Craig Thomas

Mr. President, I wish to join my friend from Texas in talking about the interest in energy. I don't think there is anything, frankly, when we look at it, that impacts our future and our jobs and our families anymore than energy and its availability. Think about it for a moment, what we actually use, each of us, every day. We drove here in our cars: energy; the lights up here: energy; air-conditioning or heat: energy; then, of course, in the whole economy. So I wanted to talk about some of it in the context of high gas prices and, of course, Americans are experiencing that right now.

I am on the Energy Committee, and we have passed good energy policy in the last couple years. We have already begun to see some of the benefits of that passage, there is no question about that, but there is much more that can be done. Unfortunately, we have gone along a good deal of the time this year and haven't done much about it, so we need to accomplish some things. The high price of gas, of course, touches all of us, but it is particularly important in a State such as mine, where people have to travel so far for school or work or other obligations.

Yesterday, the Energy Committee, of which I am a member, scheduled a hearing on short-term energy outlook for oil and gas. This hearing will be held next week, but that is not enough. Having hearings is not enough, as having press conferences is not enough. We need to move forward.

What is the answer to high gas prices? Of course, the simple economics of it is supply: Supply and demand. One option is to drive less, of course, and we can do some of this. We can have more efficient cars and those kinds of things. But we must drive to work. We must drive. We have to have energy. So there are some things we can do. But the other issue, and the one we can deal with, is increasing supply. My friend from Texas makes a good point. We get so wrapped up in bills and amendments sometimes, but we have to ask ourselves: What can we add? What can we regulate? What needs to be repealed? We cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. That is where the impact is on the price. That economic fact must inform this debate. We certainly can consume our energy in more efficient ways, and we should do that. I support those efforts. I am glad to be a cosponsor of a bill, S. 992, that does that. But we also have to pass alternative fuels, and I am for that. But I think we have to be honest on alternative fuels as to what kind of an impact that is going to have in a relatively short time. I am all for these kinds of things, whether it is wind or Sun or whatever, but it is years down the road before it will be able to do the kinds of volume that is necessary for energy.

So I think my real point is that in the meantime, as we look for alternatives, as we look for various things, there are things we can do now, and that is what we need to do to deal with our needs in the interim while these other things are being decided.

So I am hopeful the majority will bring legislation to the floor that allows us to provide Americans with secure, affordable, and responsible sources of energy. I am convinced that unless we move forward, the majority is not moving in this direction, and I think we must.

Last week, we marked up a biofuels bill in the Energy Committee. The bill focused on ethanol from corn and feed stuffs, and that is a good thing.

However, these fuels raise the cost of corn. They raise the cost of livestock feed and, subsequently, meat and other groceries. They cannot be transported in our existing system. You cannot put ethanol into pipelines and move it. The advanced technologies are not commercialized anywhere yet in the world.

Along with Senator Bunning, I offered an amendment to add coal-to- liquids, and coal-to-liquids don't suffer from the same shortcomings as ethanol. It will have no impact on the affordability of food. It can be delivered through existing pipelines.

Coal is available as one of our most abundant resources, as a matter of fact. It is the most plentiful supply of fossil fuels we have in this country. Coal has the potential to be converted to liquids and fluids and to electricity on the spot. These are the things which need to be done.

We spent most of 2 hours talking about this amendment, and it received a great deal of support. However, when it came down to it, it was a party-line vote of 12 to 11, and it was defeated. So I will bring it to the floor when the Energy bill comes.

I think we need to look at the short-term impact. Here is one-- conversion of coal to liquids--that can work. We are doing some of it now to a small degree. In Wyoming, we are developing a refinery that will take coal and turn it into diesel fuel. Interestingly enough, we had support from a number of agencies or organizations that you would not necessarily imagine in that, including the AFL-CIO building construction trades, AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council, Air Transportation Association. All these people know how important it is to have energy and to have it available. There is a list of about 15 groups of this kind that are supportive. They are not oil supporters necessarily; they are businesspeople who know that to meet our needs, we have to have energy.

Let me read from the letter they wrote:

In this century, America cannot be secure unless its energy

supplies are secure. Fostering greater reliance on domestic

energy is a national security imperative. The Nation's

abundant and affordable coal reserves, matched with the

proven technology, can put America on the path to energy

independence by dramatically reducing our growing dependence

on imported oil and reducing our burgeoning trade deficit.

Domestic production of coal-to-liquids fuels will see

billions of dollars invested in new investments made in the

United States and create thousands of new jobs.

That is not the end of the letter, but that is the message from groups that are not directly involved in energy but know the impacts of the shortage of energy. I could not agree more with the role these folks see in the future.

Senator Bunning and I have been asked to refrain from offering our amendment, but we did not wait. We believe strongly in the purpose of the Energy Committee to develop the best possible approach we can in dealing with the energy problem and dealing with it not only in the long-term but in the shorter term until we reach the longer term goals that may be there. So we didn't achieve our goal there. That is why we want to move forward with this and see if we can't get coal-to-liquids in our energy policy and get some incentives to move forward. I want to work in a bipartisan way to address the current concerns our Members have. I hope we have the opportunity to revisit this issue.

Americans are suffering from high fuel prices. We should do everything we can to remedy that situation. We have to do more than just talk about it; we need to make a move to take our largest fossil fuel resource and make it available for domestic production.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am glad we are ready to begin again, after we finished up on our bill yesterday.

Finally, we will be prepared to deal with the funding for our troops today. It has taken a very long time but, nevertheless, I am glad the time has arrived.

I just wanted to say that as often is the case, I have had the opportunity to visit with several students from my wife's class at Washington Lee High School. Each year I look forward to her bringing her class here because it is important for young people to understand this is their Government as much as yours and mine. So I am delighted at the number of young people who come here from Wyoming and, in this case, from Virginia.

To learn more about this Government is so important, and these young people are, of course, tomorrow's responsible leaders. I am just delighted to have them here. We talked about the American COMPETES Act. These students and opportunities for them is what it is all about. That is what we have been talking about and thinking about.

The American COMPETES Act has a good purpose and a good role. America must maintain its competitiveness to be able to continue to compete. We need to challenge our young people and encourage them to challenge themselves to be prepared to move into the future and be prepared to take advantage of the opportunities this country provides for all of us.

However, I do not believe the solution to keeping America in the forefront of technology simply lies in throwing money there, without any particular reason to expect results from it.

We have gotten in the position here in the Congress that when we hear of a problem--and there are problems--if we can pass a bill and send some money, then we have accomplished our job. I am sorry, I do not believe that is necessarily the case. I think we have to take a look at where we are on these issues. For instance, how many Federal educational programs are there now? What kind of a job have we done in trying to see how effectively those dollars have been spent and are being spent? So just having more programs and more money is not necessarily the answer.

Certainly, these students and these schools need more money, and they need to have programs, but they really need support from dedicated teachers,

from parents, from family members, and friends.

Having discussed this topic on the floor before, we have to be careful about the number of Federal programs we continue. We talk about the budget over here, about deficit spending, and yet at the same time: Well, let's have another bill, let's have another $60 billion and go forward with programs of that kind.

It is important that we try to concern ourselves about adding more programs and not knowing necessarily where and how effectively that money is going to be spent. Unfortunately, most of the programs we put out there are institutionalized. They suddenly become part of the permanent process and are there forever and become permanent fixtures, irrespective of whether there are objectives to be met and whether they are meeting them. I hope, as we go forward, as we are now in the process of doing, with appropriations and funding for the year 2008 and being concerned about the deficit, about the amount of spending the Federal Government finds itself in and, frankly, the role of the Federal Government in terms of what the States should be doing, what local schools should be doing, these kinds of things, we will reevaluate what is the role of the Federal Government and how we can be most effective. We have a role, there is no question, but there is a limit to that role.

It is a little easy for us, if we see a problem, to say: Let's just pass another bill. Let's put some more money out there and then just walk away from it and say: We have done our job. That is not necessarily the case.

I believe the America COMPETES Act has good intentions. Perhaps it will do some good. But I have to say again that in retrospect, it is important that we look at what is the role of the Federal Government. What programs are we doing and how do we measure their effectiveness and how do we measure how long they will be there and how can we measure their impact. We will find out soon how that works.

iraq supplemental

A word or two about the supplemental bill that will come before us today. We have talked about this a number of times. I must say that I am not pleased with how we have gotten to where we are. It has absolutely taken too long. There is no question, as my friend from the other side of the aisle says, that we need to talk about this issue. We have talked about it. We need to take positions. We have taken positions. That is a good thing. But the idea of simply stalling the money that is necessary to support our troops who are already there is not a good idea. Funding is not the way to deal with our feelings about it.

In particular, the process has taken too long. Billions in nonemergency spending has been added to the bill, things that may have merit, some of them, and some of them do not. Fortunately, some of them have been taken out. But the idea of adding spending that is totally irrelevant to funding the troops just doesn't seem to be appropriate. It sort of indicates the way we keep spending money around here and finding ways to hook it onto something else. I am disappointed in that.

The majority has attached an increase in the minimum wage to this bill. How does that fit the funding for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq? During the conference, additional measures not in either the House nor Senate bill were quietly tucked in. We are using this as a transportation system for a lot of things, when the challenge before us is that we have troops there who have to be funded. There is talk about: Well, they don't need to be funded until July because they can take their money from somewhere else. Then you are taking money away from the various kinds of health care that is available for veterans and other things that are equally important.

What is most frustrating is the majority has used the parliamentary maneuver to deny a vote that I had intended as an amendment on the most egregious spending. We didn't get a chance to put that on the floor. Certainly, if there is anything that is appropriate, that would have been the way.

At any rate, we seem to have lost our focus somewhat. We had a good report yesterday from the commanding general in Iraq. He indicated that while we are not experiencing runaway success, we are beginning to see success in a new approach with new leadership, and they need our support. I am optimistic the Senate will have another opportunity to get through this, get it right, and get the funding to the troops. I will do my part to ensure that we do.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today regarding the introduction of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007. This legislation will reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and provide essential improvements to the Indian health system.

These improvements are needed to raise the health status of Indian communities where the mortality and disease rates are far greater than the national averages. For example, on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming, the average age at death is 49, according to recent data from the Indian Health Service.

The reauthorization has been an on-going effort since 1999 and significant progress has been made particularly in the last two Congresses. The bill being introduced today incorporates provisions that the Committee has developed in the course of the previous two Congresses.

Even though there may be remaining issues on certain provisions, the introduction of this very important bill will facilitate the process of resolving those issues. I look forward to continuing work on those issues and advancing a bill that is effective in addressing the health care needs of Indian people.

I encourage my colleagues to join Chairman Dorgan and me in these efforts to improve the lives of Indian people.