Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing to receive testimony on the National Park Service's Draft Management Policies, including potential impact of the policies on park operations, park resources, interaction with gateway communities, and solicitation and collection of donations. The hearing will be held on Tuesday November 1, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and memory of Stan K. Hathaway. Sadly, Stan passed away on October 4, at the age of 81. One of six children, Stan was born in Osceola, NE. He grew up in Huntley, WY. Stan attended the University of Wyoming until he heard the call of duty, and in 1943, he left college and joined the Army Air Corps to serve his country in World War II. During the war, he flew bomber missions. For his service, Stan received the French Criox de Guerre, U.S. Presidential Unit Citations and five air medals. When Stan returned from his tour in Europe, he enrolled at the University of Nebraska to finish his bachelor's degree and continued on to complete his law degree at the same institution. While there, he met and married his lovely wife Bobby. Bobby was the light in his life. Their relationship was strong and full of love. They complimented one another beautifully, and together, they accomplished tremendous things. Following Stan's graduation from law school, he and Bobby moved to Torrington. Bobby began teaching, and Stan established his law practice. Here, they had their two daughters, Susan and Sandra. In 1954, Stan was elected Goshen County Attorney, and in 1966, he was elected Governor. After his second term as governor, President Ford appointed Stan as secretary of the interior in 1975. He was Wyoming's first cabinet officer. Health issues forced his resignation shortly after his appointment, and he moved to Cheyenne to resume his law practice. Stan always looked toward the future, and his innumerable contributions still resonate in our great State. During his two terms as Governor, Stan initiated groundbreaking policy for Wyoming. He enacted the State's first severance tax on minerals and created the Permanent Mineral Trust Fund where severance tax money is invested. The fund now totals more than $2 billion and earns enough to run a major portion of the State's government operations. Recognizing the value of our State's natural heritage and the need for conservation, Stan approved Wyoming's first environmental controls on its minerals industry. In addition to creating the State department of environmental quality, he signed into law the State air quality act in 1967 and the State water quality act in 1968. He was also a founding member of the Wyoming Heritage Society/Wyoming Heritage Foundation in 1979. Stan was determined to protect Wyoming's natural treasures while securing its economic future. Governor Hathaway also had a great love for arts. He signed the 1967 bill which established the Wyoming Arts Council. He and Bobby were leading patrons of the arts, helped lead the charge to inaugurate public funding for the arts in the State, and helped develop many State programs to encourage art. Stan believed the most important thing Wyoming could give its youth was an education and opportunities to stay in the State. In recognition of his contributions to higher education, the 2005 Wyoming Legislature named the ``Hathaway Student Scholarship Endowment Account,'' a $400 million dollar endowment for academic scholarships and endowed chairs at the State's universities and community colleges, in Stan and Bobby's honor. Governor Hathaway's trailblazing efforts earned him many recognitions. Many credit him with helping Wyoming pull out of its economic depression during the 1950s and 1960s. In 2000, Stan was the recipient of the Mary Mead Steinhaur Heritage Award for his achievements in public service, private sector leadership and commitment to Wyoming's economic growth. Stan and Bobby also received the Governor's Arts Award for Excellence in the Arts in 2003. Stan and Bobby were dear friends of my wife Susan and I. Susan's father, Harry Roberts, served in Governor Hathaway's administration as the superintendent of public instruction. She recalls Stan's deep beliefs and great passion. When Stan spoke, you couldn't help but listen. He was a true leader and a good man. Stan will be sorely missed.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. There is an objection. As a Member, I object.

Mr. THOMAS. The time is at 10 o'clock.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the issue before us, which of course is Judge John Roberts. Certainly we have been hearing all about him for the last several days and nearly everything that is to be said has been said at least once. But I do want to take the opportunity to say I am very impressed with this candidate for Supreme Court Chief Justice. I am convinced that he will be a strong defender of the Constitution, that he has an exceptional ability to interpret the Constitution with respect to the law, and that certainly he has the background and qualifications to do that. I am not an expert in law, but I do feel strongly that the Court is there to measure what is done in other places, what is done in the executive branch, and what is done in the legislative branch with respect to how it fits into the Constitution. I have met with Judge Roberts, and I appreciated the opportunity to get better acquainted with him. I am very impressed with his demeanor and his character. It is comforting to see someone you think is extremely qualified for such an exceptional job and, at the same time, seems to see the world pretty much from the standpoint we all do, just as a human being, a person who wants to live in a country with freedom, in a country with constitutional law, in a country that does the best for everyone, and I have that impression. So I feel very good about him. He has great respect for the rule of law and that, it seems to me, is one of the most important aspects of our country. I have had a chance to visit other places. I have had a chance to talk with kids about other countries. As I have gone about, one of the big differences is we have a rule of law, not a rule of people who happen to be in a strong position at the time, but a rule of law that exists and continues in the Constitution to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Of course, Judge Roberts has credentials that are outstanding. His educational background is great. He has been a White House Counsel, so he knows how that works. He has been a Deputy Solicitor General, so he knows how that aspect of it works, too. And he is a circuit judge, so he has a background as a judge. I believe that is very important. I am very impressed, I am very pleased, and I am very proud to be a part of voting for him. I think the vote will be strong. I shared with Judge Roberts a few areas about which I am concerned. I did not ask his opinion on them, but rather in the State I am from, Wyoming, we are very concerned about venue shopping. We are very concerned about the idea of people filing suit or going to the proper district court or area to get one that is sympathetic. That is not the way it ought to be. The Federal court that deals with the issue from an event in our history has to be in that history, and I wanted to share that with Judge Roberts. I am very concerned about emminent domain, with regard to people's rights and property, gun rights, endangered species. Again, I did not ask him for his opinion on those issues because that is not the issue. The issue is, as legislation is passed, are they consistent with the Constitution, and that is, indeed, the role of judges--to listen to the facts and see how they apply to the rule of law. I was very impressed, as most of us were as we watched some of the interrogation in the committee, with his conduct. Of course, he was pressed many times with different kinds of questions and tried to be pushed into making specific stands on his own opinion on issues, which really is not what it is all about. That is for him to decide when those issues come up with respect to the law, with respect to the Constitution. He handled that situation very well. We have the opportunity--and a very pleasant opportunity--to support a man who has the qualifications, who has not politicized his background, a learned lawyer, a well-trained lawyer. I am persuaded he will be a strong defender of the Constitution. I must confess that is the strongest point I support and seek to see the Court do. I think that will happen. Mr. President, if I may, during this time, I wish to divert from this subject for a minute or two. Government Reorganization and Program Performance Improvement Act of 2005 Mr. President, I wish to talk about a condition that is very much important to us, where we have unusual events happening in our country. We have the situation in Iraq. We are defending ourselves there and the freedoms of this country there. I just came from a hearing. I am very proud of what is happening in Iraq, and I think we are making some progress towards getting people to take care of their own country. That, of course, is the goal, and I am sure we will be there until that goal is achieved. Then comes along the problems with the disasters on the gulf coast. Both of those events, of course, have given us special needs for spending, and we have had to spend. It is right to spend when we have emergencies that arise of that nature, but then we find ourselves in the position of, what do we do about this excessive spending and how do we handle it? I see it as the same thing we undertake in our families. If an emergency happens in the family, you have to handle it. You have to find some way to deal with that emergency. At the same time, your family activities go on and you have to take care of those. Then you have to decide: How can I make some changes in my economic situation to deal with this excessive spending because of an emergency. That is where we are now. We are talking about all kinds of ways. I hope we take enough time to deal with these situations on the gulf coast and give the help those people need. That is the responsibility of the Federal Government. I hope we make sure there is accountability with those moneys spent, that we can be sure they are spent the way for which they are defined to be spent. I hope we make sure the Federal Government does what it is supposed to do and that the other units of government--State, local, and private sector--do what they are supposed to do. But we still will spend a great deal of money and, indeed, we should. We also have to consider that over the past year, because of Iraq and other events, we have also had an increase in our deficit. Our deficit has gone up. So we need to find some ways to do something about it. Obviously, we will take a look at spending and see what areas we can reduce. I hope we do that as we finish our budget for this year. We need to. We should take a look at some of the ways we raise money, in the case of some taxes, that probably we might otherwise change. Perhaps they will have to be left as they are for a while and continue to offset some of these costs. I wish to specifically mention a bill I am currently sponsoring that requires the regular review of Federal programs. This should be done anyway, but it makes it particularly important as we look toward this business of spending. It is called the Government Reorganization and Program Performance Improvement Act. It creates the necessary mechanism, I believe, to set up some commissions to take a look, No. 1, at programs that have been in place, let's say, for 10 years, and to determine if, in fact, the program is still as needed as it was 10 years ago, to see if it accomplished what it was set up to do 10 years ago and now is completed, could be ended, or could be put in with some other program, or could be reduced because the situation may not be the same as it was when a program was put in place. Even though there probably was a very good reason to have the program then, is the reason still good? Should we be changing it? It is really a modernization effort, something we would do in every business, something we should do, which is take a look at what we have done historically and see if they are appropriate and can be done better. The second half is to not only look at programs that might be unnecessary or wasteful, but take a look at programs that will continue, but are they being done as efficiently as they can be. One of the issues we have to take a look at in terms of excessive spending is controlling the size of the Federal Government. It has continued to grow and grow. We have sort of developed a political notion that if there is anything needed anywhere, let's get the Federal Government to pay for it. Well, that is a nice thing to do. The fact is we are supposed to be divided up, and there are local governments, State governments, and the Federal Government, each of which has its own responsibilities and its own areas and we ought to be seeking to define what the role of the Federal Government is and sort of restrict those things to that area so that we can control size. So this program would inventory the programs, would have proactive steps toward improving and eliminating unnecessary and redundant efforts, and it would help us return to fiscal responsibility. It is kind of common sense in Government. It provides a framework to do that. I don't think anybody will disagree with the notion that we ought to evaluate programs to see if they are still efficient, effective, and needed, if they could be more productive. Nobody would argue that concept, but we don't really have a system to do that. I believe this is a good Government measure, and I certainly urge my colleagues to take a look at the bill S. 1399 and urge their consideration and sponsorship of this bill. Mr. President, we always have a responsibility to make sure that Government is as efficient as possible, that spending is as effective as possible, that we hold spending to the minimum to do the things we need to do but not in excess of that, and I think we have an opportunity to put that kind of measurement into place and to ensure that those things can happen. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are facing times of record spending. Whether it is in the form of relief to the hurricane ravaged gulf coast, financing the war on terrorism, or meeting our obligations to seniors with the Medicare prescription drug benefit, Federal spending is higher now than ever. We have committed ourselves to funding these priorities. In doing so, I believe we must also look for ways to save in other areas to offset some of these costs. I would liken our current fiscal situation to that of any common American household. When emergencies or unforeseen obligations arise, such as an illness or a major repair, you find a way to pay the bill. But in doing so, you must also look at your household budget and find places to save. So I come to the Senate floor today to speak a little bit about legislation I recently introduced to require regular review of Federal programs with the goal of identifying areas where savings can be made. S. 1399, the Government Reorganization and Program Performance Improvement Act, will create the necessary mechanisms to require Congress and the executive branch to regularly and formally examine whether Federal programs and agencies are achieving, or have achieved desired results for the American people, and make the necessary adjustments. The bill would do this through the creation of a sunset commission and individual results commissions. The sunset commission would hold the Federal Government accountable for performance by reviewing and providing recommendations to retain, restructure, or end Federal agencies or programs. Congress and the President would enact a 10-year schedule for the administration to assess the performance of all Federal agencies and programs. Acting on those assessments, the seven- member bipartisan sunset commission, appointed by the President in consultation with Congress, will recommend ways to improve effectiveness and spend taxpayer dollars more wisely. The commission will provide an important framework to facilitate the reform, restructuring, or possible elimination of those agencies or programs unable to demonstrate expected performance results during their scheduled review. It will also help to identify those programs that have achieved their intended purposes or outlived their usefulness. A second key feature of this important measure is the creation of individual results commissions targeted at specific programs or policy areas where duplication and overlapping jurisdiction hinder reform. Again, these seven-member bipartisan commissions, appointed by the President in consultation with Congress, will consider administration proposals to improve the performance of various programs and agencies by restructuring and consolidation. This will reduce unnecessary costs and waste paid for by the American taxpayer. We need to continue to evaluate the way the Federal Government operates and look for ways to make it more cost effective for the long term. I believe this legislation presents a good step toward dealing with the large number of Federal programs out there, many of which are, frankly, wasteful and unnecessary. Many also duplicate other Federal, State and private efforts. S. 1399 provides a commonsense framework for reorganization and review of Federal programs, and provides for a way to abolish them if determined unnecessary. S. 1399 is a good government measure. It is about efficiency, accountability to the American taxpayer, and identifying potential savings. It is a fiscally responsible measure that will provide a way for the Federal Government to save even as it meets its spending obligations in the future. I invite my colleagues to take a serious look at this proposal and to join me in advancing this effort.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about part of the Senate bill that has to do with the identification of livestock products and the country of origin labeling. This is an issue we have talked about for some time and one that I think is very important. It is important to my State and to livestock producers there. Country of origin labeling is a very simple thing: When you go into the store to buy a package of meat, it says on there where it comes from. That is not a unique idea. We do it on T-shirts and jackets and everything else and often many other foods. I think people would like to know, and have the right to know, where that product comes from. Country of origin labeling actually was put on the Agriculture bill about 3 years ago, I believe. I was one of the original sponsors of the amendment that put it on the Agriculture bill in 2002, as a matter of fact. It has been around since. It simply says that consumers have the right to know what was the origin of this particular product that they are buying. It can be done by identifying the product as it comes off the farm or range and following it through the process. It does not require the same thing for hamburger or mixed food, which would be very difficult. I believe most consumers support mandatory labeling and many nations require it on many kinds of foods and other products, including the United States. But this bill, even though it passed originally, has been postponed several times. I think there is something to that effect in the House appropriations bill now. It is time we do it. We ought to come to the snubbing post and get something done. It can be done. It has been done other places. I think there is support for doing it. There is labeling of fish, shellfish, and other foods, and that appears to be working. As I said, it has been delayed more than once, and I think the idea is it would be put in place in 2006. I am asking, as we bring this bill to completion and come on to working with the House in the conference, that we make sure we allow this bill, that has been passed and approved by the House and the Senate in the past, to go on and become law. I will not take a great deal more time. I wish to point out it is something, No. 1, that can be done; No. 2, that there has been support for doing it. What we have done is kept postponing doing it. There are some people, some of the retailers and so on, who do not want to have to go to the trouble. But I think the process, for the consumers, is a good idea. People should have the right and they have the desire, I believe, to know the source of the product that they and their family are going to consume. I ask, as we go forward with this bill, we should keep that in mind and seek to complete this whole action, allowing it to move forward. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas for the time. I join all of us in expressing our condolences and our concerns for what has happened in the New Orleans area. Certainly Senator Vitter's discussions yesterday helped us understand a little better what the situation is there, what the difficulties are, and what our responsibilities are to do something about that as quickly as we possibly can. We certainly first want to again offer our condolences to the families of those who perished. I support those who continue to live in the hurricane-affected areas. What we have seen is, obviously, one of the most terrible natural disasters in our Nation's history. We have also seen, fortunately, the generous spirit of our Nation thrive in a time of confusion and loss. The giving nature of the American people has been displayed and continues to be displayed. We should be very proud of that. I am especially impressed with the people of Wyoming who have opened their hearts and their homes to help the hurricane victims. You never know when someone is going to be in the path of a similar storm. The objective now, of course, is to get the victims back on their feet, and to provide for their basic needs, to bring some semblance of normalcy to the situation there. This is going to be an ongoing effort. It is going to be ongoing, but it also demands immediate attention. Progress is being made hour by hour, day by day. I think it is a testament to the courage of the people throughout the Gulf Coast. It will take years to rebuild New Orleans and the other areas, but I am confident there will be a thriving economy again in that area. Over the next few weeks, our Nation will show, once again, why we are the envy of the world. We will prove that no matter what the obstacles are that are before us, we can join together to overcome them, even if it is Mother Nature. The stories of heroism and fortitude will continue to trickle down, but soon, like the water that has destroyed so much, that trickle was evolve into a wave--a wave of construction, a wave of rebirth. As we showed on that bright September morning 4 years ago, this Nation will rise out of the ashes and rebuild the Gulf Coast. I join my Wyomingites to say we are sorry for what happened, but we look forward to working with you to restore what you have lost. I am particularly proud of Wyoming's military. We have deployed 72 people in support of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. We have sent four helicopters with 19 people, two C-130s delivering equipment. We have sent AirVac nurses and 13 security police from the naval air station. So we are very pleased to be able to help. We need to provide the help. There are lots of things being talked about. We can talk about tax relief, particularly as it provides relief for those things being given there. TANF, of course, has something to do with education and health care. We can do something about insurance, private insurance, to make that more efficient. Charitable giving is one of the things we can look at to ensure that is as useful as can be. School funding, which has already been mentioned here, is very important, whether it be there or wherever the children are. Medicaid is one area we need to take a strong look at to make sure it is available to everyone who needs it. Certainly, we need to take a look at emergency funding. There are many items with which we are challenged. They are going to be difficult, but they are there. We can accomplish what we need to do, and that is to help these people in this circumstance. As we do it, however, I hope we remember that, as in the case of our family, when we have emergency needs, we have to look at some other areas to cut back a little bit. As this emergency continues to go on, our life needs to go on. Government needs to go on with its essential services. At the same time, there are some things we are doing in the Government that could be set aside and could, indeed, be changed so that we can offset some of the costs that go into this effort. That will be necessary. I send our condolences and accept and join with my associates to take on the challenge of dealing with the needs of the people in the Gulf Coast. I yield the floor.

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, September 22, 2005, 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. 435, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a segment of the Farmington River and Salmon Brook in the State of Connecticut for study for potential addition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, S. 1096, a bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate portions of the Musconetcong River in the State of New Jersey as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, S. 1310, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allow the Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation to increase the diameter of a natural gas pipeline located in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, S. 1378, a bill to amend the National Historic Preservation Act to provide appropriation authorization and improve the operations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and S. 1627, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resources study to evaluate resources along the coastal region of the State of Delaware and to determine the suitability and feasibility of establishing a unit of the National Park System in Delaware. 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 or Brian Carlstrom.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we deal today with a very interesting and important issue, as a matter of fact. All of us want to do something about mercury and the emissions of mercury. We also want to have electricity, and we want to have it at a reasonable cost. Of course, our efforts now, in terms of energy, are to try to move toward using more and more coal for production because that is the biggest fossil fuel resource we have. What we have, of course, is a proposal by the administration over a period of time to reduce mercury from this kind of production by as much as 71 percent in the country and to be able to do that in a way which will allow us to continue to use coal and to allow us to continue to do it at the reasonable price that we now have. What we have done is developed a program to accomplish those important things. We have a regulation, 15 years in the making, which has been designed to allow for the continuation of production, to allow for the reduction over 70 percent in a period of 9 years, and to allow those who have trouble to have some offset sales so the result is a reduction in mercury, which we all want to do, while we continue to produce, which we all want to do. I think it is a big mistake, after all these efforts that have been made to accomplish all the things we want to accomplish, to say we want to reject that and establish something that is likely to be unworkable over a period of time, plus extremely expensive. I urge we do not repeal this effort. The opportunity has been there for Congress to work on it. We certainly will. There will be an opportunity to vote on it, if we proceed here as we should, and to be able to say, yes, we want to reduce mercury; yes, we want to continue the production of electricity produced by coal, and we want to be able to do that over a period of time with a reasonable program. That is what we have. EPA estimates the cost of this at about $2 billion over this period of time, when what is being proposed is to do a very different thing that costs about $300 billion. At any rate, I certainly urge we do not approve this idea of removing this regulation, this program.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will be short. It is a real honor to be here this evening to talk about the introduction of this bill, a bill for which we have waited a very long time, and worked a very long time. I thank the chairman and the ranking member. We worked very hard on this bill to get it into conference and worked very hard through conference. Since we started formulating policy, we have worked on a number of issues. There have been changes. Many things have remained the same because the policies need to be the same. The issues are the same. We have had to move forward. We still need a comprehensive policy. That is an important issue because now, as we read in the paper, there are questions as to why we are not going to affect the gas prices tomorrow or the day after. We are talking about down the road. We are talking about where we will be over a period of time. This is a policy. It is very important to remember and to understand as we talk about the changes that will eventually take place in the kind of energy we will use, in terms of renewables, in terms of alternatives. We will be moving there, but we are not there. Alternative energy creates now about 3 percent of what we use. It will be much higher than that, but it won't be higher than that next year or next month. We have to make sure what we are using now for energy can continue to be maintained and that we will find new ways of dealing with the energy. For instance, that we can take coal, our largest fossil fuel resource, and find ways to use it in a more environmentally sound way, find ways to change the way it is moved, for hydrogen or synthetic diesel, and do that over time. It is important we understand that we have to do two things: We have to look to the future about alternatives. We have to find ways to use what is available now to keep up production in this country and to keep our economy strong. We ought not to forget that is what we need to do. This is a bill that is very balanced. That is important. It has already been talked about. I will not go into the details. We have talked about renewables. We have talked about ways we can renew-- whether it is gasoline, ethanol, or opportunities for electric generation, whether nuclear or whatever--areas we can move to. That is very important over time. We ought to talk about coal. We do here. We spend a good deal of money. By the way, we divide this total expenditure in about six equal ways between renewables, conservation, doing something to make coal more usable. There are six distinct areas spread in fairly equal amounts. I will talk a second on coal. It is our largest fossil fuel resource. We have more of it for the future than any other energy. We need to find better ways to use that. Much of it will be generating electricity. Sometimes we do not think about where electricity comes from; we just think it is automatically there. It is not. We have to continue to do that. Coal is in one place; the need for electricity is in another. We need transmission. We have to have new transmission ideas and do things that are more efficient than they have been in the past. We need to find a way to make sure it is safe and secure. The same thing is true with oil. We use oil a great deal. About 60 percent of it now is imported. We will continue to do that. Certainly over time we will find ways to get better mileage in automobiles. It is not going to happen right away. Of course, there will be some arguments that we should put some defined times when you have to get CAFE standards. It is very difficult to do that. But it will happen. It will happen in the marketplace. It will happen as we can do it. And we can do it efficiently. We have to find better ways to get more oil out of the ground. We produce a lot of oil in Wyoming. The old oilfields are about exhausted, but below that is a great deal more oil if we find different ways of doing that, if we use renewed production or carbon sequestration. And much of that is in this bill. We do have conservation and efficiency, as we should have. We have opportunities to make the use of energy more clean and better environmentally. We have ideas for producing more production of our resources available now. And we need to do all of these things as quickly as possible, but we cannot do them overnight. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to commend Senator Domenici, chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Senator Bingaman, the ranking Democrat, and all the Senate conferees for their excellent work on a number of areas in the conference report agreement on H.R. 6, especially those relating to processing of energy permits. I would like to point out one particular provision that will provide a basis for future work to ensure more energy supplies from Federal lands. Section 365 of the H.R. 6 conference agreement outlines a multistate pilot program to improve coordination of energy permit processing in a number of Western States. That section includes a provision to allow a share of the money from Federal oil and gas lease rentals to be used by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and other agencies to ensure adequate resources for processing and considering applications for permits necessary for natural gas and oil drilling and other operations. As the conference on H.R. 6 was getting underway, the BLM released a proposal that, if implemented, would begin charging fees for permit processing. Called a ``cost sharing'' proposal, it was really a ``cost shifting'' one. And it came at a time when Federal revenues from leasing and production of Federal oil and gas as a result of such permits being issued total approximately $1.8 billion each year. In one Wyoming office alone the proposed fee which could be as high as $4,000 for a single application would generate $11 million, far in excess of the office's total oil and gas program budget. I would prefer that producers put this money back into the communities where they are doing business and expand their investment to produce more energy. In the strong belief that the Federal Government has a responsibility to budget and pay for advance environmental work and consideration of the permits necessary to explore and produce on its leased acreage, Senator Hatch and I filed an amendment to prevent the BLM from instituting fees during the period of the permitting pilot program. I was pleased that the House conferees joined my Senate colleagues in approving that amendment. Now that the Energy bill conference agreement is before us, I hope that my colleagues will agree that in the future we need to provide adequate Federal funding for energy permitting, and that we should continue to prohibit attempts to shift Government costs to the private sector as was attempted by the BLM.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Subcommittee On National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a field hearing to gather information regarding invasive species. Specific areas of interest include challenges and needs of the National Park Service, existing legislation, legislative solutions, and use of partnerships for managing invasive species in and around National Parks. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 9, 2005, at 10 a.m. in the Kilauea Visitors Center auditorium, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hilo, HI. Becaue 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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I simply wanted to rise to give my endorsement to Tom Dorr, who has been nominated for Under Secretary for Rural Development. This agency is important to States such as Wyoming. We have had some experience working with Mr. Dorr and we are pleased with that. Many of the groups from my State have endorsed him, including the Cattleman's Association, the American Farm Bureau, the Farm Council, and so on. I hope we will give the consideration and approval this gentleman continues to deserve in this area. He has done a great job. I hope he will have a chance to continue. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that would clarify the class life of cell site equipment used by wireless telecommunications companies. Wireless telecommunications, like many other high-tech industries, uses computer-based technology to facilitate the digitization of voice, video and data services over its networks. The wireless industry was in its infancy in 1986 when the Internal Revenue Code's rules regarding depreciation were last revised, so the sophisticated equipment used today was not even contemplated. For the past 20 years, the Internal Revenue Service--and taxpayers--have had to try to shoehorn modern equipment into outdated wireline telephony definitions in order to determine the appropriate depreciation period. Even the Treasury Department, in its July 2000 ``Report to the Congress on Depreciation Recovery Periods and Methods,'' admits that this is inappropriate. The result of this methodology is that the IRS has taken the position that wireless cell site equipment should be depreciated similarly to wooden telephone poles and wires rather than other, computerized equipment that it more closely resembles. Consequently, this equipment is depreciated over 20 years rather than 5. In other words, the misclassification significantly increases the cost of capital investment in the Nation's wireless network. Given the rapid technological change and advances in the wireless industry, this bill would classify wireless telecommunications equipment as ``qualified technological equipment.'' This is the proper classification because the major components of wireless cell sites are, in fact, computers or peripheral equipment controlled by computers. Consumer demand for wireless services grew almost 700 percent over the last decade, and rapid growth in this area continues. The industry also makes significant contributions to the economy directly employing 226,340 workers and making hundreds of billions of dollars in capital investments. Clarifying the depreciation treatment of cell site equipment means even greater wireless investment, increased wireless employment, and improved benefits to America's wireless consumers. Wireless technology has brought tremendous advances to rural America, and this bill would ensure that rural consumers continue to have timely access to the latest technology available. I thank my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, for joining me in recognizing the problem and introducing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that would clarify the class life of cell site equipment used by wireless telecommunications companies. Wireless telecommunications, like many other high-tech industries, uses computer-based technology to facilitate the digitization of voice, video and data services over its networks. The wireless industry was in its infancy in 1986 when the Internal Revenue Code's rules regarding depreciation were last revised, so the sophisticated equipment used today was not even contemplated. For the past 20 years, the Internal Revenue Service--and taxpayers--have had to try to shoehorn modern equipment into outdated wireline telephony definitions in order to determine the appropriate depreciation period. Even the Treasury Department, in its July 2000 ``Report to the Congress on Depreciation Recovery Periods and Methods,'' admits that this is inappropriate. The result of this methodology is that the IRS has taken the position that wireless cell site equipment should be depreciated similarly to wooden telephone poles and wires rather than other, computerized equipment that it more closely resembles. Consequently, this equipment is depreciated over 20 years rather than 5. In other words, the misclassification significantly increases the cost of capital investment in the Nation's wireless network. Given the rapid technological change and advances in the wireless industry, this bill would classify wireless telecommunications equipment as ``qualified technological equipment.'' This is the proper classification because the major components of wireless cell sites are, in fact, computers or peripheral equipment controlled by computers. Consumer demand for wireless services grew almost 700 percent over the last decade, and rapid growth in this area continues. The industry also makes significant contributions to the economy directly employing 226,340 workers and making hundreds of billions of dollars in capital investments. Clarifying the depreciation treatment of cell site equipment means even greater wireless investment, increased wireless employment, and improved benefits to America's wireless consumers. Wireless technology has brought tremendous advances to rural America, and this bill would ensure that rural consumers continue to have timely access to the latest technology available. I thank my colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln, for joining me in recognizing the problem and introducing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that 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, July 28, 2005, at 10 a.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. 584 and H.R. 432, bills to require the Secretary of the Interior to allow the continued occupancy and use of certain land and improvements within Rocky Mountain National Park; S. 652, a bill to provide financial assistance for the rehabilitation of the Benjamin Franklin National Memorial in Philadelphia, PA, and the development of an exhibit to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the birth of Benjamin Franklin; S. 958, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the Star-Spangled Banner Trail in the States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia as a National Historic Trail; S. 1154, a bill to extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, to provide improved visitor services at the park, and for other purposes; S. 1166, a bill to extend the authorization of the Kalaupapa National Historical Park Advisory Commission; and S. 1346, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of maritime sites in the State of Michigan. 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.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to talk about the topic that is on our agenda today, the CAFTA trade agreement. Certainly, it is something in which all of us are interested. Trade agreements are very important, of course, and whether they fit or not they are always there and we have to deal with them. Frankly, I have been very involved in this, partly because sugar is one of the products from my State and it is one of the things that has been a very controversial portion of this trade agreement. Trade agreements are not easy. Whether we like it or not, trade moves around the world and so what we need to do is to find a way to make that trade work as well as we can for ourselves and for others. Sometimes I am a little disappointed. When we passed the free-trade agreement, I think we should have called it the fair-trade agreement. Free trade is not always the way things are. There is a book called ``The World Is Flat,'' talking about how there is equality throughout the world, but it is changing. Well, it is changing, but it has not all changed. There is a great deal of difference between one country and another in terms of their economy, in terms of the way it works and whether one is getting paid $2 a day or $20 a day or $20 an hour. So when one talks about free trade, one has to make sure that they recognize the differences that are there. All I am saying is it is difficult. Of course, we want to work with other countries. Part of the reason for having CAFTA before us is we are looking for relationships with the Central American countries. That is a good idea. We are looking at countries that are fairly undeveloped or newly developed, certainly a different economy than we have here. Yet we want to strengthen those. I think over time, in terms of thinking about trade, it is going to be important that this hemisphere be together and be strong as we see things develop in Asia and other places around the world. So it is important that we do this. We are the largest Nation of purchases in the world. So we have some strength to bargain and even though we need to be fair about it, we need to exercise that muscle a little bit because we are in a position to do that. So it is a matter of coming up, hopefully, with fair trade and equality as much for everyone as we possibly can. It is not just a matter of helping others. There are other ways to help others. It is not just a matter of strengthening other countries but having a relationship that is fair. I mentioned sugar. Sugar is not the biggest industry in the world, but it is an industry that is important to this country. It is an integral part of our economy. It is a little unique. Agriculture is a big thing in Wyoming, of course; mostly livestock, as one might imagine, in the open space and so on. In our agricultural economy, livestock produces the most by a great deal. The second actually is hay and feed for livestock, but third in crops is sugar. So it is a relatively large one for us. Sugar is unique as a commodity. If one raises oats and something happens to the price, they can raise barley or some other kind of grain. That is not the case with sugar. With sugar, there is a high investment in particular equipment such as thinning equipment. They used to use Mexican workers mostly to go out with a hoe and thin sugar beets. Well, they do not do that so much anymore. They use expensive equipment to do it. So it is a little different. The second thing that is different about it is that the producers now also are owners of the processing equipment. So in our State where we have relatively little manufacturing, we have some sugar processing plants which are unique. It is about the only agricultural product in our State that is processed to the extent it is ready for the grocery store shelf when it leaves our State. So even though, as the New York Times, I think, erroneously reported that it was not very important, there are lots of people hired in that industry who are not farmers, but they are producers. So it is unique and it has been treated uniquely over time in the farm bill and other places. So as one bargains into a trade agreement it is one of the things that one really does not have much flexibility to work on. Now, in regards to CAFTA, it is important that we deal with our neighbors in that part of the world. We need to work to have a relationship there. They need to strengthen their economy. There is no question about that. That is a good thing. But it is a relatively small market, about half of what some of the larger cities would be in the United States. So we do need to work at it, but we need to understand that it is not going to change the world in terms of what we are doing. We have made some efforts to make it work, and I am willing to say to my friends and others that several of us who are particularly interested in this have worked with the sugar beet and sugar cane growers over the country and have had a number of meetings with them, have listened to their issues and have worked with them before. We have also worked very closely with the Secretary of Agriculture, and I want to commend him for his efforts to try to find some arrangements that could make it better. We did, finally. However, one of the strange things about this is that this trade agreement was signed about a year ago and was not brought up to the floor until last week. So when we heard it was coming, I think, a week ago today, we had the very first meeting with the Secretary, with some congressional members who were interested, and the sugar people. There was a great deal of discussion, as there should be, but no one was prepared to make decisions in that short time. So we tried to get back together again, work some over the weekend and be back again on Monday. Lo and behold, here comes the bill to the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, before we even had our second meeting. I tried to suggest we need a little more time and maybe we could work something out. Nevertheless, that is where it was. Part of our problem was we have not had much time. I do again want to say the Secretary came in with some ideas. He still has some ideas and they are good ones. Our new trade ambassador, Rob Portman, is doing a great job. He has done everything he could possibly do to make this workable. Of course, he had nothing to do with negotiating it in the first place, but nevertheless both of those gentlemen have worked at it very hard. There has not been time to do something. The problem basically is that this sugar program has been one over time that has been kind of measured in trying to hold its production to the demand in the country. Currently, for example, there is lots of sugar being stored in Wyoming because production is over demand and our own sugar is not being put on the market because there is not enough capacity for it now. So the Secretary did agree that he could do some things until the next farm bill comes up, which is 2 years from now, and I think he can. He may have to use some CCC activities, exchange of one goods for another, to handle a relatively small amount of sugar that could come under this pact. The problem is, with the sugar people and others, that it is simply about a 2-year remedy. They need to look at something much further than that down the road. I say to my colleagues, it is not just exactly the CAFTA agreement that is of concern to us. It is also the fact that the NAFTA deal with Mexico will expire in 2 years, presumably opening up the market there not only for sugar but fructose and other things that could come here and could have a real impact on this fairly difficult to manage sugar industry in our country. So we have to keep in mind we are not just talking about CAFTA, we are talking about the impact that can come from the changes that take place in NAFTA as well. In addition, if we do something with CAFTA--and we are--then the next thing we are going to be looking at is other countries in Central America, Ecuador, and Brazil--finally, Brazil, which is a big sugar producer. So the precedent that is set with respect to sugar is one that is very concerning to the sugar industry. What are we going to do in the next immediate trade agreements? So these things all go into it, and that is why a 2-year solution--even though I really respect the fact that they tried to do something, we still will work at it. We are not through trying to find a remedy, but it apparently cannot fit into this. So I do, again, want to respectfully thank them for what they have done. In any event, those are some of the problems that we have. Finally, one other point, and that is that there seems to be, to me at least, a little lesson in this in terms of negotiating trade contracts. The authority to do that comes from the Congress, asked for by the Executive. As this is done, it seems to me we ought to have a little more input into it before it is resolved. What really happens in this case, at least practically, is that the negotiators go on, and when their negotiation is finished they come to us with a package over which in this case, because some of the countries had already agreed to it, there really was not any opportunity for changes in it when it came here. So I think we ought to have more input. We could deal with this. Two more points. One is how important this is. I got calls from the Secretary of Defense, from the Secretary of State, the President, and the Vice President talking about not only is the trade aspect important but also the relationships. I do not disagree with that, but I also have to say that I met with the six Presidents on this and they said the same thing, that this is more than just trade. I say to them and to myself, Why do we let this relatively little thing hold it up? Why did we not fix that knowing it was going to be a problem before we got there? I think we can do a better job in the future. I think we are going to be faced with some more of these kinds of issues. We ought to be able to deal with them. I am sorry we didn't have more time to perhaps come up with a remedy before we have to vote. I voted against it the second time in the committee. Unfortunately, I cannot support it this time. But I do hope we can make some changes and deal with it in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing to review the National Park Service's business strategy for operation and management of the national park system, including development and implementation of business plans, use of business consultants, and incorporating business practices into day-to- day operations. The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 14, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. 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. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman for his assistance in solving a problem that I hope he, too, would agree needs fixing. In the fiscal year 04 and fiscal year 05 appropriations, Congress provided a total of $8 million in the NPS construction account to build a visitors center at Grand Teton National Park. Private partners will contribute $10 million. The Park Service has asked the private partners to deposit their share in an escrowed Treasury account prior to the start of construction. To meet that requirement, the private partners will borrow the funds from a commercial bank and therefore begin accruing interest expense immediately even though the majority of the funds may not be needed for 12 to 18 months. The private partners would prefer to meet their commitment by giving the NPS an irrevocable letter of credit due and payable from a bank or financial institution organized and authorized to transact business in the United State. It would save them upwards to $800,000 in interest payments over the construction period--funds that could be used for other park projects. The National Park Service believes they don't have the authority to accept a letter or credit unless specifically authorized by Congress, Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1). As chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it is my goal to encourage partnerships that benefit our parks while at the same time insuring that the Government's interest is protected. I ask that we work together between now and conference to evaluate ways these two goals can be accomplished. Specifically, I would like to grant the NPS the authority to accept an irrevocable letter of credit if we can be convinced the government's interest would be protected.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to speak about an amendment I filed to the tax title of this bill on electric transmission property depreciation and engage Mr. Grassley in a colloquy on this important issue if I may. I did not push this issue to a vote during the committee markup, and I don't intend to do so on the floor either since I understand the provision is included in the House version of the bill and enjoys broad support in both the House and the Senate. That said, I felt it was important to underscore the importance of energy infrastructure in the United States. It is completely irrelevant how much we have in the area of energy-producing resources if we can't transport that energy to where it's needed. And electric transmission capacity is a prime example. There are a number of barriers to building additional transmission capacity, among them being stringent regulations at the federal, state, and local levels; NIMBY-ism, in other words, those who want it, but not in their backyard; and high capital cost. My amendment--which would have incorporated my bill, S. 815, into the tax title--addresses the substantial investment required to build additional capacity. I thank Senators Snowe, Bingaman, Bunning, and Smith for cosponsoring both the bill and the amendment. The provision would shorten the depreciation life of electric transmission property from the current 20 years to 15 years, thereby substantially reducing the cost. I understand Chairman Grassley's hesitancy to include provisions in the Senate package that are already covered in the House bill. However, I am asking for the Chairman's commitment to ensure this important provision is included in a final energy package.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Detainees'' on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 226. The tentative witness list is attached. Panel I: Brigadier General Thomas L. Hemingway, Department of Defense Office of Military Commissions, United States Department of Defense, Washington, DC; Rear Admiral James M. McGarrah, Director of Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC; the Honorable J. Michael Wiggins, Deputy Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; the Honorable Glenn A. Fine, Inspector General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: Lieutenant Commander Charles D. Swift, Defense Counsel, Office of Chief Justice Counsel, United States Department of Defense, Washington, DC; the Honorable William P. Barr, Executive Vice-President and General Counsel, Verizon Corporation, Washington, DC; Joseph Margulies, Esq., Principal, Margulies & Richman, Minneapolis, MN; Stephen Schulhofer, Esq., Professor, New York University School of Law, New York City, NY. special committee on aging