Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from California in offering this legislation to award the 14th Dalai Lama with the prestigious Congressional Gold Medal. Mr. President, the Dalai Lama has been one of the leading voices in advocating for peace, tolerance, human rights, nonviolence, and compassion throughout the globe. He has worked tirelessly for nearly 50 years to increase understanding between the Tibetan and Chinese people. In these difficult times, I believe it is necessary to recognize those who fight to bring people together. There are few international figures more deserving of receiving this award. In 1959, the Dalai Lama fled his Tibetan homeland for neighboring India, where he established a government in exile. Under his ``Middle Way'' approach, he has worked arduously for the past two decades to find a reasonable and peaceful solution for providing cultural and religious autonomy for Tibetans within the People's Republic of China. He has also been a steadfast and vigorous advocate for peace and human rights for all people across the globe. In 1989, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. In their recommendation, the Nobel Committee noted that in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet, the Dalai Lama has consistently opposed the use of violence, and has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect. The Dalai Lama's worldwide contributions to peace, religious understanding, and the advancement of human rights are innumerable. He has made it his life's work to promote harmony and respect among the different religious faiths of the world. In his own words: ``I always believe that it is much better to have a variety of religions, a variety of philosophies, rather than one single religion or philosophy. This is necessary because of the different mental dispositions of each human being. Each religion has certain unique ideas or techniques, and learning about them can only enrich one's faith.'' By definition, a Congressional Gold Medal is reserved for the most heroic, courageous, and outstanding those who we wish to emulate in our own lives. The Dalai Lama is such an individual, and I urge all of my colleagues to join Senator Feinstein and myself in honoring him with this distinctive award.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have been watching the interesting debate for some time. Of course, it is interesting and there is a great deal involved. Fortunately, we are having a debate. However, it seems to me that much of it has been very complicated. Some have had charts and details. It occurs to me that basically it is a broader issue than that, one that frankly divides the two sides of the aisle. We have had deficits that are larger than they ought to be. They were brought about by events such as September 11 and Katrina and those kinds of things. Just like in your family and your business, you have to go back and do something about it. However, this is one of those decisions that defines the direction we want to take in this country. Choices are before us all the time. From time to time, we have hard decisions to make that are quite broad. I think those of us on this side of the aisle are interested in trying to have a strong economy, one that provides jobs and growth in the economy, and we are doing that. That is a good thing. I think at the same time we are looking for a Government that is smaller and less expensive and that spends less. To do that, of course, we want to have less taxes so the money can be invested in the economy and jobs can be created. That is precisely what we are seeking to do. The other point of view--I understand it, but I don't agree with it-- is that we need to basically spend more and, therefore, you need more taxes. You would have more Government involved in more and more things. You get down to a broad decision, and that is where we are. I know every detail is a little different; on this issue it is here and that issue it is there, but you have to kind of put them together in the overall picture and see where we are going. I guess I have tried to kind of avoid some of the details but to look at what I think the broad directions are in the votes we are having today. Do you want less Government, with more emphasis on the private sector, more emphasis on job development, more emphasis on less taxes, and more involvement with the growth of the economy or do you want more Government, with more spending and more taxes? That is the issue. I think it is fairly simple. I know there are a lot of details and arguments and I know people have different ideas about it. But the fact is that the other side of the aisle has been for more taxes and spending. We have tried to reduce taxes on this side and, hopefully, we will be able to reduce the size of Government and do something about the deficits, not by more taxes but by less spending. That is our decision. I think it is fairly simple. I certainly encourage our effort. This is not to reduce taxes; it is continuing reductions that we have had in place that have supplemented and strengthened the economy. It is pretty clear. The deficit talk that we have heard and seen on the charts--that has gone on for several years. Yes, we need to do something about that and reduce spending. I am for that. I am encouraged that we can hold down taxes rather than letting them go back up again, so that we have more jobs, a better economy, and we can operate in that fashion. I hope that we are able to continue this reduction. 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 think each of us enjoy walking on a trail, learning a little more about our Nation's history, or perhaps paddling a canoe on a lake, river, or stream. Often we take part in these activities in our national parks. This week, April 22 to April 30, is National Park Week, a time when we can recognize all of the 390 units of the National Park System. There will be special events going on at parks throughout the system, and I encourage everyone to seek them out and take part in them. As I have mentioned before, I have a special attachment to Yellowstone National Park, the world's first national park, located in Wyoming, my home State. But Yellowstone, Grand Teton National Park, the other National Park System units in Wyoming, and those across the Nation, extending from Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands to Guam and American Samoa, all remind us of ourselves, where we have been, and perhaps where we will go in the future. They have been called by others the best idea we ever had. America's national parks provide people of all ages with a wide range of opportunities to learn more about our country's natural environment and cultural heritage. The National Park Service provides a variety of programs and activities for children, teachers, and communities designed to foster an interest in the natural environment and history and to cultivate a future generation of park stewards. The theme for National Park Week 2006 is ``Connecting Our Children to America's National Parks.'' This theme was chosen because of the vital role children play in the future conservation and preservation of our national parks. Through the creation of innovative education programs such as the Junior Ranger Program, the National Park Service is fostering a new constituency of park stewards. Today the Junior Ranger Program exists in more than 286 parks, striving to help connect youth to national parks and the National Park System and helping them gain an understanding of the important role of the environment in our lives. The Junior Ranger Program encourages whole families to get involved in learning about, exploring and protecting our Nation's most important scenic, historical, and cultural places. Children have great enthusiasm for the Junior Ranger Program because it helps connect them to something big our country and our shared heritage as Americans. Additionally, online through WebRangers, kids can ``virtually'' visit the parks at their own pace in their spare time and when they are not in the parks. In fact, one of the events that will take place this year during National Park Week is a virtual, shared visit to Carlsbad Caverns National Park, which could involve more than 28 million students. Of course, our visits to parks are enhanced through the interaction we receive from the people who work in them. During this week, we should also thank the thousands of National Park Service personnel, concession and contract employees, volunteers of all ages, and others who help to make our system of national parks the envy of and example for the rest of the world. As the chair of the National Parks Subcommittee, I will continue to see that our system of parks retains its high standards. I would encourage each of you to spend some time in a national park unit, this week and throughout the year.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I bring forward an amendment this afternoon to talk about my concern with the process we are going through. We started out with a request for $92.2 billion in emergency spending--$20 billion for hurricane recovery, $72 billion for the war on terror. Then we added $14 billion of additional nonemergency spending. Our constituents simply can't run their households or businesses like this, and I think we should not be running our business here, for the country, in that way either. The money we spend here does not come out of thin air. Of course, it comes out of the pockets of hard-working Americans. We should not take the emergency spending process lightly. By definition, these are dollars we have not budgeted, and they should be reserved only for the urgent and dire need for which they were intended. There are some examples, very briefly, of nonemergency items. There are a number of them. Regardless of their merit, and they probably have merit, the question is, Do they belong in this bill? Why are we using this bill to provide $230 million for an Osprey program which is not involved in either Iraq or Afghanistan? We also just enacted a $286 billion highway bill less than a year ago. Yet this bill will add an additional $594 million in additional highway spending that really has nothing to do with any emergency. Why is there an emergency to spend $700 million to move a railroad that, while damaged by Katrina, has already been repaired? It may be a useful thing. Is it an emergency? I think not. Finally, this is not the right vehicle for spending almost $4 million in farm subsidies or increasing the funding for community development block grants. Again, these may be legitimate priorities. Perhaps they are. But in my view, this is not the right vehicle, nor the right process. Therefore, I have offered this amendment which will pull out all the extraneous spending and get us back to the President's request for emergency funds. I understand the way my amendment is drafted it merely strikes the whole bill and replaces it with the original amount in the President's request and this would vitiate any amendments adopted in the interim. I have also modified my amendment to account for Senator Gregg's security amendment and the President's revised request with respect to avian flu funding. It seems to me this is something we ought to consider. Obviously, we have a lot of things to do. But overall, we have a responsibility, a financial responsibility to follow the rules, to go through the processes that are appropriate to do something about holding down spending, not put these items in the budget if they are not emergencies, and we ought not to be using these kinds of vehicles to spend more money when we are in the process of trying to do away with the deficit we have. These issues are out there, and they are out there all the time. We have all just been home for a couple of weeks. What do we hear about a lot? We have to do something about spending. We have to do something about the deficit. We do. Still, here we are expanding a request--one, frankly, that the President has threatened to veto. I encourage him to continue to take that position. We ought to deal with those things that are out here that fit this definition of emergency. I have introduced this amendment, and I hope we give it some consideration at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3615, which is at the desk.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to offer an amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will comment generally on the issue before the Senate, the issue of supplemental emergency spending. Obviously, these last number of years we have had some emergency activities. Whether they be the war on terror or Katrina, they are unusual expenditures. From time to time, everyone experiences that, whether in your personal life or in business. After unusual expenditures, we have to make some effort to make up for that special spending so we can get back within our budget, we can get back to holding down the deficit to do something about the financial situation caused by the unusual expenditures. That is tough. Nevertheless, it seems to me that is a principle which is very important. I will react a little bit to what seems to be the case in the Senate. We are talking about emergency spending. The bill we are debating today is expected to be about emergency spending. It is important we give a little thought to what that means and not be inclined to use this opportunity to make expenditures that would be very hard to entitle ``emergency spending.'' By definition, emergency spending is a supplement that breaks the caps and authorizes spending we did not account for or do not account for in the budget. Some expenditures are hard to justify. We have the ``emergency'' regarding the war on terror; however, we have been in this for 4 years. We have known about it for some time. It did not happen instantly. Hurricane recovery ended almost 5 months ago. It is a little of a stretch to say these are emergencies we did not know about. We did know about them, and we passed our budget resolution without including them. In that sense, there was no reason to exclude them from the regular budget process. I understand that--hopefully--these are temporary expenditures. I will concede that a supplemental measure may be a more appropriate way to add the funds to the baseline budget. That said, the bill that resulted from emergency requests is then used to go beyond that scope, in some instances. Instead of narrowly controlling spending, this has become an overall opportunity for projects that have very little, if anything, to do with hurricane recovery or the war on terror but instead is used for a number of other items. Mr. President, $92.4 billion in additional spending was requested. We are now considering a bill of $106 billion. That is a substantial increase. That is a substantial excess of what could be termed ``emergency spending.'' We ought to give it some consideration. The original request was far from pocket change, of course. It was a very large request in the beginning. Yet we apparently felt compelled to add significant new spending regardless of the size of that. Almost all spending can have an argument made for it. There is an endless need. We have to follow a procedure that puts some limits on what we do. I don't think there is any Member who does not believe that spending has gotten a bit out of control. If we look at the percentage of spending in our budgets over the last several years, it has gone up. There are many factors, including the consideration of the role of the Federal Government with respect to the State government and local government. Do we just continue to spend as if there is no end? I think not. Certainly, when we take a look at the deficit we have created, it has to be resolved. As I said, I am sure everything included involves a need of some kind. However, we have to set priorities. It seems to me we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to try to reconcile these unusual expenses we have had over the last several years and deal with those expenses so we get back to where we are with the budget, get back to where we are with a programmed movement toward reducing the deficit. I cannot think of anything that is more important than to be fiscally responsible for what we are doing. There is no end to requests for spending. I understand there are needs out there. However, I have come to the point where we have to take a look at where we are, what we are doing, what our constraints are, what they should be, and begin to exercise a little more constraint and responsibility. I am very uncomfortable moving entirely over to emergency spending on these big items and then coming up with the request for emergency spending and adding another $15 billion, or whatever the amount is, on top of that and putting it out there to deal with. I hope we do have discussions on these items. Quite frankly, I hope we can return to where we were so we can at least hold it to that amount requested for what is called emergency spending. If needed, we may have to offset something. I may offer an amendment that strikes altogether the spending earmarks that exceed the President's request. We ought to talk about that in terms not only of each individual expenditure, which we always do, but talk about it in terms of the policy, in terms of the overall direction we are taking and how we are going to resolve this issue of increasing spending and deficits. It is time to come to the hitching post and take a look at how we are going to do that. I look forward to the debate that will take place. 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 have come to the floor to talk about an amendment that I filed, that I hope soon we might be able to consider, on this important bill with respect to immigration and with respect to Federal land border security, which are integrated. First, let me say that I am hopeful we can move forward with this bill. It is a very important bill. Obviously, all of us agree with the fact that there are problems that need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved soon so they don't continue to become more difficult. We also recognize that there are aspects of this bill that are controversial and difficult. I am not certain where we are in the process, but I am hopeful the discussions we have had will continue to be useful and that we can come to, whether this week or later, completion of this issue. As far as I can tell, everyone has agreed we need to do something about the border, that the border needs to be secure, whatever it takes to do that. Some of us don't think it takes 700 miles of fence, but it will probably take some fence and take some other new technologies, as well as dollars and people, to have a secure border. I don't think there is any question but that that needs to be done and needs to be done soon so that the problem that exists because of having a porous border doesn't continue to exist in the future. There is general agreement that over time, as immigrants come here for jobs, employers will need to report as to the citizenship status of the people they employ. There needs to be a system to do that so it can be part of the way of enforcing lawful immigration into this country. Further, I think most people don't disagree with the idea of immigration. The question, at least in my view, is illegal immigration. I am opposed to illegal immigration, and I think we have to do something to see that it doesn't continue to happen. The challenge is: How do we handle those folks who are here, whether it is 12 million or whatever the number is? I think that is where we are in the controversy, and I understand that. Personally, I don't think anyone should be given amnesty, nor should they be given any particular advantages for citizenship if they came here illegally, and we need to find a way to deal with it. On the other hand, I am very much in favor of having legal workers come here and fill the jobs that are necessary. But they ought to have legal work permits, and they should have to go back if it is a work permit, and if they are citizens, they need to go through a citizen entry system. The other part of the debate and what I came to talk about is the aspect of our borders and security. That is one of the reasons--not only for immigration, but for security--we need to secure our borders. Many of our national treasures and resources are on the front line of border security. Thirty-nine percent of the southern border of the United States is under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. Arizona's Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and other federally owned resources have become a hotspot for illegal border crossings. I visited Oregon Pipe last year. I am the chairman of the Parks Subcommittee. Frankly, they are using almost all of their resources not to take care of the park, not to do the things park people normally do, but to protect against illegal immigration movement across the border that is the park boundary border on the national park border. Over the last 2 years, park rangers have arrested 385 felony smugglers, seized 40,000 pounds of marijuana, and interdicted 3,800 illegal immigrants. These are national park rangers. So it has become a very important part of border security. Border security activities play, as you might imagine, a very significant role in park operation funding and in park operation staff. Customs and border protection agents are not always available to patrol the Federal lands along the border. As you can see here, there are a number of things that are there. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, for instance, right here, is a very large aspect of the Arizona border. Here is the Organ Pipe park we mentioned. The Bureau of Reclamation has a number of these yellow spots along here. We don't have Texas and New Mexico on the map, but there are also a great many more Federal lands that are there. We have to make sure these agencies are given the assistance they need to provide the border security that is necessary, to provide for park researchers and others who are there doing their work or to pursue smugglers crossing the border. We never think about that particularly. All of a sudden there are cars parked there and people who have driven across, left the cars and walked on through, and so on. It is quite a problem. I understand that the Park Service law enforcement will inevitably play a role in border security, but we need to keep their jobs focused on protecting the park and not having to spend all their time on international borders--which is the responsibility of the Border Patrol--and other activities, or at least provide additional funding. This amendment will ultimately do two things: Protect our borders and protect our national treasures. We direct the Director of Homeland Security to increase Customs and border protection personnel to secure Federal lands and Federal parks along the border, which is I think a reasonable thing to do. It requires Federal land resources training for Customs and Border Patrol agents who will be dedicated to Federal land border security to minimize the impact on the natural resources. After all, that is why we have Federal lands. That is why we have parks, to make sure the resources are protected. Quite frankly, if you have illegals crossing, they have no interest in protecting those resources. It provides unmanned aerial vehicles, aerial assets, and remote video surveillance camera systems and sensors. Those are the things we need as opposed to big walls. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an inventory of the costs incurred by the National Park Service relating to the border security activities and submit those recommendations to Congress. I realize this is only one rather small element of this whole issue we are talking about but, nevertheless, it is a unique issue, it is an important issue, and as we move through dealing with border security and dealing with Federal land borders and protecting these things, I hope we keep in mind this unusual but important exposure we have to our Federal lands. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes with respect to the amendment that has already been filed.

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

Mr. THOMAS. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a taxpayer privacy bill. Much attention has been focused recently on IRS-proposed changes to regulations regarding taxpayer privacy. Interestingly, these proposed changes have been widely--and incorrectly--reported as changing the law to allow tax preparers to sell taxpayer information to third parties for marketing purposes. In fact, an IRS regulation put into place more than 30 years ago already allows confidential taxpayer information to be shared in this manner, as long as the taxpayer consents. The public uproar that has surrounded the proposed changes to this regulation makes it clear that taxpayers are not aware of this fact and expect that their return information will be kept confidential. Confidentiality of taxpayer information is a key underpinning of our voluntary tax system, encouraging taxpayers to provide complete and honest returns. The complexity of the tax code has resulted in 60 percent of all returns being completed by paid preparers. The process is a very intimidating one for most. Given the stress and vulnerability of taxpayers during the process, and the high dollar value of confidential taxpayer information, I am concerned that financially-motivated tax preparers may present the taxpayer with a stack of papers for the taxpayer to sign, including, unbeknownst to the taxpayer, a consent form to share the information with third parties. The taxpayer could easily be under the impression that all of the papers are required to be signed in order to have the return prepared, completely undermining the requirement of signed, informed consent. In an era of lightning-fast electronic communication--in which information can travel around the world and back in a matter of seconds--and the proliferation of identity theft, it seems to me that we ought to bring the law in line with taxpayer expectations. When this regulation was promulgated back in 1974, our citizens weren't anywhere nearly as vulnerable to this crime as they are today. We have made changes with regard to credit reports and individuals' access to them, we have removed Social Security numbers from drivers' licenses and medical ID cards, and we need to similarly remove the threat of taxpayer information being shared in ways that are not condoned by the individual taxpayer. This bill would do just that by prohibiting tax preparers from both soliciting consent and sharing tax return information with third parties. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a taxpayer privacy bill. Much attention has been focused recently on IRS-proposed changes to regulations regarding taxpayer privacy. Interestingly, these proposed changes have been widely--and incorrectly--reported as changing the law to allow tax preparers to sell taxpayer information to third parties for marketing purposes. In fact, an IRS regulation put into place more than 30 years ago already allows confidential taxpayer information to be shared in this manner, as long as the taxpayer consents. The public uproar that has surrounded the proposed changes to this regulation makes it clear that taxpayers are not aware of this fact and expect that their return information will be kept confidential. Confidentiality of taxpayer information is a key underpinning of our voluntary tax system, encouraging taxpayers to provide complete and honest returns. The complexity of the tax code has resulted in 60 percent of all returns being completed by paid preparers. The process is a very intimidating one for most. Given the stress and vulnerability of taxpayers during the process, and the high dollar value of confidential taxpayer information, I am concerned that financially-motivated tax preparers may present the taxpayer with a stack of papers for the taxpayer to sign, including, unbeknownst to the taxpayer, a consent form to share the information with third parties. The taxpayer could easily be under the impression that all of the papers are required to be signed in order to have the return prepared, completely undermining the requirement of signed, informed consent. In an era of lightning-fast electronic communication--in which information can travel around the world and back in a matter of seconds--and the proliferation of identity theft, it seems to me that we ought to bring the law in line with taxpayer expectations. When this regulation was promulgated back in 1974, our citizens weren't anywhere nearly as vulnerable to this crime as they are today. We have made changes with regard to credit reports and individuals' access to them, we have removed Social Security numbers from drivers' licenses and medical ID cards, and we need to similarly remove the threat of taxpayer information being shared in ways that are not condoned by the individual taxpayer. This bill would do just that by prohibiting tax preparers from both soliciting consent and sharing tax return information with third parties. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 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, April 6, 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. 1510, a bill to designate as wilderness certain lands within the Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado; S. 1719 and H.R. 1492, bills to provide for the preservation of the historic confinement sites where Japanese Americans were detained during World War II, and for other purposes; S. 1957, a bill to authorize the Secretary of Interior to convey to The Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trail and Visitor Center Foundation, Inc. certain Federal land associated with the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail in Nebraska, to be used as an historical interpretive site along the trail; S. 2034 and H.R. 394, bills to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to evaluate the significance of the Colonel James Barnett Farm in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and assess the suitability and feasibility of including the farm in the National Park System as part of the Minute Man National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 2252, a bill to designate the National Museum of Wildlife Art, located at 2820 Rungius Road, Jackson, Wyoming, as the National Museum of Wildlife Art of the United States; and S. 2403, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to include in the boundaries of the Grand Teton National Park land and interests in land of the Grand Teton Park Subdivision, 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, David Szymanski, or Sara Zecher.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as many of you know, I am co-chair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus and have worked on rural hospital and provider equity issues for a long time. Of course, the Senate does not always agree on every issue especially when it comes to health care. Over the years, however, the Rural Health Caucus has proved to be a bipartisan forum for Members on both sides of the aisle to come together and work on real solutions to help rural Americans have access to the same affordable, quality health care services as folks living in urban areas. There are now over 80 members of the Rural Health Caucus, and together we remain committed to making sure the unique health care needs of rural and frontier areas are met. We all shared the success of passing landmark rural Medicare equity provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. This legislation included the most comprehensive attempt to put rural providers on a level playing field with their urban counterparts. Clearly, this was a significant victory, but there is much more still to do. As most of you know, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget eliminated or severely reduced several effective and efficient rural health programs. Now, I have long believed that we need to hold Federal agencies and programs accountable for the taxpayer dollars they spend. I also believe the Federal Government cannot be all things to all people. Congress must take the necessary, and often difficult, steps to ensure we put this country on a solid path toward reducing the deficit. Of course, we all have different ideas on how to achieve that goal. I agree with Chairman Gregg that we can start by slowing--and in some cases--eliminating wasteful spending. The budget before us focuses, primarily, on cutting spending and encouraging growth. If programs are not meeting their intended purpose, or are not performing well, then it is fair to look at eliminating the program. Many of the programs Congress funds are duplicative in nature. We have a responsibility to identify reasonable ways to root out waste, streamline program creating and spending, and manage our limited resources so that we can serve folks better. While it is important to identify and eliminate wasteful and inefficient programs, I also believe that we must support government policies that work. Rural health care programs operate on a shoestring budget. Current spending for all rural health discretionary programs is relatively small, but it plays a critical role in solidifying the fragile health care infrastructure common in rural communities. There are several important rural health programs such as: rural hospital flexibility grants, rural outreach program, trauma care, small hospital improvement program, health professions training, and rural access to emergency devices which all play a key role in delivering services to our medically underserved rural areas. The importance of these programs should not be undervalued. They meet our unique rural health needs by improving emergency medical service networks, developing chronic disease management programs, implementing quality improvement initiatives, and helping small rural hospitals unable to keep their doors open convert to Critical Access Hospital, CAH, status. In Wyoming, rural health programs have made a real difference in the quality, access, and affordability of care available in our frontier communities. That is why I am extremely pleased to see the budget before us today assumes a $235 million increase for the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, over the President's request. Chairman Gregg's mark clearly states this $235 million increase is primarily intended to support rural health programs. I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Gregg for his hard work and support of this important issue. These increases will go a long way toward helping rural hospitals and providers deliver essential health care services to many remote and medically underserved areas. I also want to especially thank my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, for consistently partnering with me to ensure fair and equitable rural health treatment in the budget process. I now look forward to working with all members of the Senate Rural Health Caucus as we fight to ensure adequate funding for rural health programs during the fiscal year 2007 appropriations process.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will express some anxiety about the fact we are not moving forward with legislation we need to be considering. Interestingly enough, I came from a briefing upstairs by the Secretary of Defense and the general from Central Command. It reminds Members of the things out there that we need to deal with. Members go home to their States and people talk about issues that are of interest to them--whether it is the economy, energy, budgets--and yet we find ourselves going day after day without being able to move forward to the topics that are of prime importance. Certainly, we should have the opportunity to talk about whatever people want to talk about. We should have the opportunity to discuss and debate issues, to come to conclusions on issues, but we need to come to a conclusion. It is embarrassing to see what has happened today. We had an opportunity to move toward to resolve one of the issues we had before the Senate, the lobbying issue, which needs to be resolved. I don't happen to think it is the biggest issue in the world, but we were in the process of finding ways to get to it in a bipartisan effort that collapsed because of one effort to derail what we are doing. I think we need to take a long look at ourselves. It would be good if we had a little time to lay out on a list those issues that are most important, the top-quality issues, and then really focus on those issues. I think to bring up something here that is totally unrelated to the lobbying reform issue, which simply caused us to be stalled on an issue that is being resolved--whether it is the 45-day period, whether it is the agreement that has come forth since--there was no real reason to bring this up on the floor at this time except to obstruct moving forward. I guess I am becoming sort of upset with the fact that we are not able to move forward. I think some of these things are pretty partisan issues, simply wanting to get this group out because there is something going on in the House to resolve that hard issue, and they do not want to be left behind. It is political. I am sorry, but that really is not what it is about to be on the Senate floor. So I will not take any more time, except, I guess, to express my frustration when we do have important issues to deal with. There are a lot of issues out there that are so important. We are talking about energy and how we get some issues resolved so we can deal, in the long term, with energy, which is a big issue for us not only because it is energy but because it affects everyone every day. It affects jobs. It affects the economy. I think one of the issues we need to be doing and continuously working on is health care so it is available for everyone and is affordable. We can make some changes there, there is no question. We need to make sure we are doing all we can in taking a long look at what is happening in the Middle East, and that we can get our job completed in Iraq, and make sure we do not end up being singularly involved with Iran. Those are some of the issues. I am, of course, very impressed with the way this system works and very impressed with the way this Senate works, but I do find sometimes that I think we get it all jammed up for reasons that are not really part of what we are here designated to do. So I just wanted to share my frustration with that and hope we can work with the leaders on both sides of the aisle to find some ways for us to address those issues that are before us for the American people, to do the job we are assigned to do and have the responsibility to do, and to move forward. It is frustrating to be here but once a day, for example, when there are lots of issues out there. Let's decide them, let's vote on them, let's get on with it, instead of--look at this place, empty, empty most of the day because we have an obstruction in the system. So, Mr. President, I hope we can find some ways to remedy the situation. And I certainly would like to be a part of finding those remedies. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, 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. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 14th, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to review the President's proposed budget for the National Park Service fiscal year 2007. 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, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie, David Szymanski, or Sara Zecher.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I know we will not be in very long today. As a matter of fact, I am going to Wyoming in a little bit. There are some things I have wanted to talk about for some time, and since we have some time this morning, I thought I might take a few minutes to talk a bit about energy. We, of course, have been on a number of other things, and unfortunately taking a long time to do them. But I hope we get back to those things that are really vital to us in terms of the economy, in terms of jobs, in terms of health care, and terrorism. But one of the most important questions, of course, that we face is the question of energy. Sometimes I think we forget how vital and what such a part of our lives energy is. All we have to do is look around and turn the lights off or turn the heat off for a little while and we recognize how important it is. We have talked about it a great deal. As a matter of fact, last year one of the most important and vital things that we did was to put together a policy on energy. I think it was a very good policy. It is a policy that is in effect. The fact is, however, it is a policy, as it should be, but then we should be faced with and take on the responsibility of implementing that policy. It is one thing to have a policy, and it is very important to have one, but then you have to put something in place to cause the policy to be in action. I think that is where we are now. Being part of the committee, I may be a little prejudiced. I think the policy was a good one and looked forward to the future and took into account things such as conservation and efficient use. That is a very important part. One of the things we really have to stress is how we can get more mileage out of the energy we have. We also looked--again importantly-- at the idea of alternative sources of energy. Over time, we can look at wind energy, we can look at ethanol, we can look at Sun energy--all kinds of things out there. And we should. The fact is, most of those--even though I think they have great potential and will be a real part of our lives in the future--are out there waiting. The other thing we talked about, however, in the policy is to make better use of those things that are already available to us. That is really what I want to talk about for a couple of minutes this morning; that, specifically, is coal. Coal is our largest fossil fuel resource. As a matter of fact, we have the largest supply of coal in the world that we can depend on in the future. About 27 percent of future coal is in the United States. We use a great deal of it right now generating electricity by and large, but the fact is, even though we are using train loads to run a generator for 1 day, we still have the resources to do this for a good long time in the future. However, there are some things pending we can be doing in the fairly short term that will have a real impact. If we wait for these alternatives, we are going to have some real pressing times between the time they are ready to go and what we are doing now. I am hopeful and involved in the budget right now. I, frankly, wish there was a little more attention--I think there should be--in the budget not only to look at research over time but to do some things to incentivize the development of those things that will have an impact in the next 4, 6, or 8 years. That is very important because energy is that nearly on the edge. One of them, of course, is the various alternative uses of coal. We kind of know what to do. In fact, there are some plants now that are using coal and converting it and processing gas, which takes out CO2, which takes out the climate-warming kinds of things and yet produces coal. Of course, as we produce more generation we have to look at other ways. Coal has been the only kind of fuel that has been used over the last 20 years. About 50 percent of our generation is done by coal, and more recent plants have been gas. In our policy, we are better off using coal for generation and let gas be used for things which are more flexible. For instance, my State of Wyoming is the largest producer of coal. We have some of the biggest resources for coal in the future. These are open-pit mines, which are very efficient and very effective. We are very anxious to try to bring to this country and put into use fairly soon some of the procedures that can be used. As I said, you can make diesel fuel out of coal, which is very important. We have plants in Wyoming that are ready to do that, if we can get started. We can make gas out of coal. We can make hydrogen out of coal. These things, of course, take incentives and take some money. I hope in this budget, in addition to looking out in the future in terms of research, we also look at how we implement in the shorter term the things we already know how to do--how we use our greater resources, use them in a more efficient way, and in a way which is environmentally sound so we can put ourselves in the position of being less dependent on foreign oil and foreign imports. I want to talk some more about it as time goes by, but I guess the point I wanted to make and leave and see if we can't talk about is, we have a policy. We have a policy that deals with some fairly short-term changes. We need to be putting some emphasis on those as we look at our budget needs, look at things which can have an impact in the short term. We have to look at where these resources are so we can make our development around where the resources are and look forward to providing energy in this country on an economically sound basis, reasonably effectively, and available to everyone. We can do that. I hope we pursue our policies and implement them. I will continue over time to focus on these things. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and memory of Curtis Edward Gowdy. Sadly, Curt passed away on February 20, at the age of 86. Curt was born on July 31, 1919, in Green River, WY. Curt's passion for sports began early in life. He grew up in Laramie, WY, hunting and fishing in some of America's most beautiful country. When Curt began playing basketball in high school, he became Wyoming's leading high school scorer, standing only 5 feet 9 inches tall. After high school graduation, Curt enrolled at the University of Wyoming, where he played as a forward on the Cowboy basketball team, earning three varsity letters. He also lettered three times in tennis before graduating from the University in 1942 with a degree in business statistics. With college behind him, Curt joined the Army Air Forces to serve his country as a fighter pilot in World War II. However, a ruptured disk from an earlier sports injury disqualified him from service, and he was medically discharged. While recuperating from a spinal operation in Cheyenne, a radio station asked him to announce for the eastern Wyoming high school football championship game in November of 1943. And so began the career of one of the greatest play-by-play sports announcers our country has ever known. Soon after covering the Wyoming high school football championship, Curt was hired by a CBS radio affiliate in Oklahoma City to call University of Oklahoma football games. In 1949, he joined Mel Allen to broadcast New York Yankee games, and 2 years later, he became the No. 1 broadcaster for the Boston Red Sox. He remained the radio voice of the Red Sox for 15 years. As Dick Vitale stated, ``Gowdy had a love affair with the microphone and his fans had a love affair with him.'' During this time, Curt also began television broadcasting, covering college and American Football League games in addition to baseball. When NBC picked up the AFL games in 1966, Curt Gowdy became the leading personality of NBC Sports. He covered World Series, Super Bowls, NCAA final four championships, Olympic Games and somehow found time for his ``Game of the Week'' broadcast. Curt also remained the host and producer of ABC's ``The American Sportsman'' for nearly 20 years. In later years, Curt was the host and producer of the public television series, ``The Way It Was,'' reminiscing of great games with a panel of players who had participated in them. Gowdy also provided historic commentary for the HBO Sports program ``Inside the NFL.'' In 2003, Gowdy returned to Fenway Park to call a Red Sox game against the Yankees as part of an ESPN promotion that brought back great broadcasters. He also coauthored two books, ``Cowboy at the Mike'' and ``Seasons to Remember: The Way It Was in American Sports.'' For his outstanding work, Curt was recognized in many ways. In 1970, he was the first sportscaster to be awarded the Peabody Award for Outstanding Journalistic Achievement. He was named the National Sportscaster of the Year seven times, and he received several Emmy awards for his work in television, including a lifetime achievement Emmy in 1992. Curt was also inducted into numerous sports halls of fame. These include the broadcast wing of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the Sports Writers and Broadcasters Hall of Fame, the Oklahoma Sports Hall of Fame, the American Sportscasters Hall of Fame, the International Fishing Hall of Fame, the Rose Bowl Hall of Fame, the Boston Red Sox Hall of Fame, the Wyoming Sports Hall of Fame, the Wyoming Outdoor Hall of Fame, and the University of Wyoming Athletics Hall of Fame. In 1993, he received the Pro Football Hall of Fame Pete Rozelle Award for longtime exceptional contributions to radio and television in professional football. In addition, the Basketball Hall of Fame media award was named in honor of Curt, who served as president of the Basketball Hall of Fame for seven consecutive 1-year terms. Wyoming swells with pride for our native son. Our State declared March 27, 1972, ``Curt Gowdy Day,'' and held a large celebration in his honor. During the festivities, the University of Wyoming awarded Curt an honorary law degree, and the State named an 11,000-acre State park after him. Most recently, Curt was selected as a Wyoming Citizen of the Century Sports Finalist. Mr. President, Curt made a point to get back to his home State regularly. He once referred to Wyoming fondly as the place ``where I grew up with a fly rod in one hand and, a little later, a radio mike in the other.'' Those of us who had the pleasure of knowing Curt remember him that way. He will be sorely missed.