I am concerned, as well, that the Senate is losing some of its civility, which is what makes our Chamber unique. I cannot think of anyone who would do a better job than this man as U.S. Attorney General. I support him. I yield to my friend from Montana.

Mr. THOMAS. We are not ready yet.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I today to express our Nation's deepest thanks and gratitude to a special young man and his family. I recently received word that on January 26, 2005, Marine SSgt Brian Bland of Newcastle, WY died in the line of duty while serving his country in the war on terrorism. SSgt Bland was killed, along with 30 of his brothers in arms when the CH 53E Super Stallion helicopter they were riding in crashed in western Iraq. The Marines were on their way to provide security operations for the recent Iraqi elections. SSgt Bland was member of 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment out of Hawaii. He grew up in Newcastle and joined the Marine Corps after graduating from high school there in 1995. he had re-enlisted twice. He held a profound sense of duty and knew he was doing the right thing, telling family members shortly before the crash that he felt good about what he was doing in Iraq. He was very proud of being a Marine and had planned to stay in the service until he retired. He is remembered as one who enjoyed motorcycles and was friendly to everyone, and he took every opportunity to return to visit family and friends in Wyoming and South Dakota. Because of people like Brian Bland 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. Our people put everything on the line everyday, and because of these folks, our Nation remains free and strong in the face of danger. The motto of the Marine Corps is ``Semper Fidelis.'' It means ``Always Faithful.'' Through his selfless and courageous sacrifice, Staff Sergeant Brian Bland lived up to those words with great honor in that he willingly gave the last full measure so that others could live in freedom and liberty. SSgt Bland is survived by his wife Stacey, his mother Beverly and stepfather Mark, his brother Jeremy, his grandmother Emma Lee, and his brothers of the United States Marine Corps. We say goodbye to a husband, a son, a brother, a Marine, and an American. Our Nation pays its deepest respect to SSgt Brian Bland 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, is proud of him. So from one Marine to another, SSgt Bland, Semper Fi.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``National Heritage Partnership Act,'' a bill to establish a program and criteria for National Heritage Areas in the United States. Twenty-seven National Heritage Areas currently exist in this country, including 4 new areas designated in appropriations bills by the 108th Congress. Six occur in the State of Pennsylvania alone. They range in size from a 10-mile canal in Augusta, GA, to the entire State of Tennessee. Specific areas are designated to recognize and preserve the cultural heritage of the oil industry, coal mining, the evolution of manned flight, and the Civil War, just to name a few. The National Park Service has responsibility for advising heritage area managers and providing Federal funds, but a formal process and criteria for designating new areas do not exist. State delegations are planning to introduce legislation to designate 13 new National Heritage Areas and authorize studies on an additional 5. Hundreds of State heritage areas currently exist and all could potentially become National Heritage Areas under the current process. This program is out of control. We are continuing to put unnecessary fiscal and resource demands on the National Park Service at a time when a significant maintenance backlog exists in park units throughout the Nation. We have no established criteria to ensure the recognition of truly nationally important areas. During the 108th Congress, the National Parks Subcommittee conducted two hearings on heritage areas and received a review from the General Accounting Office. My legislation combines the recommendations of the National Park Service, General Accounting Office, and witness testimony by establishing criteria such as national importance, creating a process for studying and reviewing new areas, requiring fiscal accountability and protecting the rights of property owners. This legislation is overdue. It provides a balanced approach to National Heritage Area designation, management, and oversight.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``National Heritage Partnership Act,'' a bill to establish a program and criteria for National Heritage Areas in the United States. Twenty-seven National Heritage Areas currently exist in this country, including 4 new areas designated in appropriations bills by the 108th Congress. Six occur in the State of Pennsylvania alone. They range in size from a 10-mile canal in Augusta, GA, to the entire State of Tennessee. Specific areas are designated to recognize and preserve the cultural heritage of the oil industry, coal mining, the evolution of manned flight, and the Civil War, just to name a few. The National Park Service has responsibility for advising heritage area managers and providing Federal funds, but a formal process and criteria for designating new areas do not exist. State delegations are planning to introduce legislation to designate 13 new National Heritage Areas and authorize studies on an additional 5. Hundreds of State heritage areas currently exist and all could potentially become National Heritage Areas under the current process. This program is out of control. We are continuing to put unnecessary fiscal and resource demands on the National Park Service at a time when a significant maintenance backlog exists in park units throughout the Nation. We have no established criteria to ensure the recognition of truly nationally important areas. During the 108th Congress, the National Parks Subcommittee conducted two hearings on heritage areas and received a review from the General Accounting Office. My legislation combines the recommendations of the National Park Service, General Accounting Office, and witness testimony by establishing criteria such as national importance, creating a process for studying and reviewing new areas, requiring fiscal accountability and protecting the rights of property owners. This legislation is overdue. It provides a balanced approach to National Heritage Area designation, management, and oversight.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is again time, as we begin this session of Congress, when challenges are before us--the opportunity to work on programs, some of which we worked on before and did not complete, some of which need to be worked on and haven't; such things as energy policy, of course, which we have worked on for some time. We are becoming more and more dependent as time goes by and as our consumption increases and our production does not. The highway bill we talked about for a good long time. It is most important for our economy, for our jobs, for our transportation, and we haven't been able to handle it in the last couple of years; to move into something such as the class action activity that we are committed to so that we are not moving the liability claims around to different States to find a jurisdiction that is most favorable; and to do something about tax simplification. We always talk about that. The Tax Code is that thick, and yet we continue to have it. We have a real opportunity to do a number of things, and I hope we are able to do that. I hope we are able to have an honest debate and discussion. We did have different points of view, obviously, but I hope we move towards finding solutions to coming together better than perhaps we have in the past. In addition--I guess this is really what I would like to comment about briefly today--I think we also have an opportunity and a responsibility to take a look at some of the existing programs, many of which have been in place far too long a time; indeed, maybe they should be. On the other hand, I think from time to time we need to have some kind of a system where we go back and take a look at older programs and see, as time changes, if those programs are still efficient, necessary, and as opportune as they were in the beginning. We have new programs all the time, and we tend not to take a look at some of the ones that are in place to see indeed if they are still needed, to see if they do the job as well as they have been, and to see if they are as efficient as they can be. I have in my desk a notebook that is nearly that thick with all the programs the Federal Government has in place. There are actually thousands of programs that are in place. Some are major and some are not, but nevertheless they are there. We are talking about balancing the budget and so on. Some of that ought to reflect the expenditures which have been going on for a long time, and still continue to go on. Of course, when you have a program out there, the nature of it is that people get involved and it develops its own constituency which makes it difficult to change from time to time. I hope we can do some reevaluations of the ones that we have. We have some programs that obviously need to be changed. The Senator from South Dakota was talking about Social Security. Obviously, it needs to be changed. He argues about whether it is a crisis, but the fact is, for one thing all the money that is in the so- called trust fund is not in the trust fund at all. There are IOUs in there that have to be repaid. In order to go beyond the 20-, 13-, or 18-year program that we talk about in order get to the 45-year program, that money has to be in place. There are some ideas about doing that. Of course, a number of things could be done. Payments could be attached to the benefits' costs rather than to inflation, and a number of things. They will all be considered, of course. There seems to be a lot of reaction to the so-called personal accounts. I think one thing that has to be considered by everyone who is interested, No. 1, people who are 55 or so are not affected at all and will continue to go on as they have. Furthermore, those who aren't--the younger people--it is a choice they will make. Those are some of the things that need to be looked at to go forward. I am personally very much in favor of encouraging people to have savings benefits of their own. After all, Social Security was designed to be a retirement supplement. In order to make it work really well, we have to have a program that is cost effective. Medicare and Medicaid are in real financial difficulty--not only some of the Government programs themselves as they go forward but, because the impact of the cost of health care is not always fully paid by Medicaid and Medicare, the costs are shifted to people who have private insurance. That the entire cost is going up, the entire program--a great health care program in this country--becomes limited in access because of the costs. We have to do something about that. As I mentioned, we have literally thousands of programs that are in place. I am not suggesting they are not useful. I am suggesting, however, that there needs to be some kind of a process. It is my understanding that OMB is talking about something that has some kind of a commission which would review the programs from time to time. I think that is a great idea. I don't know whether those programs are the ones we ought to have, and whether the Congress ought to appoint a commission, but there ought to be a way of evaluating, No. 1, how appropriate it is to continue those programs the same as we did 10 or 20 years ago, and whether those programs are being as effectively operated as they could be. Sometimes when we talk about efficiency, we get a lot of feedback from people. But why shouldn't there be more efficient Government programs? We ought to ensure that, indeed, they are. I think that is something we ought to take a look at to see if we can't have some kind of evaluation. I know it could be very time consuming. On the other hand, I think we could find ways to take a look periodically at the programs. I wish we had some kind of a criteria for what kinds of programs are appropriate for the Federal Government. Particularly with programs that have some political clout for a Member, we find ourselves bringing it up and going with it. Some things you would really have a hard time saying they are an appropriate function of the Federal Government. There are so many things that could be done much better by State and local governments or by the private sector, but if it has some political appeal, we want to hop in there and do that. I don't know exactly what it would be, but it would seem to me it would make sense if we had some criteria to say these are the kinds of conditions that would justify Federal involvement, not only because of the cost but most of us would like to see some control. We talk about deficits, but we never seem to talk about holding down the activities and the size of the Federal Government. I know these are easy things to talk about but difficult things to resolve. I guess the President is suggesting that as we go about our work we hopefully will keep in mind a couple of thoughts. One is periodic evaluation of programs to make sure they are, in fact, efficient, effective, and still necessary. The other is that we take a look at some of the various prospects which are brought up. For example, I chair a subcommittee which deals with national historic sites. We have a long list of national historic sites. Some of them, quite frankly, you would have a hard time justifying in terms of any national significance. There are very likely to be some things which are good for the main street of someone's hometown. Of course, we all want to do that. But there needs to be some criteria so it fits into this program. These are some of the things I hope we can take a look at and make the Federal involvement a little less widespread and make sure what we are doing is done efficiently. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2005,'' a bill to limit the Federal royalty on soda ash. This legislation, if passed, will put people back to work in my State and address the important issue of maintaining a strong and financially sound manufacturing base in this country. It will keep jobs in America and give workers a fighting chance to compete globally. The State of Wyoming accounts for 85 percent of the natural soda ash produced in the United States. The health of the domestic soda ash industry is now at issue. This legislation goes a long way towards assisting the domestic industry to be competitive on a global basis. The bill reduces an excessive tax on natural American soda ash; a tax that is significantly impairing the ability of U.S. exported soda ash to compete in important global markets; a tax that has helped create 30 percent decline in employment in this industry in Wyoming since 1997. The current 6 percent royalty on each ton of domestically produced soda ash was imposed in 1995 at a time when our exports of this important commodity, primarily used in the manufacture of glass were rising to record levels. It was a windfall tax that recognized the industry's significant expansion. Over the last decade, export growth has been severely impacted, as several trading partners erected various barriers to U.S. soda ash, often to protect their own less efficient domestic producers. One of the most aggressive countries has been China. As recently as 1990, China imported over one million tons of soda ash annually from the U.S. Today, China exports two million tons from plants that produce a synthetic grade of this important commodity. The Chinese produce soda ash in far less efficient factories with limited attention to environmental or safety concerns. The average wage of a Chinese worker in these plants is less than $5 a day. By contrast Wyoming soda ash workers can earn on average $35 an hour. Chinese soda ash producers, which are largely state owned, also benefit from direct and indirect forms of state support, as well as the benefits of a fixed exchange rate. As a result of these actions, China has supplanted the United States as the world's largest exporter of soda ash. Wyoming soda ash producers remain the most efficient in the world and have been constantly improving their productivity over the last several years. It is an industry that is reinventing itself to meet the demands of fierce global competition. My legislation restores the original royalty the Federal Government imposed on soda ash in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. That act set a 2 percent royalty on soda ash mined on Federal leases. We would temporarily resume that royalty rate consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 that requires the Secretary of the Interior to receive ``fair market value'' for the use of public lands and their resources. In other words, the legislation simply adjusts what was a windfall tax back to its original level. The legislation is overdue and keeps our Nation's commitment to U.S. based manufacturing and jobs. The U.S. soda ash industry has been a good partner with the Federal Government, providing additional revenue when business was flourishing. Now that the industry is fighting for its survival, the Federal Government has the opportunity to be a responsible partner and ease its tax burden so it can survive and provide the thousands of jobs that are so important to my State.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Soda Ash Royalty Reduction Act of 2005,'' a bill to limit the Federal royalty on soda ash. This legislation, if passed, will put people back to work in my State and address the important issue of maintaining a strong and financially sound manufacturing base in this country. It will keep jobs in America and give workers a fighting chance to compete globally. The State of Wyoming accounts for 85 percent of the natural soda ash produced in the United States. The health of the domestic soda ash industry is now at issue. This legislation goes a long way towards assisting the domestic industry to be competitive on a global basis. The bill reduces an excessive tax on natural American soda ash; a tax that is significantly impairing the ability of U.S. exported soda ash to compete in important global markets; a tax that has helped create 30 percent decline in employment in this industry in Wyoming since 1997. The current 6 percent royalty on each ton of domestically produced soda ash was imposed in 1995 at a time when our exports of this important commodity, primarily used in the manufacture of glass were rising to record levels. It was a windfall tax that recognized the industry's significant expansion. Over the last decade, export growth has been severely impacted, as several trading partners erected various barriers to U.S. soda ash, often to protect their own less efficient domestic producers. One of the most aggressive countries has been China. As recently as 1990, China imported over one million tons of soda ash annually from the U.S. Today, China exports two million tons from plants that produce a synthetic grade of this important commodity. The Chinese produce soda ash in far less efficient factories with limited attention to environmental or safety concerns. The average wage of a Chinese worker in these plants is less than $5 a day. By contrast Wyoming soda ash workers can earn on average $35 an hour. Chinese soda ash producers, which are largely state owned, also benefit from direct and indirect forms of state support, as well as the benefits of a fixed exchange rate. As a result of these actions, China has supplanted the United States as the world's largest exporter of soda ash. Wyoming soda ash producers remain the most efficient in the world and have been constantly improving their productivity over the last several years. It is an industry that is reinventing itself to meet the demands of fierce global competition. My legislation restores the original royalty the Federal Government imposed on soda ash in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. That act set a 2 percent royalty on soda ash mined on Federal leases. We would temporarily resume that royalty rate consistent with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 that requires the Secretary of the Interior to receive ``fair market value'' for the use of public lands and their resources. In other words, the legislation simply adjusts what was a windfall tax back to its original level. The legislation is overdue and keeps our Nation's commitment to U.S. based manufacturing and jobs. The U.S. soda ash industry has been a good partner with the Federal Government, providing additional revenue when business was flourishing. Now that the industry is fighting for its survival, the Federal Government has the opportunity to be a responsible partner and ease its tax burden so it can survive and provide the thousands of jobs that are so important to my State.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following oversight 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 February 17, 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 review the National Park Service's implementation of the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act authorized in Public Law 108-447. 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, U.S. Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Brian Carlstrom at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I also wish to take a few minutes, as others have, to talk about some of the issues that will be before us. We have a great opportunity now to move forward on these issues, many of which we have discussed in the last session. Many are ready to be acted upon, and I hope we can do that. We need to talk about taxes and simplifying taxes. We need to talk about ensuring that we have the tax support there to create jobs and strengthen the economy. We seem to be moving in the right direction. I think the tax reductions have proven themselves to be useful, but many of them, particularly on taxes such as the estate tax, unless that is made permanent so people can have confidence in their investments, they really do not fully do what we hoped they would do. We need to continue to work to keep America safe; security is probably our top priority. We have made a considerable amount of change in that area. We need to continue to evaluate that, of course, and ensure that we have the best. I hope we can come back to deal with the issue of energy--clean, economic energy. That is, again, one of the basic issues in creating jobs, in growing an economy, and one that we have worked on now for several years. We had a long meeting yesterday. We had a series of meetings to talk about the need for conservation, to talk about the need for efficiency. We talked about the need for alternative sources of energy--renewable energy as well as domestic production. Those things are so important. Yet, somehow, we have not been able to move forward. I cannot think of anything that is more important to us than to have a policy with respect to the future, to be able to look into the future with regard to energy. I suspect most of my friends here would agree that as they go home and meet with people, one of the issues that is most often talked about is the cost of health care. It is a tough issue. I think we have a good health care system, probably the best in the world, but we are getting to the point where access to that system is being limited by the cost. I am not just talking about Medicare or Medicaid; I am talking about health care generally. I am talking about families on the ranch, for example, when they have to pay for their own and it costs $15,000 a year for insurance. I am talking about the things we might do to give more tax-free savings accounts so these insurance policies can be more for coverage of catastrophic events and be less expensive and we can have more ownership in them. Those are the kinds of things we need to take a look at. We need to promote agriculture in our trade programs that will be coming up. Agriculture is a very difficult issue with respect to foreign trade, but it is very important. I spent some time in Argentina at the global warming meeting and I got some insight as to what is happening in Brazil and Argentina in terms of livestock production, and it is going to be enormous. We have to be prepared. Obviously, we will be talking about changes in Social Security. We will be meeting with the President today, with the Finance Committee, to get better ideas of what the details are, but clearly we need to do something there. The highway bill--we have gone several years without the highway bill we passed some time ago. Can you think of anything more important in our communities than to maintain and develop new highways and keep them up? We have not done that, and we need to do it. Tort reform--whether it is broad, whether it is class action suits, whether it is malpractice in health care--these are issues we need to accomplish. We talk about them, we argue about them, and then we walk away from them. It seems to me there are a number of those issues where we ought to just buckle down and come to the snugging post and do some things that need to be done. Spending? I don't think any of us deny that we need to do something about spending. We need to do something about the deficit that we have created--that we have created. We need to do some things there. I think we have some real opportunities to do some more than we have in the past. We have a chance to move forward. Class action is apparently going to be out here soon. Clearly, there are some changes that need to be made. The whole tort reform area is difficult. Nevertheless, we ought to be able to do that. Those are the things I hope we can take a long look at. I know we all have some different ideas about what the priorities ought to be. But it is pretty clear some of these things need to be handled. There are different views about how they need to be handled, but something needs to be done about them, and it is our responsibility to do that. We can fuss and have disagreements and walk off the floor and all that sort of thing, but the fact is, it is our responsibility to do things. It is our opportunity to do them now. I look forward to a productive session. I hope we can get started very soon. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as most of today's program will be based on Condoleezza Rice and her appointment to be Secretary of State, I rise to make some comments to show my admiration for Ms. Rice and my support for her to serve in this task. I certainly cannot think of a better candidate. I rise to offer my strong support for Dr. Rice because I believe she not only brings a remarkable record of public service and academic credentials to this position, but also great experience and integrity in troubled times, times of war. I find it troublesome that we are here today, unfortunately, not so much to debate the qualifications of Dr. Rice, even though they are certainly impressive and she is equal to the task. Instead, to some extent we have chosen to return, at this time, to the honored position of trying to score political points by distorting the record of the President's decision to use force in Iraq. The ongoing operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan are critical components to the global war on terrorism, a war with the purpose of fundamentally changing the environment which has given rise to the power of the extremists in that part of the world. It remains an aggressive effort, not only to bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11 but also the nations that aid and support them. There has been a great deal of discussion, of course, with Dr. Rice about the facts that brought us into Iraq. The fact is, at that time everyone involved--whether it was the United States, whether it was Britain, whether it was the CIA--had this view of what the world was and that is what it was based on. Some of those views turned out not to be correct, but at the time that was the information we had. So I certainly hope we can move forward here. I agree, everyone should have a right to say what they choose with regard to these nominations. On the other hand, they ought to be here for the purpose of examining those persons for that task, and not talking about the politics of all the surrounding issues. I also have to say I am not at all surprised that someone nominated to serving on the Cabinet would be supportive of the President. If you were President, would you appoint people who disagreed with you and would not be with you, who would not support your positions? Of course not. So that is where we are. At any rate, I support the decision to use force, supporting the action in Iraq today. We have to finish our work there. I think we are offering freedom and hope to the people of these poor and oppressed countries. The best way is to neutralize the effect of fanatical Islam. We continue to make progress with other nations, and that is great. Dr. Rice has performed admirably in her role as National Security Adviser and will continue to serve the country well as Secretary of State. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this nomination today and move it on down the line.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to take a couple minutes as we come to the close of this congressional session and soon will be entering into a new one. It seems to me we have some great challenges before us, of course, as is always the case. However, in this instance, we have perhaps some more defined issues than normal. There are lots of issues before us, of course. There are always challenging issues before the Congress. Sometimes they are less well defined, but this time hopefully we can come together on issues we have talked about, trying to find answers to questions that are important to this country. It seems to me there are several issues that are pretty well defined. I hope we can find, on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, some solutions or at least move toward some solutions that are very important to us. In doing that, it seems to me--and I will comment on it a little later--we have to take a long look at the kinds of things we deal with here to try to make some kind of an analysis as to the issues that are appropriate for the Congress to deal with. There are lots of interesting things going on, of course, but we find ourselves in the position of dealing with lots of things that I think quite easily could be defined as a role for some other Government level or indeed for the private sector to deal with. We find ourselves dealing with a good many of those things that are interesting. I was thinking a while back about the activity we had with respect to--I don't remember what it was--$15 million to help kids play tennis. Well, playing tennis is a great thing, and helping kids to play tennis is a great thing, but is that a congressional activity, I wonder. I have some concerns from time to time, but there are issues we clearly have to face up to. One of them is health care and the cost of health care throughout the country. Particularly, I am aware of the issues of health care in my State of Wyoming, as is the Presiding Officer, which include the fact that the costs of health care are beginning to limit access to one of the best health care systems in the world. Well, we have the best health care in the world, but if people cannot utilize it and are not able to take advantage of it, then, of course, we have to do something. The cost of health insurance, which is related to the cost of health care, more and more is one of those issues we need to deal with nationwide. It is not an easy issue. One of the obvious problems is the uninsured. Approximately 40 million are uninsured. Quite often the costs, when the uninsured receive health care, have to be shifted to those who have insurance, and that lifts the price. The same is true of hospitals and emergencies and Medicare and Medicaid, which actually pay less than the cost, quite often, so that cost again is shifted. It is particularly difficult for the families of the self-employed. In our case, many rural ranchers and farmers pay very high prices to carry insurance for their families. That is one we clearly need to work on. I don't suppose we will find the total solution all at once. We are moving forward in Medicare, but this goes beyond Medicare. This goes to health care in general. We are going to have to do some things there, I am sure. Energy, of course, continues to be an issue that we have sort of avoided over the last couple years. I guess we have the idea that all you have to do is turn the light on or get in the car and go to the station and everything is going to be all right. The fact is, demand is exceeding production in many of these areas, and we are going to have to do something about it. I am hopeful we can at least begin with an energy policy--and we have tried a number of times--that looks ahead for 15 years or 20 years and says here is what we will have to do, here is where we want to be. And to be there, we have to do other things. Unfortunately, in this body we haven't been able to pass a policy. I have never understood why. Some areas, such as New England, generally have been cold on it, and they don't even have production. Production has to come from somewhere else, but there is no interest in that. We need to talk about alternative sources. We need to talk about renewables, efficiency, and conservation of energy, as well as domestic production. We find ourselves with a 60-percent dependence on imported oil, much of which comes from the Middle East, which is unsettled. That is a tough thing. I hope we can get moving on that. Social Security is a hard one. The President has talked a great deal about it. I am sure there will be some things done here. But clearly there has to be something done for the future. It is true that over the next few years things won't change very much. When Social Security was begun, I believe there were 28 people working for every beneficiary. Now it is about three people working for every beneficiary. Obviously the system that we started with is not going to be able to continue to be the kind of system that we need. It is going to be hard. We will have to get together. On the highway bill, nothing is more important to us than having highways. We haven't really done that in terms of the 6 years looking out. It is important because the highway departments in the various States do almost all their work by contracting, and they have difficulty contracting if they don't know what their income is going to be over a period of time. Obviously, we have to continue our fight on terrorism until that job is done, whether it is here or in Iraq, wherever. We will do that, I am sure. However, now we are faced with a deficit, a legitimate deficit. When you have emergencies in your business or in your family, you spend more than you would normally spend. That is what has happened in the last 4 years. It hasn't been normal. We had September 11. We had a turndown in the economy. We had terrorism. We had Iraq. Now it is more important. I am pleased in the last year in our omnibus bill, the increase in discretionary spending was only about 1 percent. That is good. We will have to continue to do that. I had a thick book outlining all the Federal programs we have, a tremendous number of Federal programs. I hope we can take an analysis of those from time to time and see if programs that were started 10 years ago are still as viable as they were at that time. I wish we had programs that ended in a few years so that there would be time to evaluate and see what is getting done. I hope we can work on some of these things and that we can do a little sorting. I hope we don't become part of that group which thinks that Government action is the only answer to problems in the world. I hope we don't think the Congress has to get involved in every issue that is there. Many of them can be better done in the private sector and by local governments. I know you get requests from everyone to do something, but we need to control our activities and control our spending and yet do the things that are there that need to be done. We have a great challenge and a great opportunity. Hopefully, we will be away for a year or so from the real intense politics in this body. The election is over. We might consider that for a year or so and really move ahead on those things that have merit rather than political impact. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. Con. Res. 78 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the concurrent resolution, as amended, be agreed to, the amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to this measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4324, which was received from the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to express our Nation's deepest thanks and gratitude to a special young man and his family. During this past recess, I received word that on November 11, 2004, Veteran's Day, Marine LCpl Kyle Burns of Laramie, WY, died in the line of duty while serving his country in the war on terrorism. Lance Corporal Burns was killed while fighting insurgents in the battle for Fallujah, Iraq, west of Baghdad. It was his second tour of duty in Iraq. Lance Corporal Burns was a member of 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. He joined the Marine Corps after graduating from Laramie High School in 2002. He held a profound sense of duty and knew he was doing the right thing. He was very proud of being a Marine. He loved the outdoors and enjoyed hiking, hunting, and fishing. He was a sports fan, and he played baseball and ran track, but he particularly liked hockey--a sport he played for 12 years. Kyle Burns had a love and lust for life and made every opportunity to live it to the best of his ability. It is because of people such as Kyle Burns 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. Our people put everything on the line everyday, and because of these folks, our Nation remains free and strong in the face of danger. The motto of the Marine Corps is ``Semper Fidelis.'' It means ``Always Faithful.'' Through his selfless and courageous sacrifice, LCpl Kyle Burns lived up to these words with great honor. Lance Corporal Burns is survived by his mother Jo, his father Bob, his brother Kris, and his brothers of the United States Marine Corps. We say goodbye to a son, a brother, a Marine, and an American. Our Nation pays its deepest respect to LCpl Kyle Burns 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. So, one Marine to another, Lance Corporal Burns, Semper Fi. corporal lance m. thompson

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I am a little surprised to hear my friend from North Dakota. This bill has been worked on for a long time here. It passed this Senate with a great amount of support. There are some things here that are very important that we are doing, and all I hear is talk about how bad it is. That is interesting. I think it has a little to do with politics. There are some things on here we ought to be talking about. Please remember why this bill was offered in the first place. We had a benefit that went to manufacturers, a 3-percent reduction if they shipped overseas. What happened is WTO, the World Trade Organization, said, That is not in keeping with our rules, and they started to levy a penalty, each month, that goes up to 17 percent. Something had to be done about that. The Senator didn't bother to mention that. He didn't bother to mention all the good things that are on here. I don't know whether that is politics or whether they are trying to talk a little bit about the facts. That would be a surprise.