Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor also to talk about where we are and, more importantly, where we need to go with respect to the economy that impacts all of us in various ways. It seems appropriate to emphasize some of the key points about the health of our economy, about what is doing very well, and about what we need to be working on now to ensure that this continues, and also to have 20/20 vision about where we want to be and what we need to do to get there. I am disappointed about the slowness in our moving this year and a certain amount of obstructionism that seems to be going on in terms of moving forward. Nevertheless, we ought to keep in mind that over the last year, we have been able to accomplish a great deal and the challenge is there to move forward. We have been able to keep the taxes relatively low, which, obviously, is a key factor in our economy, and we need to make sure it continues that way. We have certainly been able to do what is necessary to work toward having a strong health care program in this country, and that is a great challenge for us. We did do something last year with pharmaceuticals, making them available, and even though the process was a little difficult, now we are seeing great increases in the number of people who are able to obtain pharmaceutical drugs at a more reasonable rate. We have assured that there will be more opportunities for job training and training in technologies so that we will have more research and will be able to continue to lead the world in terms of our economy. I think one of the more important things we did last year was to pass an energy bill that gives us some direction in terms of one of the most important elements of our economy. There were other accomplishments as well last year. We passed legislation to end frivolous lawsuits, which has had a great impact on many aspects of our economy. We put some judges in place with a fair process. We need to be reminded sometimes of how well our economy is doing in terms of real growth. The GDP growth experienced in 2005 was at a rate of 3.5 percent for the year as a whole, while inflation remained at 2 percent. So that is very good. Those are very good numbers, and it is better than what we have experienced over a number of years, and certainly it is exactly what we want to do. Real disposable income rose at 4 percent in December. We are up 1.4 percent for the year 2005. The aftertax income per person has risen almost 8 percent. Real household net worth is at an all-time high. This is good, and we need to make sure we understand that. Retail sales have risen, again, 7 percent in December and 6.4 percent for the whole year. So that is very good. Employment growth remains high. Employers created 2 million new jobs in 2005, resulting in a less than 5-percent unemployment rate at the end of the year. Since 2003, when the tax cut went into effect, there have been almost 5 million new jobs created. That is a good sign, and we ought to understand it is the impact of that tax cut. Job growth is often affected and impacted, as is the total economy, by what we do with taxes. We have a great deal of controversy about it, of course. When we have the unusual expenses of the war on terrorism and of Katrina, it makes it difficult as we look at our budget. But the fact is the discretionary part of the budget has been held down. We need to get the job completed in Iraq, complete our work there and reduce that spending and bring our troops home. All of us want to do that. The point I want to make is we have had a very favorable impact from what has been done over the last couple of years, and the thing we are seeking to do right now is continue those tax reductions that will strengthen the economy and continue to help. As I said, employment remains high. That is good. Job creation is what we want to do. We have to deal with immigration, of course. Even though we do need immigrants and workers here, we need to be legal. But we have this job creation thing that we need to continue to work on. One of the real challenges we have before us is to deal some more with energy. As I said, last year we passed energy policies that I think were excellent. Now, of course, we have to implement those policies. We dealt last year with the question of alternative fuels in the future, whether we will be able to use wind energy, be able to use bioenergy, be able to use ethanol, all of these kinds of things. Those are future activities, and we will be able to do that. That challenge is to have the technology and the funding for the research to be able to move into those fields. That is something we can do and indeed we must do. Coupled with that is another challenge. Those changes are going to be over a relatively long time, at least several years, where we are faced immediately with shortages and dependence on world production and with costs. We are working on a budget that will provide funding for doing research in the short term. There are opportunities, for instance, in Wyoming and many of the energy production States where we have new sources of fairly immediate energy. We can do some things with coal, for example, our largest fossil fuel. We can make some conversions from coal into gas; we can make conversion into hydrogen and do those things in a fairly short term. Of course, gas is more flexible than coal, so if we can do something there, that would be good. We have an opportunity to go into shale oil which is a different source than we have used in the past. It takes research to get there. We need to be doing that. Coupled with that, of course, to keep our economy going and make sure we deal with the energy issue is conservation and efficiency. There is a great challenge there, to use less energy in our economy and be more conservative in our use--whether it is automobiles or buildings. Clearly, we can do more in that area than we have done. That is a challenge we have before us. That will have a great impact on the economy. Home sales are at a record level. More people than ever own their homes, and that is a great thing. We need to ensure that continues to happen and we have the tax incentives and other regulations in order to do that. When we put in place some of the tax reductions that helped the economy, another impact of it has been an increase in revenues. Tax cuts not only leave more money in the pockets of Americans but have also resulted in fairly dramatic increases in receipts to the Treasury. Tax collections from nonsalaried income were up 32 percent as a result of tax reductions on capital gains and these sorts of things. They cause more investment and more activities, which are then taxed and bring money in. Capital gains collections brought in almost $80 billion, up from almost $50 billion from 2002. The broad point is we are able to do some things that strengthen the economy, that allow people to create more jobs and invest more in the economy by reducing taxes and, at the same time, because of the economic growth, increase revenue. All these results point to continuing to pursue that. Actually, in January we ran up one of the highest surpluses in the last 4 years--$21 billion. That is a great thing. Now we have to take a little longer look at spending on the other side so we can balance these things out. Health care is another concern. We need to take some long looks at that. We need to provide the opportunity for health care for everyone. Accessibility becomes difficult because of the costs. I am from a rural area. Rural health care is one of the issues we have. We have done some things there. Overall, we have seen some real growth in the economy and some good things happening. We have an opportunity to continue to do that. I hope we will get moving with the things that are here and continue to do the things that help this economy and do good for the American people.

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 rescheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks. The hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, February 16, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building will now be held at 1:30 p.m. on February 16, 2006 in the same room. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S.J. Res. 28, a joint resolution approving the location of the commemorative work in the District of Columbia honoring former President Dwight D. Eisenhower; S. 1870, a bill to clarify the authorities for the use of certain National Park Service properties within Golden Gate National Recreation Area and San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1913, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease a portion of the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center for use as a visitor center for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes; S. 1970, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and provide for the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds associated with that trail, and for other purposes; H.R. 562, a bill to authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933; H.R. 318, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom, Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or David Szymanski at (202) 224-6293. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution designating July 22, 2006, as ``National Day of the American Cowboy.'' The cowboy has influenced American culture in literature, music, art, fashion, theater, and sport. What's more, these folks contribute substantially to the economic well-being of our country. In 2005 alone, United States cash receipts from the sale of cattle and calves exceeded $48 billion, accounting for nearly 40 percent of all livestock sales and nearly half of all farm receipts. Clearly, the cowboy is not merely a romantic figure, but an integral part of our Nation's economy. As many Americans know, last year's celebration was a great success. The first observance of the National Day of the American Cowboy was commemorated across the country with various festivities and events. In Wyoming, the day fell within Cheyenne Frontier Days, one of the world's largest outdoor rodeos and our State's premier cowboy competition. Cheyenne Frontier Days can be traced as far back as 1896 when a group of cowboys from the Two Bar Ranch put on an impromptu cowboy contest in Cheyenne. Frontier Days has come a long way since that time, incorporating Indian war dances, artillery drills, a full carnival, rowdy street dances, country and western entertainers, and renown musical performances. However, Frontier Days stays true to its roots, showcasing cowboys and cowgirls in sports such as saddle bronc riding, wild horse racing, bull dogging, steer wrestling, calf roping, and bareback riding, events which truly demonstrate their cowboy skills. While in Wyoming for the 2005 Cheyenne Frontier Days celebration, I had the distinct honor of delivering a statement from President Bush supporting the National Day of the American Cowboy. His statement outlined the importance of the cowboy, ``as a symbol of the grand history of the American West,'' and recognized the Cowboy's love of land and country as character traits which should be revered by all Americans. I could not agree more. Although the National Day of the American Cowboy came and went in 2005, the celebration has continued throughout the United States and across the world. For example, Arizona's Governor recently issued an official proclamation declaring July 22, 2006 as the Second Annual National Day of the Cowboy in Arizona. T.J. Casey, a country musician and cowboy poet from Montana, is helping to promote the National Day of the Cowboy by carrying his flag on tour with him, and Pro Rodeo Hall of Fame Executive Director Larry McCormack and his staff are planning a National Day of the Cowboy flag presentation during their upcoming annual induction ceremony on July 15, 2006. Support for the National Day of the American Cowboy is not confined to our Nation's borders. The Desert Cowboys, a group of men and women in the United States Military and Department of Defense civilians who have been serving our country in Iraq since December of 2005, planted their National Day of the Cowboy flag prominently in their camp shortly after their arrival. Some of these folks are in Iraq for their, third, fourth and even fifth rotations. This touching display of support by those completing dangerous missions so far from home certainly tugs at my heart strings. It also serves to illustrate how important this day is to the American people and those who support American ideals. I call on the Senate to once again recognize our country's cowboys and cowgirls and their significant contributions through designation of the second annual National Day of the American Cowboy.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has previously announced a hearing to be held on Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. In addition to the bills previously listed, the following joint resolution will be included. S.J. Res. 28, a joint resolution approving the location of the commemorative work in the District of Columbia honoring former President Dwight D. Eisenhower. 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 or David Szymanski. Subcommittee on Public Lands and forests

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following 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 16, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1870, a bill to clarify the authorities for the use of certain National Park Service properties, within Golden Gate National Recreation Area and San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1913, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease a portion of the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center for use as a visitor center for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes; S. 1970, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and provide for the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds associated with that trail, and for other purposes; H.R. 562, a bill to authorize the Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District of Columbia to honor the victims of the manmade famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933; and H.R. 318, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National Park System, 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, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or David Szymanski at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join with my friend from Idaho as a cosponsor to this bill on endangered species. He and I and others have worked on this for a good long time. Both of us have been on the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We are no longer there, but we started working there. We certainly are excited about the opportunity to bring to the floor some ideas that would deal with this whole notion of endangered species. As the Senator has mentioned, all of us support the idea of continuing to have a program to protect endangered species. That concept is a good one. All of us support that. What we are talking about is a program that would be modernized and reorganized to be able to do that in a more efficient way. We have good evidence that the program as it is, is not working. In a very simple way, what we have had is nearly 1,500 species listed. We have had less than a dozen delisted or put back where we want them. The emphasis has been on the listing, the emphasis has been on lawsuits, and the emphasis has been on disagreements. We should do what we can do to bring together the people who are interested. Whether they are environmentalists, whether they are landowners, whether they are naturalists, whatever, we all have the notion that we want to continue to make this program work, and we believe we have some ways to make it work better. As was mentioned, the law is about 30 years old, so it is time to be updated. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, we need to review programs as time goes by. What we have learned as they have been in operation is we can make them much more effective. There are two things that concern me. One is that there needs to be a substantial amount and a necessary amount of scientific data and science required for the listing. We have had some experience in Wyoming with having species listed, and it turns out they were not endangered at all. They were not identified properly and, therefore, we went through all of this debate and all of this discussion only to discover that they were not, in fact, endangered species. So we need to have more science and get into what is necessary to identify an animal or a plant as an endangered species. Second, the other challenge is to have a plan for recovery, to have a plan for getting cooperation between the landowners and the users and all the people who are interested in a way to lead us to recovery. One of our latest experiences in Wyoming and in the western part of the country where we are has been with grizzly bears. Grizzly bears were listed, nearly 20 years ago, as endangered species. The numbers that were set forth in the plan for recovery were reached 15 years ago, and we are just now in the process of actually having the recovery and the delisting take place. So we have really lost sight of the goals of recovering species. This is bipartisan language. We will have supporters from both sides of the aisle, and there is also an Endangered Species Revision Act that passed in the House. So we will have an opportunity when this is passed to come together with the House program to put together something that will be amenable and acceptable to both the House and Senate. It is bipartisan legislation, as indeed it should be. I am sure we will have hearings, as we should, because there is a lot of interest in this issue. As the Senator pointed out, you have them on the east coast and you have them on the west coast and the situations are different. This bipartisan language would require recovery goals to be published at the time the species is listed. So there is a plan, and we do not go through this endless proposition. It would make it easier to delist them as soon as recovery goals are met, and that should be the purpose of the program. It increases the State's role. This is very important. Many on the side of animals as opposed to plants, you have Fish and Wildlife Service, you have Park Service, you have Forest Service, you have State game and fish, you have State land agencies, so there needs to be a good deal of cooperation. There also, of course, needs to be involvement with landowners who are impacted and affected by the plan for listing and the existence of those critters. So that needs to be there. We need to provide incentives for working together. Much of this can be done without a lot of rules and regulations. The sage grouse was mentioned. There is a good deal of progress being made there in the private sector with groups coming together. We can do that. I will not take any more time. I look forward to working with my colleagues. It is going to be in the Finance Committee. We hope we can have hearings soon and get this bill on the floor, work with the House, and be able to have a successful program put into place so we can continue to protect endangered species.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join with my friend from Idaho as a cosponsor to this bill on endangered species. He and I and others have worked on this for a good long time. Both of us have been on the Committee on Environment and Public Works. We are no longer there, but we started working there. We certainly are excited about the opportunity to bring to the floor some ideas that would deal with this whole notion of endangered species. As the Senator has mentioned, all of us support the idea of continuing to have a program to protect endangered species. That concept is a good one. All of us support that. What we are talking about is a program that would be modernized and reorganized to be able to do that in a more efficient way. We have good evidence that the program as it is, is not working. In a very simple way, what we have had is nearly 1,500 species listed. We have had less than a dozen delisted or put back where we want them. The emphasis has been on the listing, the emphasis has been on lawsuits, and the emphasis has been on disagreements. We should do what we can do to bring together the people who are interested. Whether they are environmentalists, whether they are landowners, whether they are naturalists, whatever, we all have the notion that we want to continue to make this program work, and we believe we have some ways to make it work better. As was mentioned, the law is about 30 years old, so it is time to be updated. I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, we need to review programs as time goes by. What we have learned as they have been in operation is we can make them much more effective. There are two things that concern me. One is that there needs to be a substantial amount and a necessary amount of scientific data and science required for the listing. We have had some experience in Wyoming with having species listed, and it turns out they were not endangered at all. They were not identified properly and, therefore, we went through all of this debate and all of this discussion only to discover that they were not, in fact, endangered species. So we need to have more science and get into what is necessary to identify an animal or a plant as an endangered species. Second, the other challenge is to have a plan for recovery, to have a plan for getting cooperation between the landowners and the users and all the people who are interested in a way to lead us to recovery. One of our latest experiences in Wyoming and in the western part of the country where we are has been with grizzly bears. Grizzly bears were listed, nearly 20 years ago, as endangered species. The numbers that were set forth in the plan for recovery were reached 15 years ago, and we are just now in the process of actually having the recovery and the delisting take place. So we have really lost sight of the goals of recovering species. This is bipartisan language. We will have supporters from both sides of the aisle, and there is also an Endangered Species Revision Act that passed in the House. So we will have an opportunity when this is passed to come together with the House program to put together something that will be amenable and acceptable to both the House and Senate. It is bipartisan legislation, as indeed it should be. I am sure we will have hearings, as we should, because there is a lot of interest in this issue. As the Senator pointed out, you have them on the east coast and you have them on the west coast and the situations are different. This bipartisan language would require recovery goals to be published at the time the species is listed. So there is a plan, and we do not go through this endless proposition. It would make it easier to delist them as soon as recovery goals are met, and that should be the purpose of the program. It increases the State's role. This is very important. Many on the side of animals as opposed to plants, you have Fish and Wildlife Service, you have Park Service, you have Forest Service, you have State game and fish, you have State land agencies, so there needs to be a good deal of cooperation. There also, of course, needs to be involvement with landowners who are impacted and affected by the plan for listing and the existence of those critters. So that needs to be there. We need to provide incentives for working together. Much of this can be done without a lot of rules and regulations. The sage grouse was mentioned. There is a good deal of progress being made there in the private sector with groups coming together. We can do that. I will not take any more time. I look forward to working with my colleagues. It is going to be in the Finance Committee. We hope we can have hearings soon and get this bill on the floor, work with the House, and be able to have a successful program put into place so we can continue to protect endangered species.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have a few issues to discuss in morning business. First, I desire to be more positive than what we have been hearing. It makes one depressed to hear the negative discussions. There are quite a number of positive things happening in this country. Perhaps we ought to talk about them. We have had the extraordinary growth in gross domestic production, growth in the economy over the last number of months, particularly in the last month, 3.5 percent growth. We have had more jobs than we have had for a very long time. We have more people working than we have had for a very long time. Certainly there are always issues we can talk about. The fact is we are moving forward on these issues. We are doing the things that need to be done. Indeed, we should. I am sometimes a little distressed that we seem to think the Federal Government is in charge of everything that affects our lives. That probably is not the case. We are also dealing with a great deficit. Yet we want to talk constantly about how we need more money for this and more money for that, more money for all these things. We are in a country where we have several levels of government. There ought to be some division of responsibility. That is our system. We should have somewhat of a limited Federal Government, we are not into every issue. It is disappointing to hear that everything occurring to everyone is a responsibility of the Federal Government. We also ought to understand when we have some sort of effort to reduce taxes, that helps increase the economy. We have seen more revenues when we have less taxes. The economy grows. There is more investment and we create jobs. Those are good things. Occasionally we ought to talk about that. I understand a person opposed to the administration wants to talk about the bad stuff. I will primarily talk a little bit more about Iraq and the situation we are in there. It has been an issue for all of us, and tends to be something we are all very much concerned about. However, the discussions lately have changed somewhat. That is a good thing. Almost no one is suggesting that U.S. troops ought to remain in Iraq forever. We hear all the views, people talking about this point of view, that point of view. But since the beginning, there was the notion that we have a job to do, and as soon as that job is finished we need to get out. That is not a new topic. I have to admit completing the job can be defined differently by different people. However, the fact is almost everyone at the same time suggests that the troops need to remain in their current numbers until the insurgency is suppressed. Most everyone agrees with that. In the beginning, some of the folks in the House of Representatives were making the point to get them out of there now, get them out in 6 months, but they have moderated that and are saying, yes, we need to change what we are doing; we need to complete our job. We see more and more people wanting to do that. The administration has been talking for some time, of course, about reducing the number of troops in the process of doing that but not setting a date. My point is it is interesting, and the media has something to do with this, to try to show the differences, but the fact is there is quite a bit of similarity among the things that people are saying with regard to Iraq. Few people agree with the idea of increasing the number of troops. There is some talk about that. But that is not generally agreed to. Of course, almost no one agrees the troops ought to be pulled out immediately at a certain time. My point is there seems to be great differences between the critics and the administration. But when they look at it, everyone is pretty much on the same side. We need to finish our job, reduce our troops there, turn it over to the Iraqis as soon as possible. The time to do that, the way you do that, there is an area for difference, but that is a common argument. I am trying to say, finger-pointing aside, regarding the debate over whether we should begin to gradually have a withdrawal of troops, there is no debate over that. How you do it, of course, there are different views. There is no disagreement as to bringing the news into the political process. I think it is exciting that this week there will be an election and we will see what kind of bringing there is into that process. So I guess I am kind of pleased that even though we have differences of view--and that is perfectly legitimate--I am finding there is less difference in the policy between the people who have disagreement than there might have been in the past. Obviously, the war on terrorism is being fought overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, fundamentally, it has changed the environment that has given rise to the Islamic extremism that brought about the attacks, and so on. In a broad sense, that is exactly why we are there. It is one to bring justice back to the perpetrators, but also to change the conditions in the Middle East. I think that basically is beginning to happen: the introduction of a stable democracy and freedom, a democracy that is shaped on the basis of what Iraqis want. We are not imposing on them the same kind of system we have here necessarily; for instance, that there has to be endless discussion on the floor. We are not saying that. There are great steps being made in deliberation there. I guess it has been a year and a half since I have been in Iraq, but certainly I think some real progress has been made. I felt as if there had been great progress when I was there. And as to the polls, in the preliminary election, ABC News shows that three-fourths of the Iraqi people express confidence in these elections. That is good and 70 percent approve of the new Iraqi constitution. In a country that has never done those kinds of things before, that is an excellent movement. We are talking about positive things, which does not mean everything is great, of course. But it does mean we are moving forward, and there is an unmistakable shift from tyranny to democracy that is taking place. As to the Iraqi forces, we all want them to shoulder a greater share of security efforts. In fact, that is happening. Now, I am also one who believes the system we have used, the military system, has to change as the situation changes. It was one kind of a military opportunity to be moving into Iraq to get rid of Saddam, and having troop movements, routine, normal military activities. Now the time has changed. I was very impressed with the conversation I had with a police officer from Cheyenne, WY, who was there on a contract to help train police who said: That has all changed now. Instead of having platoons and companies moving around, we are having two or three insurgents over here, and we need more of a police kind of a system rather than a larger military system. I think certainly that is true. And the Iraqis are moving forward. There are now 97 Iraqi army battalions conducting operations. Thirty-three Iraqi army battalions have assumed their own areas of responsibility. This is a good thing. The Iraqi navy is guarding its coastline and protecting offshore oil platforms. The Iraqi air force is moving supplies throughout the country. Iraqi border police are manning 170 border forts and 22 ports of entry. Certainly, there is a lot to do yet, probably more in the support-- the supply support, the management from the background--as there is in being on the front lines as far as the military of the United States is concerned. I hope and think that movement and that change of role is indeed taking place. There are some 68,000 police who are there. So we are making some progress. Again, some time ago, when I was there, I was real pleased. We would go down the road in a military vehicle and all the little kids would be waving their arms. We went to some schools. We went to some hospitals. Now we are getting a report that 762 out of 834 schools are back in place. That is a good move--not complete, of course, not perfect. It is also reported that 12 out of 29 hospitals are back in place; 5 out of 12 major airports are functioning. So there is a great deal going on. It is reported that 144 out of 222 water treatment stations are functioning. There is still work to do, but, nevertheless, a substantial amount of work has been done. So the fact is, of course, the road from tyranny to freedom is not an easy process. It is a process that we have not always experienced in the past. So as we see new challenges, then we have to face them in different ways. Having been in the military, I know sometimes it is difficult to sort of change the methods the military is accustomed and trained to do. But these are different sorts of challenges. I am very proud of the military in doing what they have done. The al-Qaida terrorist leader has indicated that Iraq is a central battlefield for this war, certainly in terms of terrorism. And our people continue, of course, to do well in spite of the deadly insurgency. That is a tough thing. The insurgency is just people coming out of nowhere with bombs, roadside bombs in cars. So I guess really what I am trying to say is there is good evidence that things are going well--not as well as you would like, obviously. There are improvements being made. We are moving towards our goal. The goal is to be able to turn this back over to the Iraqis, to return our folks home as soon as possible. Everyone agrees with that: as soon as possible. There is always room for disagreement as to what is necessary, of course, to be able to do that. But despite the naysayers we hear here, the Iraqis are generally optimistic. A recent ABC News poll showed that 70 percent of Iraqis sampled said life in Iraq was ``good.'' So in addition to that, of course, the actions that are being taken are being felt in Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. So we are having some sort of an impact in that whole Middle East area, which is, of course, what we had hoped to be able to do. So these are some of the things that are happening there. I think there is a surprising amount of optimism about the living conditions improving. Time magazine and others did some analysis and showed living conditions were rated positively for 7 out of 10 Iraqis. I presume that is a legitimate sort of sample. At any rate, it certainly sounds so. Average household income has soared some 60 percent in the last 20 months. It is only $263, but nevertheless that is substantially more than they had. So in any event, we have a challenge yet before us. I think there is increasing recognition that we are there until our job is finished; that our job is to turn it over to the Iraqis; that we ought to indeed move and continue to move towards doing that as soon as we can; that the reduction of our troops, as soon as possible, is the goal of all of us. I think the change in the role certainly is a goal as well. And that, too, is happening. So I guess the bottom line of what I have read here and what I am saying is that even though, for various reasons, it seems as if there is a great difference, I think you can see, as you hear about the difference in the parties here, and so on, that there is not that kind of a spread. Sure, there is room for discussion. But the fact is, the majority of people here want to stay until the job is done. The majority wants to turn it over to the Iraqis. The majority wants to remove our folks as soon as we can. And that includes the administration and the folks in opposition. So that is a good sign that we are moving forward. And I hope certainly we can continue to do that, we can continue to support our goal there and, maybe more importantly, support our men and women who are there committed to carrying out this goal and to helping provide freedom around the world and to protect freedom in our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Monday, December 12, 2005, at 2:30 p.m, on TSA's New Security Procedures and Changes to the Prohibited Items List.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is interesting, the proper role for Government--I guess that is a choice we make. Certainly we have a different point of view about the role of Government, not only on this but on many things. We talk about how important oil and gas is. It certainly is important. What about food and beverage--is this important? No, that is just something that we play with. What about insurance--is that important? Of course, all of these things are important. Somehow we want to pick out one commodity and do something with it. We keep talking about these profits. Again, let me say that the profits in these companies are not as equal as these. So the idea that they are overly profitable--they are not. I am not sure that the Senator is familiar with the costs of energy production. We are talking now about doing offshore things. It costs millions of dollars to drill a well. These are not small-dollar kinds of things. Again, I say one should not have to subject themselves to the oversight of a Government agency to decide whether they can use the money they earn to invest in their own business. That just does not make much sense. We talk about reducing the costs. Well, everybody wants to reduce the costs. Take a look at the gas pump over the last 6 months. It has been reduced from about $3 a gallon to now below $2, so we are making some progress. He talks about OPEC setting the price. Why do my colleagues think that is? Because we are so dependent on importing energy. Our job ought to be to allow ourselves to have these investments in domestic energy, alternative energy, and do some things to avoid what has been done there. So I understand my friends over there who have a different point of view, but it is quite a different point of view. It is quite a different point of view than we have had in this bill. It is quite a different point of view than we have had in the Energy bill. It is quite a different point of view in the ideas we have had to create a stronger economy and more jobs. So I certainly urge people to vote against this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Do I have some time remaining?

Mr. THOMAS. No, I am not going to yield. Thank you. This is a little different issue than we talked about before. If you would ask these people, do they need it to do these kinds of drilling on the intangibles, that is not geology, which is the one they were talking about, the G&G issue that was in there. Here again, we went through this in another amendment. We continue to do the same thing. We have spent all this time trying to get an energy bill out there to try to encourage new ways to look at energy, trying to look at new opportunities for energy, all of which are very important. Quite frankly, living in a State where we do a lot of this, the people who are willing and able to put the investment in these kinds of new approaches are not the independents. They are the larger companies. They are the integrated companies that are able to do this. This continuing idea that somehow these people are too rich--I had my chart out here a little while ago, talking about the return on revenue and profits. They were down below the middle of all the other industries. If we want to talk about taking away windfall profits and giving it back to everyone, you are starting with the wrong industry. We ought to be talking about the 10 or 12 industries that have a higher return on their sales than do the people in this business of producing the fuel and the energy we need to keep our economy going. If we want to look at having jobs, if we want to look at a growing economy, it is very clear. The more we see of it, the more we see of having to get offshore oil, the more we see of having to do, which we should, conservation and other things, the more important it is for us to have an opportunity to begin to continue to move into new sources of energy, the ones that are more difficult. This amendment is just another one to inhibit that, based on the idea that the oil companies are getting too much of a profit. Again, take a look at the facts. They are not, compared to others. The return has been a reasonable one, and I believe we ought to not adopt this kind of an amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, here we are again, faced with another opportunity to make it more difficult for us to meet our needs in energy. Interestingly enough, people on the west coast who need the energy more than anyone seem to be pushing for this. There is a misunderstanding here as to what has been done. But these tax opportunities are particularly the cost of conducting oil and gas exploration and production, particularly offshore, the difficult ones, the high-cost offshore drilling, the kinds of things we are going to have to get into to continue to have it. We have about expanded all the regular drilling we can. Here is an opportunity to do something unusual. By the way, I think there has been a little misunderstanding on the question that was asked. The question that was asked, as I understand it, was on geology, G&G, which was in the bill. They said they didn't need that. This is not G&G. This is another issue.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as we get to that amendment on windfall profits, I hope we will take this into account.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to deal with this issue that is before us. By the way, I am not speaking on the Conrad amendment, but I am, as a matter of fact, speaking on the Dorgan amendment in general time. I have to say to my friend from North Dakota that I certainly agree with the idea that we have gone out of control in terms of our spending. I don't agree with the idea that we have to raise taxes to offset it. What we ought to be looking at is reducing the size of Government. Quite frankly, I would like to see some activity on that side of the aisle, as well as this side, to take a look at some of the programs we have and see if they still need to continue to exist. With regard to the idea that the growth of the Federal Government is out of control, we have gotten into a feeling that every time there is a need in the country for anything the Federal Government ought to do it and establish a new program. I happen to have a bill called the sunset bill which I think we ought to take a look at. We ought to take a look at programs that have been in existence for 10 years and see if they are as important now as they were when they were created. If not, let's change them. In any event, I want to talk in opposition to the Dorgan amendment, which is the windfall profits tax amendment, which has to do with the bill before us. What we are talking about in this tax bill is the economy. We are talking about growth. Notwithstanding what has been said, we have had growth, 3.5 percent growth in GDP in the last quarter. That is above average in the last 10 years. We do have growth. That is what it is all about. We also ought to recognize when we are able to leave people with more money in their hands to spend, that is a good thing. If you can reduce taxes so people have money to invest, that is a good thing. That is what creates the economy and economic growth. That is what it is all about, the economy. The other overriding issue before us, although I don't think it is a specific issue here, is one of the main factors of the economy, and that is energy. Without energy, we don't have an economy. So we are talking a lot recently, and should be, about energy--where we are going to get energy, where it is going to come from, how we are going to invest in new sources of energy. That has been one of the key issues for the last year. We finally got an energy policy. Unfortunately, what we are talking about now, particularly in this windfall profits amendment, is something totally adverse to the philosophy that we have developed to create new energy sources. The windfall profits tax amendment which has been offered is not only bad policy but it sends the wrong message to American companies and to entrepreneurs. Supporters of this tax have tried to demonize the whole concept of making a profit. Companies are in business to make a profit. They make profits and create jobs, which is what we are talking about all the time. If they did not make a profit they would not be in business, and we would not have jobs. The Senator was talking about the number of jobs. Why does one think there are jobs? Because there are profitable companies. That is what we need to be talking about. Supporters of this windfall tax, however, want people to believe that the oil industry somehow managed to reap undeserved profits, resulting in one of the highest profit margins in America. Well, they have profits. Who would not have profits when there has been that kind of increase in the energy business? It is not the case that they are unusually high profit margins. The profits for the oil companies measured against other factors of the economy, frankly, are quite modest. I have a chart that shows a number of the industries which are much higher. These are the earnings of major industries in the second quarter, net income on sales in 2005. It shows cents per dollar of sales in the various businesses, banks, pharmaceuticals, software, semiconductors, diversified financials, household and personal products, consumer services, insurance, telecommunications, food, beverage and tobacco, real estate, health care, material, all U.S. industries, 7.9, and then next, oil and gas, 7.6 percent. The third quarter moves them above this to about 8 percent, but look at these businesses that are much above that. They keep talking about how they have had these unusually high and perhaps even illegal profits. Those who want to argue about this chart because it shows second quarter profits, and they are higher in the third quarter, it has changed somewhat, but whatever it is it will be about 8.1 percent for the oil industry. I wonder if supporters of this windfall profits tax would suggest that it be on all of these other businesses that are higher in their earnings than the oil and gas industry. I understand one of the sponsors of the amendment comes from a State where there are lots of insurance companies, and despite a profit of over 10 percent, I do not see him rushing to the floor to put a windfall tax on insurance. We have had this news media focus on the energy industry and so it has become this kind of thing, but I think we have to keep in mind the future. I certainly hope as we go about our business we think not only about today but about 10 years from now: What are we going to do with energy? There has been nothing of more concern to us than energy. The facts speak for themselves. The Congress tried to take this approach in the early 1980s and it did not work. I understand they are saying this is not like the other windfall, but indeed it is. It takes profits they say are excessive, which are not comparatively, to distribute them back out to the public. Is that what the business system is about? Is that what the private sector is about? I do not believe so. The efforts that were made to do that in the past did not work. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has documented this policy as a failure in the past, and I can only conclude that it would be a failure again in the future. The whole concept defies common sense. Who is qualified to deem the profits as determined by the market are too high? The market will adjust for that if that is the case. I certainly do not believe any Member of Congress has those qualifications. I understand the politics of wanting to distribute money to everyone. That is a great thing to be able to put on one's resume. But it does not conceptually, from a policy standpoint, make sense. We live in a market economy, and it is the model that works. Of course, we need to continue to change our system. But we have the best system in the world, and we need to make sure we continue it, unlike Members who have tried all of these manipulations and the nonmarket approach, which has not worked. The market economy means if one engages in a risk associated with investment they should reap the benefits from that. Not unlike other industries, the oil and gas industry requires significant investment and risk. I live in the State of Wyoming which is one of the highest producers of energy, and I can say there is a great deal of investment that has to go into the production of the energy that goes to New England and New York where they do not have any production of their own. That is the way it should be. Nevertheless, one cannot sit off some other place and say we want energy but we do not want to have any investment in it. One cannot sit out on the west coast where there is no production, no refineries, and say, well, we want energy but we do not want any investment in transportation to get it there or in the development of it. That is what we hear a great deal on the Senate floor. I think not only has that been the case in the past, and it is the case today, quite frankly, it is going to be more the case as time goes on. We are going to have to look for new ways to develop energy. In Wyoming, we are going to have to go to oil shale, for example, which is expensive to develop. We are going to have to go to deep wells. We are going to have to go to secondary recovery. We are going to have to go to alternative fuels. We are going to have to go to converting coal to other things. Those are expensive kinds of investments, and that is what it is all about.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I asked for some time. Do I have time, then, following the Senator from Oregon?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are back on the amendment again. This morning we went through this, but I think it is worthwhile going through it again to talk about the difficulty of trying to do something with a windfall profits tax. We have done this before, and I know my colleagues put some exemptions in there. The fact is, they are still taking windfall profits, something we tried before and doesn't work. Distribution doesn't work. We have been through that. This is something that is not consistent with the marketplace functioning. I don't know how many times we have to go through this, but I suppose it is an issue that is certainly worth talking about. I think, as I said this morning, there are several issues involved in this bill. One of them is the economy, and the economy is to develop jobs, to have organizations that make profits that create jobs and build the economy, and we need to do that. The second issue, of course, and the most important perhaps for many of us, is energy--to have energy. We can see the energy bills are going down. We are moving beyond that crisis, down to where it was before. But the long-term issue still remains, and that is the one that is important to talk about. That is why we spent 2 or 3 years with an energy policy, a policy that recognizes that what we have been doing in the past, the kinds of sources we have had in the past are not going to always be there. We have to have an opportunity to move forward. This idea of saying, We will not charge you if you go ahead and invest--there is going to be investment. There has always been investment. I come from a State where energy is being put out there. A lot of you don't. You don't understand what it costs to do some of these things. It is going to cost even more as we go to deeper wells, as we go to oil shale, as we go to secondary recovery. But the idea that is being used by my friend over here is that the energy companies are making too much money. Take a look at this chart. This chart shows earnings of major industries during the second quarter of 2005. And then it is adjusted to the third quarter of 2005, where we are now. Take a little look here. What is the highest one? Banks. Maybe we ought to have a little windfall profits tax on banks, do you think, and put that money out? Why don't you try that one. Here is pharmaceuticals. My gosh, 18- percent return. That would be great. Then you can hand out a bunch of free drugs. I think that would work into your philosophy. Software services, semiconductors, diversified financials, household personal products, consumer services, insurance, communications, food and beverage, real estate, health care, materials, U.S. industry average, 7.9. Oh, my goodness, here is oil and natural gas, 7.6, below the national average. And this whole thing is predicated on these people making too much money. I don't understand that. That has been adjusted. Now they are right above that, 8. Look where they are. What is unusual about that? These are big dollars, that is true, but the return on investment is not extraordinary. There has been more activity there, so obviously there are more dollars. I wish my colleagues would come with me and talk about what we anticipate happening, what we are going to do about changing some of the energy that is going into other kinds of products so that we can have it for the future. Do you think that is going to cost a lot of money? Of course it is. Do you think they want to have to justify what their investment is with the Federal Government? I don't think so. If there is anything around here we need to be doing, it is getting the Federal Government out of some of these kinds of private sector investments instead of getting into it more and more. What the Senator is suggesting is, if I am an energy company, I have to go to an agency and find out whether what I am doing justifies me not having a withholding tax. Those are not the kinds of things we need to do. We continue to hear more and more about let's get the Federal Government involved in making these kinds of decisions. These aren't the kind of decisions that need to be made. That is the marketplace, and that is what the marketplace is about. We can see it changing almost daily, and it should, there is no question about that. Again, this whole discussion that has gone on today and yesterday makes me wonder why we messed around trying to get an energy policy that gives us some direction in the future, that gives us some idea of how we should be investing in the future, with new kinds of energy and doing it without getting the approval of a Federal Government agency or somebody in the Congress to decide whether that investment is a sound investment. That is what the marketplace is for. We are making real progress in doing that. I think this idea--and I know the idea is basically how we are going to get some money out to everyone, which is not a brand-new idea. My friends on the other side are big on that one, and I understand it, but this is not the way to do that. This is not the way to take windfall profits, and if so, let's start up here at the top of the chart. Let's start up here. If we are going to play that game, why, that is probably the way we ought to go. I will stop here and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina for her comments. Certainly I agree with what she has had to say. Having spent the last weekend, as most of us did, celebrating various events on Veterans Day, I was very much impressed with what we did in my State of Wyoming where we had ceremonies at cemeteries, recognizing all that our veterans have done throughout the years for this country, and the sacrifices that were made by many people over many years to allow us to continue to have the freedoms which we have in our country. I was particularly impressed by one of the events we had at a school where kids--junior high youngsters--sat there listening to the events that had gone by, and I think probably mostly unaware of the fact that there had been years of sacrifice by so many people to maintain and to protect the freedom of this country. I think it is appropriate, as we look at all that has been done over the years, that we again focus on those who are now continuing to protect the freedoms of this country--those who are now in the Middle East doing the things we need to be done to ensure that in this country we have our freedom and that this freedom will be expanded to others. I think it is appropriate that we talk about this at this time. It is appropriate also that we continue to support our troops who are there doing these things for us. One of the most difficult things that could happen in terms of our success and accomplishing our goals there would be to erode the support we have here--and that is not going to happen. We know we will support our troops doing the jobs they are doing. The war on terror is being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq to fundamentally change the environment that has given rise to Islamic extremism and, of course, brought about, among other things, the terror attacks of 9/11. It is one to bring justice to not only the perpetrators of those horrific attacks but also to change the conditions in the Middle East that brought them about. That is the test. That is the job we must finish. The introduction of a stable democracy and freedom to that oppressed region of the world is the best way to address long term that program and problem. The ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are necessary to neutralize and eliminate the elements that produced extreme terrorism. We have made great steps since the liberation in Iraq and Afghanistan from the brutal regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Both countries, as we all know, have reached major milestones in recent months by dramatically electing their own governments. The Iraqi people turned out again in great numbers and voted for a new constitution; 79 percent of Iraqi voters accepted in that vote, including a Sunni minority. This is real progress. On the 15th of December, Iraqis will go to the polls once again to vote on parliamentary elections. This is an unmistakable shift from tyranny and is being replaced with democracy. The Iraqi troops and forces have shouldered a great deal of the security efforts, as they should. I was very impressed when I was in Iraq at the training taking place for the troops. I was impressed riding around in military vehicles when the little kids on the street waved and cheered when they would see U.S. forces. I am very impressed, also, at the normalcy, day to day, for most Iraqis. Unfortunately, we have insurgents and the terrorists who disturb citizens on a daily basis. However, the normalcy there is relatively calm, surprisingly so, on the streets of Baghdad. There are a good many Iraqi army operation specialists and battalions in the regular military but also looking into the policing aspect. It is not in many cases a regular military operation as much as it is a security operation for insurgents. They are doing both of these things. I am impressed with that. Thirty-six of the units are taking leave with their coalition partners in operating independently; 28 special police battalions are capable of these operations. More than 87,000 soldiers and sailors have been trained. That is a very good thing. It is fair to say we are making significant progress in the war on terror and creating a stable and democratic Iraq and Afghanistan that will no longer be the breeding ground for aggression. President Bush's vision is clear. Our work in Iraq and Afghanistan is essential to our own security. There has been great debate, discussion, and questions about why we are there. The fact is, we are there. The fact is, we had reason to be there. The fact is, all the folks who are now grumbling had the same information and helped make the decision at the time and agreed with the decision at the time. We need to complete our task. By taking the fight to the enemy, we have protected America at home. We have to remember for years terrorists attacked the United States with little or no reaction from the United States. In 1993, terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing 6 people and wounding more than 1,000. In 1996, terrorists bombed the U.S. military living quarters at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19. In 1998, followers of Osama bin Laden attacked U.S. Embassies in Kenya, killing and wounding hundreds. In 2000, Osama bin Laden's followers attacked the USS Cole in the harbor of Yemen, killing 17 and wounding 39. Nearly 3,000 innocent Americans were killed September 11 before we resolved we were under attack. In Afghanistan, United States and British forces joined the ally, anti-Taliban troops in the assault. We are fighting beside those partners over there and moving forward. We have a number of activities going on. In September 2005, Afghanistan held the first parliamentary election in Afghanistan in more than 30 years. Five hundred eighty-three men and women previously regarded as third-class citizens campaigned for 25 of the available seats. Afghan women received ballots in September 2005. In a country of nearly 30 million voting age people, more than 12 million registered to vote. It is a substantial change. In 2003, the forces we have talked about already in Iraq went on with votes. In June the Iraqi people assumed full sovereignty and moved forward and more than 8 million people voted. This is where we are. We are making real progress. We have a goal. No one knows exactly what the date will be for accepting that goal. I don't think anyone ever knows a date in wars. We do have to describe more clearly our purpose. We are doing that. We have to understand more clearly we are making a good deal of progress. The special inspector general's most recent report indicates service men and women completed work on 762 out of 834 schools. I was there, and we toured some of the schools. They had such a change, brought about largely by our troops. We put 5 out of 12 major airports back in place, 66 railroad stations, and so on. A great deal of progress is being made. We have had a good many changes. In terms of the leadership that used to be all around Osama bin Laden, much of that is gone. Much of that leadership is no longer there. We are changing. People understand the people of that country can defend and take care of themselves. We are moving in that direction. Our fighting men and women continue to help in Iraq. We will continue to help. I remain concerned about the violence. I agree the cost is high. I agree clearly that as soon as we complete our task, we should do that and turn this over to the Iraqis. The important thing is they are prepared to begin to go ahead and operate their country for which we have helped provide the opportunity. It is very important to complete the mission. I believe we are succeeding. The stakes are very high. I believe it is terribly important as Americans we understand what has happened is similar to what has happened through the years where people have given so much to be able to move and change the world so that our freedoms and other freedoms can exist, and we have the kind of world we all would like. The stakes are very high. Certainly, we want to continue to complete our task. It is important we do that. It is important we stay attached. I have no problem asking for more information with regard to where we are. I am very opposed to the idea of insisting on the date set by the President. That is not reasonable in this situation. I am very proud and very pleased of what our folks are doing there. I am glad we are doing the job that needs to be done. There is real progress being made. We want to continue that progress. I say, again, as many Members are saying, we have engaged in a very necessary activity. We are making real progress. It is terribly important we support the people who are there, that we support the completion of this task that we have set about of freedom for all. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 15th, 2005, 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. 431, a bill to establish a program to award grants to improve and maintain sites honoring Presidents of the United States, S. 505, a bill to amend the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area Act of 2000 to adjust the boundary of the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, S. 1288, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into cooperative agreements to protect natural resources of units of the National Park System through collaborative efforts on land inside and outside of units of the National Park System, S. 1544, a bill to establish the Northern Plains National Heritage Area in the State of North Dakota, and for other purposes, S. Con. Res. 60, a concurrent resolution designating the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, as America's National Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, S. 748 and H.R. 1084, bills to authorize the establishment at Antietam National Battlefield of a memorial to the officers and enlisted men of the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth New Hampshire Volunteer Infantry Regiments and the First New Hampshire Light Artillery Battery who fought in the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, and for other purposes, and H.R. 2107, to amend Public Law 104-329 to modify authorities for the use of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Maintenance Fund, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Brian Carlstrom at (202) 224-6293. committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an issue that did not survive the conference, and I am hopeful we can replace it. I am talking about the country-of-origin labeling. As we know, a couple of years ago we put that provision in our Agriculture bill. I was one of the original sponsors of the country-of-origin labeling. It is reasonable and something we ought to do. In the meantime, we seem to have delayed it, we seem to have set it back. That is what has happened again in this bill. It seems to me we ought to move back to the original purpose and get it back in place. It is very important that we deal with this issue as we look forward to the trade meetings. We are shortly going to be going to Doha and we have gone to Hong Kong. This is one of the issues being talked about in agriculture and agricultural trade and, quite frankly, the nature of trade in this world is such that we are going to see more and more trade of agricultural products. As that happens, it is legitimate for the consumers in this country to say: I want a product that was made in the United States and to be able to know that. We do this on lots of products. We do it now on fish and shellfish, and it appears to be working. We ought to do it as well on livestock. There is a variety of products that have come in. We will see more and more of it around the world as time goes on. We are very proud of our livestock program in the United States, certainly the healthy part of it, the acceptable part of it for markets. I think we are going to see more of a tendency toward marketing these products because of the health issues, so there is no reason why they cannot be marked as well for their country of origin. It is important we do that, that we get away from this idea of simply prolonging it and setting it off, and that we come to grips with letting the bill that has already been passed and accepted come into place. This business of delaying does not seem to be right. It was supposed to have been implemented in 2004, and it was designed to do that. It was delayed for 2 years, until 2006. The appropriations bill before us delays it again until 2008. There are two points I wish to make. One, it is a valid concern and something we should be doing. It is good for the market, it is good for agriculture, it is certainly good for consumers, it helps us be stronger in the international trade situation, and it is something we ought to do. Furthermore, it is not proper to be simply setting it back, to have it as an amendment on these bills and move it back another couple of years. The last time the Senate voted on COOL was in November of 2003. The vote was 58 to 36 in support of mandatory COOL. This has been very disappointing. I happen to know there are other Senators in the Chamber who would like to talk about this topic, so I will not take any longer. I close by saying we need to take a look at the future of agriculture, we need to take a look at the future of world trade, and we need to take a look at the opportunity for consumers in this country to choose where their products come from. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator. I appreciate the time. Regarding bull moose and bull elk, it is good to hear from an old bull on the floor as well. I wanted to talk briefly about it in a fairly broad sense, and obviously the Senators from Alaska have talked about the details. I am impressed with what they said. I remind everyone we have recently completed an energy policy, one we worked on for a number of years. We worked on it partly as a base for the need we see in this country for energy, partly over the fact we have not had a long-term plan of where we will go. Whether it is energy, medicine, whatever, we need to start looking at the future and how we will fill our needs, how we will be able to provide for growth in the economy, provide for our families, provide for our communities. Energy is very much a part of that. The energy policy has been very important. It looks to the future. It looks to filling our needs in a balanced policy. Policy looks to increased production, new ways of production, and more technological ways, such as horizontal drilling. In my State, they are looking at new ways of exploring for oil without having to disturb the surface. It is not what we had in the past. I live in a place where we have areas that need to be preserved. We have lots of areas, some for double utility, so we can use it for various things, and not set it aside. We are talking here about 20 million acres and using 2,000 acres. We are edging in close to Prudhoe Bay. I have been there. It is not a wilderness area. We have the same experience in Wyoming. We have areas that need to be set aside. There are millions of areas--from the mountains in the Refuge, on down, and there will still be ocean front--and we can have utilization of the lands, combining the two in an economically and environmentally sound way. That is what is set up here. In our policy we included opening of ANWR as another place. We are in energy production heavily in my State, but we cannot produce enough for everyone. We need to expand that. There are other Members who want to speak. I speak on this topic generally. We have looked at this everywhere and we should look in Alaska, as well. No. 1, we can do this without taking away the value of the Refuge; No. 2, we need to do it for the economy of the people who live there. Indian lands are right in this land. There are things that need to be done there. We need to do it to fulfill our promise to ourselves regarding the energy policy we have. I urge we continue to pursue the policy we have in place now, to increase our domestic production. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize Ann Simpson for her selection to receive the prestigious University of Wyoming Art Museum National Advisory Board President's Award on November 5, 2005. John Paul Richter once said, ``Art is not the bread, but the wine of life.'' In many ways this is true, but art not only enriches our quality of life, it also plays an instrumental role in human development. Art enhances cognitive skills and encourages creative expression. Art helps us understand different worldviews and perspectives. For these reasons and more, art must be fostered in our communities and across the Nation. In line with this mission, the University of Wyoming Art Museum National Advisory Board established the President's Award in 1995. This special award is to be presented to an individual, group or organization for their lifetime commitment to the arts in Wyoming. Those selected must be an active advocate of the arts, be recognized as a patron of and major contributor to the arts, have played an instrumental role in the creation or development of a specific art program and/or art initiative, and embody a strong commitment to furthering/developing arts in Wyoming. Ann Simpson is an excellent choice to receive this distinguished award. A Wyoming native, Ann is a long-time supporter of the arts throughout our State. In 1989, Ann received the Wyoming Arts Council Governor's Arts Award for her outstanding service to the arts in Wyoming. Her passion for the arts is further illustrated by her work on the Ford's Theater Board, the University of Wyoming Art Museum Advisory Board, and significant financial contributions to art programs throughout the State and Nation. In fact, Ann worked with the Wyoming State legislature to secure a National Endowment for the Arts funding match of $3.5 million in order to initiate construction of the Centennial Complex which currently houses the University of Wyoming Art Museum. She was also responsible for cultivating and stewarding a $2.5 million donation to the University of Wyoming Art Museum, their largest endowment gift to date. Ann has always recognized the importance of art and art education to our society. In fact, one of her most notable contributions to our State is an art outreach program called the Artmobile. The Artmobile is a traveling exhibition which visits communities throughout the State of Wyoming in order to provide our residents with exposure to diverse forms of visual art. The program incorporates artwork from the University of Wyoming's permanent collection and by Wyoming artists. Discussions of the exhibition are typically followed by hands-on art activities with the Artmobile curator. The program is provided free of charge and each presentation is tailored to engage its particular audience. In 1995, the Artmobile was renamed for Ann in recognition of her tremendous efforts on behalf of the program. To this day, Ann works diligently to increase public awareness of the valuable service the ``Ann Simpson Artmobile'' provides and to enrich the lives of all Wyomingites with art. Ann Simpson is truly deserving of the University of Wyoming Art Museum National Advisory Board President's Award. Mr. President, Ann's husband, former Senator Alan Simpson, and I grew up a stone's throw from one another, so I have had the pleasure of knowing the Simpsons for most of my life. Al and Ann are a remarkable couple with endless energy and enthusiasm for our great State. My wife Susan and I consider them both dear friends, and we extend our most sincere congratulations for Ann's extraordinary achievement.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there is a subjject that is extremely important. It is important to all. Frankly, having been at home this weekend, as most Members have, I heard more about it probably than any other issue. That is spending, of course; the amount of spending we are taking on, and the Federal Government challenges to do something about the increase in the deficit we are bringing upon ourselves. The challenges make it very difficult. As Fred Thompson said once: It is like going to heaven; everyone wants to go, but nobody wants to make the changes necessary to get there. That is the way it is with the budget. It is an obligation to do more to control spending and to control the size of the Federal Government. We have that obligation. We have had some difficult times in the last couple of years which have brought about some necessary spending. We had September 11, the war on terrorism, the gulf now, and other emergencies, all of which require spending. I understand that. However, we have to treat this as a family or business would when an extraordinary thing happens: We take care of it, but, nevertheless, the costs for the family and business continue. Then we must find a way at some point to offset the costs. That is where we are now. Things have not all been bad over the past year. We have decreased the deficit by $100 billion. We never hear much discussion in the media about that. The fact is, we have made some progress. We have done some other good things. We passed an energy bill. We passed a highway bill. Through the tax reductions over the years, we have increased the activity in the economy, increased jobs and pay. There are good things. The fact is, we still have special costs and funding we have to take care of. As I mentioned, as in business, we have costs here, as well. We are going to have a reconciliation bill, hopefully, next week. We will look at the budget we are in now to ensure--and this is our last appropriations bill today in the Senate--we live within the budget in those appropriations. I support the idea that we will seek to reduce it an additional amount, whether it is the $35 billion in the bill the Senate has talked about or whether it is the $50 billion talked about in the House. That is what we necessarily need to be doing and should be doing. Now, those are short-term issues, short-term changes for this year or the next 3 or 4 years. We should give more attention to the long-term situation. In most things we do here, particularly in spending, particularly regarding the deficit, we ought to think of the long term. We ought to have 20/20 vision and ask, Where do we want to be in 15 or 20 years? What do we want to hand off to the next generation as a vision of where we want to be and where we would like to be, where we think we should be with our families, with our communities, with our Nation, and make the decisions daily, as we have to make them, predicated on accomplishing those visions we have decided we want. The Washington Times said since the 1950s, around 18 to 20 percent of the gross national product has been the deficit. Deficits are not unusual. It is debt for most everything--businesses and families and so on. If we continue to go this route over the next 50 years, we will be talking more about 30 or 40 percent deficit as a percentage of gross national product. Deficits and spending go up because gross national product goes up, so as a percentage they go up as well. However, I don't think we want to find ourselves moving toward larger and larger government with more and more activities without paying for them and have this deficit continue. In order to do that, we will have to look at some reforms. We will have to look at changes that need to occur, looking broader than just the reconciliation bill, which is very important. We need to look beyond that. We need to look at where we are going in the future and make some real changes. One change will be in the size and scope of the Federal Government and the activities we are involved with in the Federal Government. We have created a culture where if there is anything needed anywhere, from the community on to the Federal Government, we get the Federal Government to pay for it, and we will start a new program. That has become a culture and a custom. Once that program is built in, it becomes political. As programs are started, they get a constituency and they continue. Those are areas we need to look at. We will have to look at Social Security, for example. That is where most of the money is spent. When we spend $2.5 trillion in a year, only about $800 million is discretionary spending. The rest is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We need to look at this. Everyone is committed to a well-funded, secure Social Security Program over the years. There are differences of views as to how to get there. We need to look out to the future so the young people here can look forward to Social Security in another 50 or 60 years. Clearly, we want health care available, but we have to do it in different ways. We need changes. I come from a rural State. The way health care is delivered in rural Wyoming is different from in Washington, DC. We need to get in a position where people have access to care. Maybe we ought to be doing some things where we do not need health care as much. We need long-term changes to get that taken care of. We need to restrain growth in the Federal Government. I have always advocated policies for reducing the size of government. It is apparent that the government is too big and too broad in its scope. Our phones practically ring off the hook with people wanting more money for this, more money for that. I understand that. However, we have to decide what is appropriate for the Federal Government to pay. Many of the programs should be invested in but at the local or State level. It seems over time we have created programs for most everyone. There are approximately 1,200 funded Federal programs. We need to look at these for the long term. We have to look at each program and see, in fact, if it is still as needed as when it was put into place, to see if it is as efficient, evaluate it on its merit to decide if the taxpayers are getting their money's worth, then take a broad look, a long-term future look at eliminating programs, reducing the size of government, maintaining programs that are essential, and making them more efficient long term. I have a bill called Government Reorganization and Program Performance Improvement Act that creates mechanisms to do that. We have an opportunity most any time to create a new program and to fund it. We have a process for that. We do not have a process for evaluating a program that started 10 years ago. Is that reason still there? Have we accomplished the goal? Should it be changed? We talk about that, I suppose, from time to time, but we do not have a process for doing that. That is partly what we would do. The bill would create a sunset commission and an individual results commission. The sunset commission would hold the Federal Government accountable for performance with Presidential proposals. The commission could propose to the President whether to retain the program--after it has been there for 10 years; taking a look at it--or to restructure the program, or to end the program. This would be acted on by assessments, a seven-member, bipartisan commission, appointed by the President, so we would have a process--a process, which we do not have now--to evaluate programs to see if they are, as I said, accomplishing the things they were set up to accomplish or to see if they should be done differently. The other half of it is an opportunity to evaluate performance, again, having a commission set up to take a look at programs to see if they are operating as efficiently as they might be operating. I think it is fair to say sometimes in the bureaucracy we get things built into programs where they are resistant to change. It is a little different generally than the private sector where the private sector has to change from time to time because of profits or because of a lack of profits, or whatever; where Government programs tend to go on forever pretty much as they are. And I understand that. So it seems to me there needs to be a way to do some of those kinds of evaluations and make sure that, No. 1, the size of Government can be controlled, and No. 2, we would maintain it as efficiently as can be done, trying to do away with wastefulness and unnecessary and duplicative activities that take place--whether it is within the Federal Government or within State governments or local governments. We are looking at a way to ensure good government. Everybody wants government. Everybody wants services. But we also want good government; we want efficient government; we want effective government. And we want it to be done as economically and in the least costly way it can be done and still get that accomplished. That is not an easy project. I understand that. But it seems to me-- as we look at excessive spending; as we look at trying to do something about the budget that is pretty short term, looking at these next couple of years--we ought to be looking at where we are going to be in making some decisions that will help us keep within the budget we would like to have over a longer period of time. Doing that, we would have to make more difficult decisions, perhaps, but they would be more long- term decisions. Now is a good time to do that. What better time would there be to take a look at that than now, when we are as concerned as we are about spending--which we ought to be? I think this is a good government initiative which we ought to look at. It certainly urges us to bring these bills up and to take a look at them so that, in addition to next year's reductions in spending, we take a look at the overall problem we face by increasing spending because we have found, I think, that is an easy thing to do. I think under these current circumstances, it is a thing that happens pretty much constantly, unless we are doing something about that. I hope, No. 1, we recognize the importance of controlling spending, we recognize the importance of controlling the size and the role of the Federal Government. I think there should be--there should be--some definitions. We ought to have in our own minds some criteria as to what is the role of the Federal Government, what is the role of the other governments, what is the role of the private sector, so we do not continue to be in this sort of circumstance where everything that needs to be done becomes a role of the Federal Government. And then we wonder why taxes go up; we wonder why spending goes up. It is pretty easy to explain that if you take a look at the size of the Government. I guess what I am saying is, I hope we can take on the responsibility, as we go about our daily chores, to have some vision for the future, to evaluate with respect to where we are, but also trying to get a notion of where we want to be--how we see it for our families; how we see it for jobs; how we see it for education; how we see it for freedom of choice. That is part of the criteria for this country. We get in a political situation, which we are kind of in now. All we do is criticize this and that. The real reason for elections is to talk about the issues and to decide where we need to be, to talk about the kinds of issues and decisions that need to be made to get us where we want to be. I think we have gotten so involved with the media picking up on every little controversial issue, and talking about that, that people have forgotten what elections are about. Elections are about direction. Decisions here are about direction. Decisions here are about where we are going to be, and where we need to be, and where we want to be over time--for our families, for our communities, for our Nation. We have a great opportunity to do that. I urge we give some consideration to it in every chance we have. And particularly now, as concerned as we are about spending--and properly so--we should be sure we take a look at where we want to be, how we can get there, and what changes have to be made that are more than just for next year, so we can move forward in that direction. Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business. As I told the chairman, if any Members come and want to proceed with amendments, I will be glad to yield the floor.

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