Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I want to make a comment or two about the distribution of funding for homeland security. Of course, there has been a great deal of discussion about it, but we haven't heard much from small States. I am from Wyoming and I suggest to my colleagues that we have needs-- perhaps at a different level but we have needs--like everyone else for homeland security. So I have been a little disappointed with my colleagues' comments yesterday and some today with respect to securing America. I actually hadn't heard anything about rural areas, as they are at risk as well. I know we have fewer people. But what I did hear is that rural America doesn't need homeland security funding, and that is not the case. Most people don't know that Wyoming, which I guess is probably at the moment our smallest populated State, is the largest exporter of energy in the United States. We have oil reserves, we have gasfields, we have coal mines, we have powerplants, we have uranium mines, all of which contribute to the rest of the country and to the security of the rest of the country. If folks don't believe our rail lines and transmission lines and refineries and pipelines are not targets, then we need to reevaluate that. We need to think about it again. As a matter of fact, if you were someone seeking to do damage, you might think it is easier to go into a rather rural area and stop some of the energy development than to go into an urban area and have to go through all the network that is involved. This energy we talk about is the very same energy that drives our economy; it turns on the lights in Los Angeles and New York City. So there are important factors to keep in mind, to keep in perspective as we go about this idea of homeland security and as we think about where the homeland security risks are. Certainly I will tell my colleagues that Wyoming is not as at risk as Washington and New York, but, nevertheless, there is a fairly high level of risk on rural States that provide these kinds of resources. Our State is nearly 100,000 square miles in size. It is a State of diverse topography and harsh weather. Major railroads and interstate highways that connect the east and the west coasts of this country traverse the State. Whether it is ships that come into the east and west coasts or whatever, they go through this area and therefore that makes it certainly subject to various kinds of events that could happen in terms of homeland security. The movement of hazardous waste by train and vehicle puts the citizens I represent in harm's way every day. When homeland security grants first began, Wyoming initially received roughly $20 million. Wyoming's share has dropped to $9 million over the course of time. Let me put this debate in context. My State stands to receive roughly $10 million out of $3 billion under the plan that has been suggested that we have. I certainly understand that cities such as New York need more than my State; no one is questioning that. I also recognize that large urban areas have more resources to draw upon than rural areas do. We have less resources to protect the things we have that are not only for our State but that are for our Nation. Congress has debated and established a fair system. Every State should be provided with baseline funding. I fully support allowing the Department of Homeland Security to determine who has the greatest risk to qualify for the urban area security funding as current law provides. Big-city States have their own urban programs so I cannot understand the uproar and anger officials from large populated States have toward their rural neighbors. Wyoming generally doesn't ask for a lot, of course, but my State has a lot more to offer than just wide open country for people on the coast to fly over. Let me repeat for my colleagues that Wyoming is the largest exporter of energy in the lower 48. Protecting Wyoming's infrastructure and securing our resources is critical not only to our State but to national well being. I would remind my colleagues who have directly and indirectly criticized small States that the States they represent are not the only ones that have risks that need to be addressed. I strongly support Senator Leahy's amendment to put fairness back into the process. Protecting rural America is something that should be important to all of us. It is all a part of our Nation. No one wins by the current effort to pit big cities against rural America. I hope we can come to an agreement that does deal with national security and gives us an opportunity to secure all of the resources in our Nation for national benefit. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I join my friend, the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, in supporting Carl Joseph Artman for Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. We have waited a good long time to get to this point. Mr. Artman is an excellent candidate with diversity of experience in both the private and public sectors. He has the leadership and academic credentials needed for this necessary and extraordinarily demanding position. The Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs implements the Federal Indian policy set by Congress and facilitates the government-to- government relationship with 561 Indian tribal governments. The Assistant Secretary, as you might imagine, is responsible for a variety of activities, including economic development, law enforcement, trust asset management, social services, and education. I will not take a long time, but I just want to say the Assistant Secretary must be balanced in meeting these needs. I think this gentleman will be. He has pledged to facilitate a more vibrant communication between Indian tribes and their neighbors. The job of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs has been exponentially more difficult because of the methamphetamine plague that is ravaging this Nation's Indian communities, and he is committed to fighting this terrible epidemic. We can certainly support that effort. Madam President, you know how important it is to have leadership in this area, and we haven't had it for a very long time. There are many other challenges confronting Indian country that cannot be met without strong leadership within the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and yet the position has been vacant for 2 years. Mr. Artman will serve the country well. I urge my colleagues to join me today in moving expeditiously toward confirmation. I yield the floor. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a hard working, respected young man, Mr. Dan Creger. Dan is from Casper, WY, and has proven that in spite of his disabilities, one man can have a great impact. Dan was born with arthrogryposis, a condition that causes multiple joint problems and limits the range of motion of a joint. As a result of this disease, Dan has spent most of his life in a wheelchair. Despite his disability, Dan refuses to be held back, relying not on public assistance but rather on his determined spirit and the support of friends and family to achieve his daily successes. Dan worked for the Bureau of Land Management for 20 years. Recently the BLM honored his service by presenting him with the Honor Award for Superior Service. Casper Field Office Manger, Jim Murkin said, ``Dan is a Go to Guy! He is someone who you can depend on to get a job done. He always wants to stay busy. He hates doing nothing. He is a great asset to the BLM.'' Four years ago Dan began working at the National Historical Interpretive Trails Center in Casper. The director of the center, Jude Carino, says that Dan ``always has a smile. He always has good things to say about people, and he doesn't complain.'' At the center Dan greets visitors, answers questions and leads tours for schools and other organized groups. In 2006 he assisted 8,000 visitors, and guided nearly 2,000 schoolchildren through the facility. A volunteer for the National Historical Interpretive Trails Center said, ``I have learned a lot from Dan in how to guide guests through the center. He is a wealth of knowledge and has a great sense of humor.'' Dan's life was thrown another curve when last summer he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. But through it all he continues to have a positive attitude. Dan said that when he was first told about the cancer he felt both sadness and anger, but soon he decided that this was just another challenge for him to deal with. He said, ``I've tried to go on with my life and take it day by day.'' A friend of Mr. Creger summed it up best when he said, ``In my eyes, Dan is a man of courage that stands 6 feet tall. He lives his life as any productive member of society and pushes aside any thought of pity for himself. He doesn't let his physical limits or the threat of cancer keep him from achieving his goals in life. In this way, Dan is better than many men who face lesser challenges in life. I am proud to know Dan and be his friend.'' It is obvious that Dan is a good, hard-working man who refuses to let life's challenges stand in his way. Dan Creger is an inspiration to all of us, and I am honored to share his story.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to make a few remarks relative to the TSA legislation the Senate is considering. I do hope we can get it finished. I am a little confused about what we are trying to achieve with the measure that is before us. We have already been through this. We have passed a great many of the recommendations that were made by the 9/11 Commission--actually, most of them, as a matter of fact. It is of concern to me that we have a 300-page bill here on what is left in the Commission's report. We are going through a number of the bills that relate to portions of the report that really have nothing to do with enhancing homeland security. For example, the 9/11 Commission didn't have anything to do with collective bargaining rights for labor unions. Here we probably had a good reason not to do that. In fact, we had this extended debate back in 2002. We found that it was not in the interest of national security to provide collective bargaining rights in this instance. Here we are dealing with it again. I guess I am just a little impatient in that we need to move on. I don't think homeland security ought to have the approval of labor unions to move forward. The policy would also greatly hinder TSA's flexibility to respond to terrorist threats, fresh intelligence, and other emergencies, if we did it that way. We need to have the ability to move screeners around as schedules are necessary and threats change. Obviously, in a security bill of this kind, there needs to be the kind of flexibility, the kind of management that can be there for the agencies that are responsible. The real focus is on the capability to deal with homeland security. Another concern I have, frankly, is a provision relative to the distribution of funding. I understand that urban areas, large areas-- New York and so on--have more concerns about security and threats, perhaps, but rural areas do as well. We have energy production and those kinds of things. Wyoming originally had $20 million involved. It has dropped to $9 million. We do have military bases there. Large sums of money have been unused, and we need to evaluate that distribution somewhat. As we debate the bill, I look forward to supporting amendments that would actually make America safer and that we don't get into areas that really are not directly associated with security. That is what this legislation is about. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his remarks. I certainly agree it would be a mistake to send any message that we are not in support of our troops and, indeed, that is what voting on one message would do. Certainly, there are different views in the Senate and legitimately so. We recognize that. That is the way it is in Congress. I resist a little bit the idea that has come up on the other side of the aisle that we have not talked about this, we have not debated it. I say we have talked about it, we have talked about it for several months. We have debated it. There is clearly a difference of view. Most everyone has the same idea that the situation must be changed and must be improved there. No one argues with that. The issue is that we can back off and deny the support we have for what we have accomplished or we can move forward with the President, who has a change in plan. That is something we need to remember. We are not talking about simply continuing to do the same thing. We have new leadership there, we have some new strategies there, we have some ideas as to what might be done. Our troops continue to do an incredible job, but it has not gone as well as we would like. Therefore, it is appropriate that we make some changes. In order to make some changes, it is probably necessary to change the arrangement we have, change the numbers so we can do something and to begin again to devise a movement that will get us out of there in a relatively short time. Our military leaders know that. They accept that. Their plans embrace that idea that we have to do something different, that we have to start coming to some transition and conclusion. The President also has acknowledged this. It is not simple. None of us like war. None of us like to have our troops at risk, there is no question about that. But the fact is there exists a terrorism threat to the United States, somewhat centered in this area. The fact is, we need to complete the task and to be able to turn some stability over to a government in Iraq that can move forward. The United States cannot complete this mission alone. And the Iraqis, of course, must keep their commitment to do more than they have. Fortunately, we are seeing some movement in that direction. We are seeing the support building, and we need to continue to press for that with the surrounding countries. The President has made it very clear to the Iraqi President that our support is not open-ended. I hope we continue to do that. The administration has installed new leadership. We have had good performance there, but we need to be moving in a somewhat different direction, a change from what we are doing. That is the plan. That is what it is all about. I am a little discouraged that we act as if we have not talked about it, we act as if we have not made a move upon it, and now we have a nonbinding resolution. But as the previous speaker said, we also need to offer more than one amendment. There are different options. We have to recognize the Senate is close in numbers, and we have some differences. We have to have an opportunity to talk about different things. Hopefully, that is what this is all about. It is peculiar political posturing to sound off with sense-of-the- Senate resolutions on the heels of having unanimously confirmed the general who is going over there to take over. He has a plan. It would be discouraging to him, I am sure, to learn we are sending him over there, but we are not going to do the things he needs to do. It is important for folks to understand this plan does not involve just sending troops and put a bandaid on the problem. We have commitments from the Iraqi Government to step up security and reconciliation efforts. We need to make decisions from where we are now at this point in the fight to move in a somewhat different direction. One thing is for sure. We are not moving the ball by just talking from the sidelines. Here we have an opportunity to do that--not a never-ending commitment but one to make some changes, complete this task. However, of course, it is a little premature to be debating a nonbinding resolution but, nevertheless, we have different views and that is where we are, and that is fine. But I think, in fairness, politically, we do need to have the opportunity to act on more than just a single amendment so we can have some chance to talk about other items that have an impact on Iraq. The resolution will only serve to score political points and undermines our efforts to achieve a positive result in what we are seeking to do. So I am concerned today with respect to this process, but we can make it work. And we need to make it work. Here we are. Let's make sure we have an opportunity to make it balanced, we have an opportunity to talk about both sides, we have an opportunity to talk about some of the other kinds of opportunities. The majority will not let the minority offer amendments, and they should. This is not a one-sided debate, and there are certain items we need to discuss. Leader McConnell has made more than one good-faith effort to meet the majority in the middle of the aisle, and we, I hope, will continue to do that. We must do that. We have proposed to give the majority the votes they want if they will simply give us the votes we would like to have. That seems to make a great deal of sense. So we are in sort of a procedural tie-up on something for which we know there are differences on the policy, clearly, and we will simply have to work on that. And we have to recognize the responsibility and the commitment the President has made and the plan he has to change things there so we can go forward. So we need to give the troops and the Iraqis the opportunity to work more to change the situation there. So the purpose of this whole exercise, of course, is to put a government in place in Iraq so they can take care of themselves, for us to be able to remove our being there and our commitment there. I think we have a chance to do this. So I hope if we are going to move, we have a chance to move on more than one opportunity and one resolution. And I think that will be the case. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Just 10 minutes?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, may I speak as if in morning business?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will talk about something very important which will soon be pending before the Senate; that is, the nomination of Carl Joseph Artman as Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. The Indian program in this country is very important. As part of the Government, we have part of the Interior Department working on it. I rise to offer my strong support for the nomination of Carl Artman for Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior. Mr. Artman is an excellent candidate with diversity and experience in both the public and private sectors and has the leadership and the academic credentials needed for this extraordinarily demanding position. This position is unique in that many of the issues with respect to Indian affairs are unique. Yet it has to be someone who has background in government and operations. The Assistant Secretary implements Federal Indian policy set forth by the Congress and facilitates the government-to-government relationships with 561 Indian tribal governments. That is a large challenge. The Assistant Secretary is responsible for a variety of activities and programs in Indian communities, including economic development, law enforcement, trust assessment management, social services, and education. In discharging these duties, the Assistant Secretary must balance many competing interests and needs in working with the States, in working with the tribes, and in working with the Federal Government. Mr. Artman has pledged to facilitate more vibrant communication among the Indian tribes and their neighbors. I believe that is helpful in terms of furthering Federal policies of interaction with the Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis and encouraging Indian self- determination and self-government. That is our challenge and the challenge the tribes take, to become more independent economically and from a government standpoint so they can operate as they choose with self-government. The job of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs has been made exponentially more difficult by the methamphetamine plague that has ravaged the Indian tribes and the Indian communities. I am encouraged by Mr. Artman's commitment to fighting and defeating this epidemic, which may require aggressive efforts by the agency he will lead as well as other Federal and tribal partners to achieve measurable results. Mr. Artman is also committed to assisting tribal governments develop the socioeconomic infrastructure and fight the obstacles in many of our Indian reservations that foster hopelessness and despair. One of the issues is to provide opportunities for the tribal members to have jobs, to be somewhat sufficient and self-supporting in terms of their economy. Although many Indian tribes have made tremendous gains through tribal self-governance and some have managed to flourish materially in recent years through economic development, it is a common misperception that most tribes have experienced economic prosperity as a result of successful gaming facilities. In fact, poverty and unemployment are sill prevalent in far too many communities in Indian Country. A robust and diversified economy is essential to improving the quality of life of these communities and to providing the people living in them with alternatives to such heartbreaking problems of suicide and substance abuse, of which there is an abundance. I am confident that Mr. Artman will provide outstanding leadership in this daunting challenge. I urge my friends in the Senate to approve his confirmation, which I hope will come before the Senate in the very near future. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, although it is unrelated to what we are doing, I wish to talk a little bit about general tax reform. The amendments are very important, and we are dealing with the issue, of course, of the minimum wage and offsetting some of those costs to small businesses. I support that idea. But I wanted to say that I hope we soon give more attention to reforming of the overall tax forms. We are getting into a position where every time there is an issue, every time there is something we want to accomplish, we have some tax relief for this section of the economy and for that section of the economy. It has become so complex and so shortchanged in terms of the time, the exchanges that we have. I think we have to have some overall tax reform. I understand it is not easy because all of these issues are different. On the other hand, we can simplify the Tax Code, if we take the time. I mentioned it this morning in the Finance Committee. I realize we are not going to be able to address it in a short time, but I think we ought to set it as a long-term goal and begin to deal with simplifying the Tax Code. As each of us moves into our own taxes this year, it becomes obvious how detailed these taxes are. If you happen to be involved in a business, even a small business, the Tax Code is so difficult. I don't think we ought to be managing the behavior of this country through taxes. Taxes ought to be set in a general and long-term way so that people can understand, over time, what the tax situation is, and we can make it attractive enough that we don't have to change it for every issue that comes up. Again, I certainly am supportive of what we are doing now. But in the longer view of things, I urge that we give consideration to reforming the Tax Code, to making it simpler, understandable, longer term, and to avoid setting up the situation where each time there is some issue affecting anyone in this country, we don't, as a secondary action, change the Tax Code to encourage a particular outcome. It should not be the purpose of taxes to regulate behavior. I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

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

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is of great importance to livestock producers and consumers in my home State of Wyoming, and to people across the Nation. My bill would expedite the implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling, or COOL, for beef and other agricultural products, and set that date at September 30, 2007. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me in this effort, as does Senator Thune, Senator Grassley, Senator Tester, Senator Bingaman, Senator Dorgan, Senator Enzi, and Senator Conrad. Consumers drive our economy, and it is important that we provide them relevant information about the products they are purchasing. U.S. consumers overwhelmingly support mandatory COOL. They have a right to know where their food comes from. Labeling provides more product information, increased consumer choice, and the chance to support American agriculture. Labeling also allows our producers to distinguish their superior products. Trade is not going away. With increased trade comes an increase in the importance of country of origin labeling. Many nations already label food and other products--including the United States. If it is good enough for T-shirts, it ought to be good enough for T-bones. Mandatory COOL was signed into law with the 2002 Farm Bill. I was an original supporter of COOL during the Farm Bill debate, and I have become increasingly frustrated with efforts to delay its implementation. The latest delay was inserted into the Fiscal Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill, and I voted against the bill for that reason. Producers and consumers have waited long enough for country of origin labeling. It is high time we make it happen. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is of great importance to livestock producers and consumers in my home State of Wyoming, and to people across the Nation. My bill would expedite the implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling, or COOL, for beef and other agricultural products, and set that date at September 30, 2007. I am pleased that Senator Baucus joins me in this effort, as does Senator Thune, Senator Grassley, Senator Tester, Senator Bingaman, Senator Dorgan, Senator Enzi, and Senator Conrad. Consumers drive our economy, and it is important that we provide them relevant information about the products they are purchasing. U.S. consumers overwhelmingly support mandatory COOL. They have a right to know where their food comes from. Labeling provides more product information, increased consumer choice, and the chance to support American agriculture. Labeling also allows our producers to distinguish their superior products. Trade is not going away. With increased trade comes an increase in the importance of country of origin labeling. Many nations already label food and other products--including the United States. If it is good enough for T-shirts, it ought to be good enough for T-bones. Mandatory COOL was signed into law with the 2002 Farm Bill. I was an original supporter of COOL during the Farm Bill debate, and I have become increasingly frustrated with efforts to delay its implementation. The latest delay was inserted into the Fiscal Year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations bill, and I voted against the bill for that reason. Producers and consumers have waited long enough for country of origin labeling. It is high time we make it happen. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no ojection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish to speak in general about the bill, not on the specific amendments, about what I think we are doing and the importance, frankly, of what we are doing. We are talking, of course, about ethics, about how we function within this body, and I hope we can keep that in mind. We are not talking about Federal law. We are not talking about rules and laws dealing with contributions. We are talking about how we operate within this body. I happen to be a member of the Ethics Committee, and I have been very impressed, frankly, with what we are doing now. That is not to say we can't do some more, and indeed we should, but the fact is we have really gone along fairly well here. We haven't had any real problems particularly. We are reacting largely to some of the problems that have happened on the other side of the Capitol, and they could happen here, so they are appropriate. So I believe we need to evaluate where we are now with the rules and regulations we have with the Ethics Committee, which is designed to enforce them, and try to maintain our focus on those kinds of things. I think we have gotten into things that become Federal law in terms of, for instance, political contributions. Well, that is really not an ethics issue; that is a Federal issue with relation to what is done there. So it seems to me the real overriding opportunity for us is to increase the transparency of how we function and the accountability and to spend more time with the Members and with the staff in terms of familiarizing ourselves with what the rules are. We have lots of rules. Quite frankly, as I came onto this committee, I was a little impressed with all there is that most of us haven't had much time or opportunity to take a look at. So really what we need is transparency and accountability, and that is what we are doing. I am pleased that we are, but I want to suggest that we keep in mind the role of what we are doing, the role of ethics, and try to maintain some limits on the kinds of things we do and hold it to what we are doing. As I said, our record has been pretty good. I think the key is transparency and accountability, so I hope we can hold it to that. I think we need to understand that even though there have been things that have happened in the Capitol that we don't like, the fact is the people who have done most of those things, many of them, are in jail. They have acted against the law. The Jack Abramoff thing, which has brought much of this about, was wrong and bad and has been dealt with and is being dealt with. I think we need to keep that in mind and try to define the difference between ethics and behavior here and legal activities that affect everyone. So again, I say ethics is something for which each of us is responsible. As representatives of our people, we are responsible for it. So if we have transparency, that is one of the keys. And we should understand that what we are doing is dealing with ethics rules. When this is all over, we ought to be able to take another look at the total of our rules and hold what we are doing here on the floor to that effort. We can do that. There are a good many reforms in S. 1, and I am pleased we are talking about earmarks, which is one topic of reform. There needs to be more public information. There needs to be more information to Members as to what earmarks are. On the other hand, if I want to represent things that are important to my State or your State or anyone else's State, we need from time to time to have an opportunity to suggest that here is an issue in this budget which needs to be dealt with. Now, it needs to be done early on. It needs to be transparent. Everyone needs to know about it. We need to avoid the idea of putting things in during the conference committee meetings. After all, Members' opportunities have passed. That is wrong. But I think the idea that Members have an opportunity to have some input into the distribution of funding for their States is reasonable. So I think, again, transparency is the real notion, and the conference reports ought to be available on the Internet. Banning gifts, of course, is good. I think we need to be a little careful about what gifts are and whom they are from. I just had an opportunity to meet with someone who is a realtor in Wyoming. He came in to talk about problems for realtors. He is not a lobbyist; he is a realtor. Now, am I supposed to be a little careful to talk to somebody from Wyoming? How else am I going to know what the issues are for the various groups? Even though they have an association and he is probably a member of it, he is not a lobbyist. So I think we need to be sure we identify some of the differences that are involved. We ought to talk about holds. I think there is nothing wrong with having a distribution of what the holds are when we are putting them together in Congress and then putting them in the Congressional Record. Again, that is something which should be public. Travel. I think there is nothing wrong, with major travel, with having some sort of preapproval from the Ethics Committee. That is a reasonable thing to do. We each have different problems with travel. Some States are quite different from others. Charters can be made to different places, so we need to have some flexibility there. Again, I say one of the keys is to have some annual ethics training, some annual ethics information so people know what it is all about. I would venture to say that before this discussion started, if you talked about what is in our ethics rules, most of us wouldn't be able to tell you much about them. We need to do more of that. There needs to be public disclosure of lobbying, there is no question, and that is a good thing and we need to do that. The idea of an independent ethics office troubles me a good deal. We are talking about our behavior among ourselves as Members, and the idea of having some non-Member office overseeing our operation just doesn't seem to make sense to me. If any of you have not had the opportunity to see all of the things that our Ethics Committee staff goes through, I wish you would take a look at it. There is a great deal that goes on. So in sum, I am generally saying that I hope--and I think our leaders on this issue have done this--we stay with what it is we are seeking to do; that is, take a look at our rules and regulations and how we abide by them, how we understand them, how we enforce them, and how we have opportunities to see them, and that there is transparency from them. That is what we are talking about. When we start getting off into so many things that really are much beyond ethics and get into the laws-- for instance, as I said, campaign contributions--that is another issue. It is a good issue, but it is not this issue. So I hope we are able to do that. Those are the points I wanted to make. We are going to be going forward, and I am glad we are. I hope we don't spend too much time on this because I think our real challenge is to focus on what it is we are really seeking to do and not let us spend a lot of time on things that are inappropriately in this bill. Our main goal, it seems to me, is greater transparency, a set of rules we can understand, the opportunity to know what those are, and then, of course, to have an opportunity within our own jurisdiction to enforce them. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in general, so I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be set aside.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor to express my gratitude for the response I have gotten over the last month from my friends and neighbors in the Senate. As many of you know, about on election day I was diagnosed with leukemia, and I have spent the last month in the hospital. I got out last Saturday, and I am now back on the job, and I am very delighted to do that. Certainly Susan and I wish to express our real thank-you for all the comments and contacts, expressions of hope, and prayers we have gotten from the Members in the Senate. It is very meaningful. It is the first time I have been through a thing of this kind, and I can tell you that it means a great deal. We also got literally hundreds of comments from our voters in Wyoming. So we are so pleased, so grateful for that kind of response. The process has gone well. As I said, I was in there for a month. I have gone through the chemo, I have gone through the other activities and may have to go back for some additional treatments, but the fact is I am out, my blood cell count is up, and I am very positive. I want to urge people to be very careful about their own health, and when there are signs of problems, to be sure they take care of them because Bethesda was a wonderful place for me to be. Again, my real purpose here is just to express my gratitude for all the kind feelings I have had from the staff and from the Members of the Senate, and I appreciate it very much. It has been very helpful, and I am grateful. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take just 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I 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 Subcommittee on National Parks hearing for Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 4 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, has been postponed until further notice. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161, David Szymanski at (202) 224-6293, or Sara Zecher 202-224-8276.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following bills are added to the agenda for the Subcommittee on National Parks hearing for Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 4 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC: S. 2475, a bill to establish the Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino Community, to develop a plan of action for the establishment and maintenance of a National Museum of the American Latino Community in Washington, DC, and for other purposes; S. 2645, a bill to establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; S. 2822 and H.R. 5057, bills to authorize the Marion Park Project and Committee of the Palmetto Conservation Foundation to establish a commemorative work on Federal land in the District of Columbia and its environs to honor Brigadier General Francis Marion; S. 3805, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of including in the National Park System certain sites in Monroe County, Michigan, relating to the Battles of the River Raisin during the War of 1812; and H.R. 323, a bill to redesignate the Ellis Island Library on the third floor of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, located on Ellis Island in New York Harbor, as the ``Bob Hope Memorial Library''. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, 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, David Szymanski at (202) 224-6293, or Sara Zecher 202-224-8276. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 2148, a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor in Alabama and Georgia, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1096, a bill to establish the Thomas Edison National Historical Park in the State of New Jersey as the successor to the Edison National Historic Site. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at 202-224-5161, David Szymanski at 202-224-6293, or Sara Zecher 202-224-8276. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Access to Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Services Improvement Act of 2006.'' This bill would improve patient access to physical medicine and rehabilitation services while also reducing Medicare costs. As medicine has become increasingly specialized, the types of health professionals physicians employ to assist them in delivering high quality, cost- effective healthcare has changed dramatically. While States have typically kept up with these developments by creating regulatory mechanisms to ensure that these health professionals are properly educated and trained, the Medicare program has not kept pace. In fact, a recent Medicare policy has actually turned back the clock on these innovative ways of delivering care and this is having a negative affect on not only the availability of services, but what Medicare pays for these services. We are all well aware of the struggles the Medicare program has had trying to control spending for therapy services. In fact, we have had to impose a cap on beneficiary spending because it has gotten so out of control. Unfortunately, in the midst of our efforts to control aggregate spending on therapy services, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, has adopted policies that will lead to higher per beneficiary expenditures and make it even more difficult for seniors to get the care they need. Since late in 2005, CMS has been enforcing a policy, sometimes referred to as the ``therapy incident-to'' rule, that prevents doctors from employing anyone other than a physical therapist to provide physical medicine and rehabilitation services in their offices. Frankly, this policy ignores the fact that there are many State licensed or certified health professionals who are qualified to offer identical services at a lower cost to Medicare. Many of us are familiar with the devastating affects breast cancer has on millions of women and men each year. One of the consequences of breast cancer treatment is a condition called lymphedema. This is a debilitating and disfiguring swelling of the extremities that occurs from damage to the lymph nodes located in the arm pit. The only effective treatment for this condition is a specialized type of massage that should only be delivered by a certified lymphedema therapist. Due to CMS' policy, over \1/3\ of the nationally certified lymphedema therapists can no longer provide this service to Medicare beneficiaries. Failure to treat lymphedema often results in long hospitals stays due to infection and can lead to amputation in the most extreme cases. Prior to the adoption of the CMS rule, physicians had the freedom to choose the State licensed or authorized health professional they thought most appropriate to help their Medicare patients recover from injuries or debilitating conditions. I believe we should allow physicians, not government bureaucrats, to decide which State licensed healthcare professionals have the necessary education and training to provide the most high quality, cost-effective physical medicine and rehabilitation services to their patients. Additionally, the health professionals often approved to perform services are not readily available in many rural communities. This means patients must go without care or have to travel long distances to get services that were previously available in their home towns. As Republican Co-Chair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, I have consistently supported policies and initiatives that help rural Medicare beneficiaries get and maintain access to services in their own communities in a more effective and efficient way. Finally, it is important to note that access to state licensed, certified professionals will save the Medicare program money--not increase costs. The CMS rule implemented last year will result in higher Medicare expenditures than if the old policy had remained in place. In fact, a recent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, report based on 2002 data showed that the most cost-effective place for Medicare beneficiaries to obtain physical therapy was in the physician's office. After reviewing the legislation, I hope that my colleagues will consider joining me in this important effort to restore physician judgment, patient choice, and common sense to the Medicare program. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the issue before us today. I am glad we are dealing with this question. It is certainly one that has had a great deal of discussion and impact all over the country as to how we handle it. I think it is one of our principal issues. Certainly, there is a different view as to how it ought to be handled and all these kinds of things; nevertheless, I believe it is important that we begin to do something. Even though there are many other things that legitimately could be considered, of course, sealing the border is probably the first step that ought to be done. The Senate, of course, passed a bill that was quite lengthy-- including ways and means of dealing with those who are already here illegally--and created a good deal of discussion and debate. I didn't support the Senate bill in that I thought it was too broad in terms of dealing with people who had come here illegally, even though I do believe there are some, depending on the situation, who should be given an opportunity to go through the system. But I am pleased that we are beginning to do something. The first thing, obviously, is to do something about the border. I am going to support the bill before us, although I don't think it is perfect. I think, frankly, there needs to be some limit on building fences. I cannot imagine building a fence, a 40-foot-tall fence, all across the border. All we would have is 40-foot ladders if we did that. But there are areas in particular where this needs to be done. I think this is an authorization where some decisions can be made with respect to how that is done. There ought to be other things we consider along with it. One of them is that we need to have a modernized system for people coming to the United States. All of us want workers and immigrants to be able to come legally. That system needs to be modernized, made more efficient, so that those kinds of things can happen without taking a very long time. We are challenged with the notion of having some kind of identification system where we can tell easily and clearly who are legitimate citizens and who are not. In connection with that, I believe it is appropriate for employers to be required to report as to who on their work staff is legal and who isn't. As I said, this is a difficult issue and one we need to work on. I simply want to say I am pleased we are moving forward to do something. I intend to support this movement today for cloture. I hope we can do that so we can start to do something about this issue, which is one of the most important issues to all of us. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to express our Nation's deepest thanks and gratitude to the men of the 300th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, Wyoming Army National Guard. On Friday, September 9, 2006, the 300th AFA Battalion will gather for a reunion 56 years after the Battle at Soyang during the Korean war. In 1951, the members of the battalion put down their plowshares and picked up their rifles and arrived in Korea to push back three corps of the Chinese People's Volunteers that launched a major offensive against the 2d Infantry Division, to which the 300th was attached. In his memoir, a Wyoming National Guardsman, William W. Day IV, described his early days in combat: The guns are hot and ammo can't be uncrated fast enough. The motor pool is using every truck to haul ammo. The cooks, clerks and everyone available are preparing ammo while the gun crews stay at their posts and continue to pour a withering fire on the enemy. The 300th provided devastating artillery fire support that pounded enemy positions for 7 days inflicting thousands of enemy casualties. During the morning of May 18, 1951, the battalion was given the mission of destroying an enemy roadblock allowing retreating U.N. forces to fall back to more secure positions. The heroic and determined stand of the 2d Division and its attached units allowed the Eighth Army to regroup and outflank the enemy. Among many others, the battalion has been awarded the Presidential Unit Citation for its valiant efforts in the struggle for the freedom we all enjoy. Today, the Wyoming Army National Guard carries on the courageous traditions of the Cowboy Artillery. Mr. President, the 300th AFA Battalion epitomized the ethos of the Citizen Soldier. It is because of folks like the members of the 300th that we continue to live safe and free. America's men and women who answer the call of service and wear our Nation's uniform deserve respect and recognition for the enormous burden that they are willingly bare. They put everything on the line every day, and as a result, our Nation remains free and strong.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, very briefly, no one would argue there are activities which are inherently governmental and should be performed by the Government. However, the Government should not engage in activities which are already offered in the private sector. I am here today to share my opposition to the Mikulski amendment. If agreed to, this amendment would roll back a completed public-private job competition at Walter Reed Army Hospital. This job competition was won fair and square by the private sector because it proved to be more efficient and will save the taxpayers $32 million over the next 5 years. Furthermore, it was subject to intense review and investigation by the Army and the GAO, all upholding the Army decision to move forward to award to the private sector. Opponents are not happy with the outcome. They appealed and lost; they appealed again and lost. Now they have appealed the contract award to Congress by offering this amendment. Congress is not in the business of awarding contracts. This amendment is bad policy and bad precedent. Competitive sourcing is not about outsourcing or offshoring. It is about competition. It is the useful tool that utilizes competition to allow Federal agencies to evaluate whether certain functions shall be performed in the future by Federal employees of the private sector. We ought to continue to evaluate programs and activities and whether the Federal Government should be doing these kinds of things. This is essentially true if the Government is involved in activities that are available to the private sector. It is my longstanding view that if a service is available to the private sector, there better be a darn good reason why the Government is doing it. In most cases, it simply is not right for the Federal Government to be doing things that could be done by Main Street business. But the Federal Government is engaged in activity already offered in small business. If this language prevails, it will undermine a portion of the administration's competitive sourcing program. With the continuing war on terror, the Army must have extra savings to meet its daily needs. The private sector will be discouraged from bidding on future competitions if the Congress demonstrates an effort to reverse legitimate acquisition decisions. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor.