Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank my friend from Wyoming for his remarks. He and I attended the funeral of Jonn Edmunds together. It was a moving experience. I submitted my statement earlier in the week. We carried messages from President Bush and Vice President Cheney to the funeral. It was a very moving event.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator for his kind comments and I certainly enjoy working together. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, on another item I want to comment on that I have heard quite a bit about, the House passed last night the airport security bill, and I am glad they finally did. Of course, the big controversial issue was whether or not those personnel that are in airports would be Federal employees or whether they would be civilians overseen by a Federal agency. First of all, often, particularly in the media, there has been the impression that we either have Federal employees or continue to do it the way it is being done. That is not the case. What is being talked about, if it is done without Federal employees, is the Federal Government would have oversight and the authority to authorize these kinds of activities; they would be overseen by a Federal agency, hopefully a law enforcement agency. There would be criteria for employees, there would be tests for employees, there would be measurements to be taken, all enforced by the Federal Government. The idea that would continue to be what it is, unless it is Federal employees, is not true. The other interesting point is there has been a lot of reference, both by the media and also by the Members in the House pushing for Federal employees, to it passing 100-0 in the Senate. It did, indeed, but the reason is there are lots of things in that bill in addition to the matter of what kind of employees we have for airport security. Many Members would have preferred to have seen what the House put in, but we knew we did not have the votes. We wanted to pass the bill because of what it contained. The idea that it passed 100-0 does not mean there are not people in the Senate who would like to see this done in the manner as passed by the House. As we go to a conference, I hope we can do that quickly. That is one of the most important and timely things to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I rise to reflect a little bit on the issues we have before us and the idea that we have some things to do that are priorities. I think most of us would agree to a certain set of priorities, and that we ought to be dealing with those priorities and moving forward with what we have to do. We have known this for quite a long time, as a matter of fact. I am sure the folks on the other side of the aisle will get up and say the Republicans are blocking everything; that is not true. We need to put a priority on what we are seeking to do and get those jobs done. We have three more appropriations, I think, out of the 13 with which to deal. We ought to be doing that and we are working on one now. Conference reports, which will be coming back--handle those. Certainly, I think everyone is committed to the idea of doing an economic stimulus package. I understand there are different points of view, and it is understandable because I don't think anybody knows precisely what it is that will have the most and quickest impact on the economy. Nevertheless, we need to do that; we need to do some things that are short term that have an impact. Most of us understand that. We need to finish up airport security. That has to be done, of course, before we go. Somewhere along the line, of course, bioterrorism is something that needs to be done. We had hoped as part of the stimulus package or related to it we could get a date or do something with energy. If there is anything that impacts the economy, certainly it is an energy policy. An energy policy also, of course, is becoming vital to what we are seeking to do in the Middle East. The idea that here we are in kind of a shutdown, when we are kind of in a press to get things done, and it seems like an opportunity to stick on everything that everybody has ever wanted to do is not a very good way to manage this place. It is not a very good way for us to set the priorities that this country needs, which is our job, and then to get on with doing it. I have to say it gets a little discouraging sometimes for us to be going along with all this to do and somehow we can't seem to get with it. We have not even voted in the last 2 days in a rollcall vote. I know it is a difficult thing to do. I am not critical of anyone particularly. But I think collectively we ought to come to the snubbing post and say we have these things to do and here is what we have to do to them and put aside some things that have been hanging around forever and put them on something that is going in, which is always the impact and effect of coming down to the end. I have to share a certain amount of frustration with what is happening. We are not going to agree on every issue. To not understand that is naive. But we could agree on saying we have to get this job done. Some have to give up this or have to give up that, but we have to do it. I feel very strongly about the energy issue. I have been part of the group that has worked on that for a very long time. I do believe it has, indeed, always been important to have a policy, to do something more about domestic production. But it is even more important now, and clearly so. I can't think of anything, as a matter of fact, that probably has more impact on the economy than the availability and cost of oil and we produce that oil and the cost of production. These are the kinds of things we can do. So I am hopeful that as we work towards adjournment time, which can't be too far off, we will set a list of priorities. We should say: These are the things we need to do. Here are our priorities. Let's do them. Let's get on with it. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS. I ask that I may speak up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, today I rise to speak about a very special soldier from Cheyenne, WY. A U.S. Army Ranger was one of two soldiers killed October 19, when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed in Pakistan. Spc. Jonn J. Edmunds died when the helicopter he was riding in crashed while supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. Jonn Edmunds was a 1999 Cheyenne East High graduate. He was 20 years old. Jonn Edmunds and Pfc. Kristofer T. Stonesifer of Missoula MT, are the first combat deaths of the U.S. led military campaign against terrorists in Afghanistan. The soldiers were members of B Company Third Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, based in Fort Benning, GA. Last Saturday, I attended Spc. Edmunds' funeral and had the opportunity to speak with Jonn Edmunds' father Donn. I told him how sorry we are for his loss. How words are not enough to comfort his family and friends or to express our pride for the job he was asked to do. This unfortunately, is war and this terrible loss will not be the last. That certainly doesn't make it any less difficult for the family when someone like Jonn, young, patriotic, dedicated to his country and service, is killed. I want to again offer my sincere condolences to the family. We don't pretend to understand your loss, but we share in your grief. Wyoming shares your grief and they, like I do, thank you for your son's service. War is hell. It will take the lives of soldiers and innocents alike. I believe, as do all American's, that our cause is just. The cost of doing nothing would be much worse. This effort will not be a short one. It is important that we stay dedicated to the cause of defeating terrorism even in the face of terrible loss.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to support the Senator from New Mexico in his effort. I have been an original sponsor of the bill he has had. In years past, I was chairman of this bill in Wyoming and worked on this for some time. As a good focus on rural health care is unique, this is another unique issue with which we need to deal. I urge support for the amendment. I thank the sponsors for their efforts.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk a minute about part of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill as it pertains to an area of particular concern to me and my State; that is, rural health care. I am cochairman of the Rural Health Care Caucus, along with the Senator from Iowa. I think this issue has been treated very well in this bill. I would like to comment just a bit about it. We have, of course, a special focus on rural health care because it is unique. And because it is a special kind of issue that does not apply everywhere, I think it is necessary for us to deal with it from time to time. We submitted a letter from our caucus. I think there were 43 Members of the Senate listed on the letter asking for some consideration. I think this committee has reacted quite well. There are a number of things of which most people are not aware and which are not talked about very often. Although 20 percent of the population of this country lives in what is called rural areas, only 9 percent of physicians practice in those areas. You can see it is always somewhat difficult to have the kind of medical services in rural areas that are available in other places. Rural areas contain 67 percent of the country's primary health care professional shortage areas. I guess that is not a surprise, but indeed that is the case. It is in need of focus to ensure we have primary care in all of these rural areas. There are 2,187 rural hospitals, a majority of which are primary care hospitals. Specialized care is very limited. Only 12 of 245 long-term care hospitals are in rural areas, and 81 of 601 psychiatric hospitals are in rural areas. None of the country's 73 children's hospitals is in rural areas. As you can see, there is a need, and indeed there has been and continues to be special emphasis on it. For example, national health care services: This is a program that provides primary health care providers in our Nation's most underserved communities. Last year, only 12.5 percent of the communities eligible for provider placement received assistance. That has increased. Adequately? I do not know. Would we like more? Of course. Nevertheless, it has been treated well. There is an increase for community health centers. Community health centers provide services in rural areas for people living in underserved areas. They provide a service that is not always needed but is unique to rural areas. Rural health research: A grant is provided for rural health research as to how to provide more services. We understand the rural areas are not going to have all of those kinds of services in every community. In our State, we look for a medical care network that can be moved around to the places where it is needed. The Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act is in the bill with some new funding; also, State offices of rural health which help provide a network and a system to provide those services in small communities. We had some requests for funding in the Rural Interdisciplinary Training Program. This program addresses the shortage of health care professionals in rural areas. In the bill we also have the Rural Hospital Improvement Program. So, of course, there are other areas in which we would like to have more emphasis, but I wanted to rise to suggest that this area of this bill is a very important one and one that means a great deal. When we think of Wyoming, of course, we think of a rural State. I think there are twice as many people in Fairfax County as there are in Wyoming. But every State has rural areas. New York is one of the most rural States in terms of how many people are concentrated in a particular area. So when we talk about rural States, it is not just a western phenomenon. Rural needs exist in all our States. So I hope we can go forward with this part of the bill. I thank those who put the bill together for their emphasis and interest in providing for rural health care.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, before I yield to my friend from Kentucky, I wanted to say that I think all of us join with the Senator from Nevada in suggesting that we need to move forward. The fact is, we have a reason for not moving. We need a commitment to move more quickly. In spite of all the excuses and all the reasons, we haven't moved quickly. We are very much behind. We have a good many vacancies that need to be filled. I just have to say that there is a way to solve it--by committing ourselves to doing this very quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. It is not allocated between the two sides?

Mr. THOMAS. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, what is the allocation of time between now and 10:30?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. THOMAS. Then at 2 o'clock we would go into morning business for as long as people want to speak?

Mr. THOMAS. I am sorry, I did not understand. What is the proposal in terms of being in session, despite the fact there is just one vote?

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator very much.

Mr. THOMAS. Until 2 o'clock?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his remarks this morning. Certainly we all have very strong feelings and sympathy for what is happening. My office happens to be one of the offices that is closed as well. I have a strong feeling about what is happening as well. Mr. President, we should just go into a quorum call and go to our 10:30 a.m. meeting without further ado.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, one of the items, of course, that is being considered and has, in fact, been considered and passed in the House is the economic stimulus--doing some things now that will encourage and get more activity in our economy. We, of course, through the last couple of years have seen some decline in the economy, and now with the September 11 attacks, we have seen substantial change. We are faced with the challenge to do that which will have an impact--hopefully an immediate impact--on the economy. It has been very difficult to define exactly what is best to do. We have met several times with Chairman Greenspan and Bob Rubin, the former Secretary of the Treasury, to talk about what would have the most impact on the economy in the short term. There are very many ideas out there. Quite frankly, among professional economists there is not unanimity as to what would have the most impact. Certainly, most people agree that it needs to be a large movement. Some think it ought to be $100 billion, which is a huge amount--however, a relatively small amount of the gross national product. It is difficult to know. This Congress has already passed $50 billion or more that has to do with defense and with repair in New York City. I question, of course, whether those expenditures will be made soon enough to have an impact on the economy and whether they, indeed, fit in as part of the economic package. I, frankly, am inclined to think they do. Then we are faced with what should be the additional effort. It is my understanding the House-passed bill was nearly $100 billion in addition to what we spent, which is more than the President has suggested, I believe, which is $50 billion to $75 billion. We have that decision to make and, of course, what will most quickly and efficiently affect the economy. I believe we should have some parameters to decide in general what we want to do and then see how these individual items fit into it. One ought to be those things that we know will have an impact on the economy and do it in the short run. Another is, since we are talking about shortrun remedies, we ought to be picking solutions that are not long term so we will have another opportunity after this economy has gathered some strength to take a look at them and see if they should be in place long term. Obviously, when Members have tax issues and have been looking for a vehicle to put them on, they will be interested in putting them on a stimulus bill. We have to be careful this does not become a Christmas tree. What do we do? There is the question of how much of this stimulus ought to be done in terms of the consumers' ability to purchase. What can we do about moving more money into the hands of consumers so they can do a redistribution of income? On the other hand, how much of this package should be in the form of incentives for business, such as deferred taxes, or reducing the time for appreciation? These are the issues we will have to decide. Many are interested in doing something with the corporate alternative minimum tax put in about 1985 as a reaction to some of the tax reductions that were made prior to that time, which have the effect, of course, of causing certain levels of income tax to have to be paid, regardless of whether there are tax breaks that can be taken advantage of otherwise. So very many people in the business sector believe that could be changed. It would encourage the purchase of new equipment. Some suggest a 5-year carryback of net operating expenses as another way to put money in the hands of business to create jobs and move forward. Accelerated appreciation is another area discussed. The House provision has a 30-percent reduction in the first year--again, to encourage businesses to invest in their equipment and in their inventory. There are issues on foreign trade to make it more competitive for businesses. For individuals, there is talk about making tax reductions we put into place earlier this year more permanent, to not expire at a certain length of time. That has to be discussed. Capital gains reductions are quite often talked about. Some wonder if capital gains reductions will, again, have that short-term impact. Others have suggested the capital gains ought to be limited only to those purchases after September 11 to encourage purchases rather than sales. Any payroll tax deduction will provide an opportunity to put money into the hands of citizens, including those who are not paying income tax. There are recommended vacation tax credits to get people on the move: To fly, to stay in hotels. The industry is suffering a good deal. There are lots of opportunities. I am hopeful as we draw it up in the Finance Committee we have parameters to make sure they comply with our goals and our purpose and our motives. I think we can do that. It ought to be confined to short-term activities so we can review them again in the future. These are some of the things being discussed. They are very important. Now we find ourselves faced with three different challenges: One is the war on terrorism; another is the economy, which has been impacted; and doing the things we do in everyday life and continue to deal with government operations. These are the challenges. I believe we will meet the challenges. We need to move forward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, on the issue we have before us, obviously, we have many things to do. We have met this morning and we have been working on an economic stimulus package, which is very necessary and important. We also need to do the ordinary work that is always before the Congress--the appropriations. I continue to hear all the time from the other side of the aisle that we just can't do all these things; we have too much and we can't do these things at the same time. It doesn't mean you have to give up working on the floor on issues such as appropriations. You can go ahead in a committee and do some things with the judiciary and get some of those things out here. In my State, we happen to have four appointees, all of whom were nominated prior to the August recess. None of them has even had hearings. That is a problem with the committee, not a problem on the floor. It is a problem with moving forward. As we move into this matter of internal terrorism, and so on, the U.S. attorneys are going to be very important, as are U.S. marshals. Do we have them? No. There is no reason we don't have to do one or the other. We can do both of them. Frankly, the constant talk that we hear that we didn't do as many when you were in the majority is immaterial, whether that is right or wrong. The fact is, here is where we are, and we have 50-some judges waiting to be approved, with very few in. In the Tenth Circuit, we have 4 vacancies out of 12. There is no movement to do anything about that. So I guess what I am saying is I feel badly about it as well. I would like to be moving forward, but they are not happening. We don't get any assurance from the chairman of the committee that he is going to do anything any differently. All they do is talk about what they did in the past. That is immaterial. What we ought to talk about is what we are faced with now and the fact that we need to do something about that. Energy is something that is very important, of course. We have asked for a commitment to do something on energy. We have been working at it. I am on the Energy Committee. We have worked at it for a couple of years, getting things together, trying to get something on the floor. It is very important in terms of the United States and its economy. It has been very important in terms of us getting an energy policy out there. I know the Senator from Nevada agrees with that. Now it is even more important when we get to where we have nearly 60 percent of our oil imported, much of it from the Middle East. We find ourselves with real difficulties in the Middle East, and it is even more important that we get it in there and have an energy policy. All we have asked for is a commitment to do that, to move forward. That is the reason things are not moving. We get no commitment as to changing the things that are not being done. I think that is where we are. It is too bad we are in a kind of controversy about it. I think getting a commitment from the leadership that we are going to be able to accomplish some of these pending things is very important. Saying the priority is doing something for Pakistan instead of a judge, that is really not a choice. We can do both of those things. We can do both of those things, and we can move forward. I wonder how many hearings there have been this week on judges. More important, what has been brought to the floor? I believe we can find a remedy, and I know there are meetings going on to secure that remedy. I certainly hope we can continue to find that remedy and get ourselves into a position to move forward not only with the pending legislation, but also do these things that are very important to the operation of Government. Of course, now we find ourselves with more and more difficulties in terms of internal terrorism and the anthrax issue that is coming up. But I can tell you it is the belief among the Members of Congress that we are going to take every method of making sure we are safe and that our staffs are safe. On the other hand, we can do those things that are necessary and we can go forward with the job we have to do. I suspect we are here to complete our task. I have suggested in the past that maybe we can set some priorities and have our priorities established, move forward with them and deal with those things that are not being done and say, yes, we are going to do it at a certain time. That is really the request. It is not going to take long to do some of these things. We need commitments and priorities and to be prepared to move forward. But as long as the issues that some of the Members are very anxious about are not dealt with, obviously there are going to be some efforts to make sure they are. That is not a unique situation, by the way. That has happened throughout the years, and it is part of the process here, unfortunately. But it is part of the process. I mentioned yesterday the very process we are going through now was gone through last year, and all the evidence is in the Congressional Record. The very issues we objected to now were done then. So I think we can find a solution. I look forward to seeing that solution so that we can commit ourselves to do the things that need to be done, to move forward with the other bills. We can do more than one thing at a time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, what is our status?