Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. 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 What needs to be repealed?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. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. 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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. 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.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about an issue that seems to be the most pressing of any we have before us; that is, to fund our troops in Iraq. I came to the floor on the 64th day following the President's submission to the Congress of legislation for funding our troops in the field. I believed it was important that we urge Congress to complete its work on this legislation immediately. How could there be anything more pressing than making funding available for our troops? Certainly, the time is now. It is now day 77, and we still don't have a bill to send to the President. It is time we do so. In fact, the conference committee has not even met. Even though both houses of Congress have passed the measure, they have yet to come together between the Houses in order to do something. Our military leaders are people in the best position to prioritize the needs of our troops. They are the ones who know what needs to be done and what the timing is. They have left no doubt that this funding is urgently needed, without arbitrary deadlines or unrelated pork, both of which are in the bill. Unfortunately, there are a number of Members who want to call the shots and micromanage the execution of the war. I understand there are different views about the war. There are different views about what our role should be. But the fact is, we are there now. We have had a change in direction. We have some new ideas, new leadership. But we have the troops there. They need to be supported financially so they cannot only do their job, certainly, but protect themselves. If we don't get this funding to the troops, the first thing to be cut without this supplemental will be facilities maintenance throughout the services, particularly the Army. In addition, counseling programs for both troops and their families will have to be cut back. As to this idea that there is no hurry, that we can find the money somewhere else, Members need to be sure they understand that finding it somewhere else takes it away from someone else who has earned it, either through service or families of service people. More and more troops and their families are seeking counseling, and reducing funding at this critical time certainly needs to be avoided. Failing to act immediately will have real-life impacts on military personnel. I should think we could come to that understanding. I don't know quite what the timing is seeking to do--apparently, impress on the President the points of view being made on the other side of the aisle or whatever. But he has made it clear what he is going to do. We know that. We know we have to go there and get it vetoed, come back and find something that is acceptable. All that takes time. All the time we spend puts more risk on the military and their families. I believe failing to enact this legislation very soon will have real- life impacts on our military personnel. I can't find much reason for that. If we can't take care of our troops' mental health and see that they aren't living in dilapidated barracks, we will have a hard time ensuring they are able to fight when the Nation calls. I hope we can continue to remember what giving these people are doing, what they are sacrificing. We need, of course, to support them. It is very simple. If our troops don't have the training to deploy, then our soldiers and sailors overseas cannot come home, and that is kind of the situation we are increasingly in now. At this point the only priority should be funding our troops in the field. Even though we have other work to do, certainly if we look at priorities, what could be more important than dealing with the needs of our troops overseas. I don't know if James Baker would have been any clearer when we reiterated that the Iraq Study Group report does not set timetables or deadlines for the troop withdrawal. James Baker said: The [Iraq Study Group] report does not set timetables or deadlines for the removal of troops, as contemplated by the supplemental spending bill the House and the Senate passed. In fact, the report specifically opposes that approach. As many military and political leaders told us, an arbitrary deadline would allow the enemy to wait us out and strengthen the positions of extremists over moderates. Several months ago the President indicated he would establish a new direction in Iraq. General Petraeus is back in Washington today to report on the counterinsurgency plan. Certainly, it isn't doing everything we want it to yet. It hasn't achieved success yet. But it is moving in the right direction. We have a change in people. We have a change in leadership. We have a change in the plan. It has only been 3 months since we installed the general and only 60 percent of the troops are in place he had wanted and suggested were necessary. Despite these modest improvements, the other side wants to pack up and admit defeat. They are also claiming the war is lost, and that is unfortunate, especially when our troops hear those comments. In any event, I hope this Congress does what is responsible and sends the President a bill. Our troops deserve to know Congress will provide them with the funding they need to succeed. I wanted to talk on that issue. It is one of the most important we have. I look forward to proceeding with what will be before us on the floor now, education. Sharpening up our competitiveness is very important. I am hopeful we can assure Members that this program with this money and additional spending will have some impact. As we look at it, we have lots of programs that are designed to strengthen education, yet we don't have a very good measurement of whether those dollars are causing things to happen that we hoped they would. I look forward to that. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a couple of topics. Certainly we have a lot of issues facing us. We have a lot of things to do. Quite frankly, we have been moving rather slowly over the last several months. We have had one bill signed by the President. We need to decide how we are going to move forward. The leader was talking about the Republicans holding up bills, and so on. We need to understand that we are close enough in this Senate on numbers and voting that we are going to have to have some agreements on things before we lay them out. Neither side is going to be able to say, Here is the way we are going, because it is close. We do have different views. When there is legislation pending, the minority side has amendments they wish to offer. On the other hand, I admit that sometimes the minority side wants to hold things up, and we can't do that either. So I hope we will look for a little more. I don't expect us to come together with everything, but we need to come together with a system which allows us to talk about our differences and to reach some agreements. I wish to comment on a couple of issues. The first one, of course, is the one that almost everyone has on their mind today, as the Senator from Utah indicated. This is tax day. Americans have reached deep into their pockets today to pay their Federal income tax. At the same time, we are straining to understand the Tax Code that governs how much we owe. It is very complicated. All of us understand that, particularly today, or as we ask for an extension, because it is so complicated and so difficult to actually arrive at a conclusion with respect to taxes. I am not sure it has to be that way. The Senator from Utah has described some changes that ought to be made. We talk about that always at tax time, and then we seem to get away from it when tax time is over. We ought to stay in there and ask: How can we do this job? There have to be taxes paid. Obviously, there has to be some fairness among the taxpayers. But does it need to be this complicated? Does it need to be this technical? We find ourselves with a tax program that is designed by literally hundreds of programs that are more put in place to affect behavior and to affect how things are going to happen than they are for taxes. We will give tax relief for this, if you will do this. If you do this, we will give you tax relief over here. The next thing you know, we have such a complicated plan. The average American has a great deal of trouble understanding and complying with the Tax Code. The vast majority of the taxpayers use tax preparers, even in the simplest of tax situations. We in Congress get frustrated with the lack of compliance with the Code; i.e., the tax gap that we hear so much about. It is apparently substantial in terms of the amount of money involved. But the average American is as frustrated by sincerely trying to comply with the system in most cases. I understand the tax gap. Maybe there are some people who are actually trying to avoid taxes. But often the tax gap is simply because of the complexity. The good news, of course, is the economy is strong. That is good news. The economic policies of the last 6 years are working and have continued to contribute to the growth of the economy, to encourage investment, and to encourage job creation. Our economy has added jobs for 43 straight months; 7.8 million since August 2003. This is good, particularly when we look at the changes in the world economy. Again, the Senator from Utah was talking about that. As we continue to grow jobs, that is a very good thing. The economy has added jobs to the extent of 7.8 million over this period of time. The national employment rate has fallen to 4.4 percent last month. Average earnings grew 4 percent last year. The elements of the economy are good. Interestingly enough, largely because of the Iraq situation, we don't hear much about the good economy or about the good things going on in the country. That is too bad. The strong economy has resulted in stronger tax revenues in 2006. It is important, as we talk about taxes, that we maintain progrowth taxes in economic policy, the idea of extending those tax benefits which have helped to bring about this growth is important. We are at a point where some of them will expire within the next couple of years. They are the kinds of benefits that one needs to know about before tax time so investments can and will be made because of the benefits. The policies in place are working. I don't think we ought to mess with success. At the same time, we have already passed as part of the budget an almost $1 trillion tax increase. Additionally, the budget that was passed by the other side of the aisle increased spending and the size of Government. I am concerned about that. These policies will undo all the good that has been done over the last several years. It is kind of a game: What taxes are you going to have to beat to offset spending now and saying it doesn't need to be. But the fact is, it does. From 2008 to 2011, the budget will increase the deficit by $440 billion and increase the gross debt by $2.2 trillion, if we go on as is now suggested. The budget ignores the impending Medicare and Social Security crises. In fact, it would make it even worse by spending more than a trillion of the Social Security surplus. When we talk about taxes, we also have to talk about the size, scope, and role of the Federal Government. It is time we look at some of the things we are doing and wonder why they need to be done by the Federal Government and whether, in fact, they should be done by State and local governments or, in fact, the private sector. We should not be using tax policy as a substitute for direct appropriations and encouraging behavior. That is what we have gotten into. We have talked a lot in recent years about tax reform. It is high time we put it into action, whether it is a flat tax, which is difficult to understand but is used in some places around the world--it seems to be workable--or whether it is a tax that is put on the items that people purchase which would be a little difficult to sell. An acquisition tax is one that is being talked about. But we ought to get away from the behavior tax and get back down to a simplified tax. We need taxes. The Government has to be funded and should be funded in a fair way. But it needs to be done in a different way. Let me move to Medicare and the noninterference issue that may be coming up very soon. That is the competition on the Part D program by having the Government do the sort of work that needs to be done in the private sector and having a change in the way this thing is operating. I think Part D, which is rather new and still being incorporated but is pretty deeply involved in participation at this point--90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have drug coverage--is very good. Folks are saving a considerable amount of money under the program. On average seniors are saving $1,200 yearly on drug costs. A survey reported 80 percent of seniors are happy with the Part D benefits that went into effect recently. Folks in Wyoming are certainly telling me they like the plans that are available there. There are fewer plans available in a smaller population State than there are in some others. Nevertheless, there are plans available. They are available at the local drugstore, and they have an option of several plans from which to choose which is very important for us to maintain in the Part D program. The costs are 30 percent lower than the original estimates, and it has caused competition. It has caused the private sector to come about with reduced estimates. That is very good. Even the expert the Democratic majority put in place to head up the Congressional Budget Office says this legislation that is proposed to have the Government do the negotiations with drug companies would not save money, according to the CBO. In an April 10 letter to Chairman Baucus, the CBO writes: We anticipate that under the bill the Secretary would lack the leverage to negotiate prices under the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by Prescription Drug Plans under current law. Without the authority to establish a formulary or other tools to reduce drug prices, we believe that the Secretary would not obtain significant discounts from drug manufacturers across a broad range of drugs. CBO also testified that negotiating Medicare drug prices could make costs go up for everyone else. We have to understand we need a drug program, a Medicare program for everyone. There are certain ways it would have to be done for the elderly, for the underfinanced, and so on. But the plan needs to be there for everyone. The Government Accountability Office has said price fixing may result in limited access. You can imagine if there is negotiation on prices, some of the pharmaceutical companies are going to say: OK, we are not going to offer this drug; we won't offer that drug. Under this plan, you have alternatives and alternative programs from which you can choose to take on different ideas. Why do we want to take away a plan that has been moving toward success and still has an opportunity for more success and change it before that opportunity has been worked through? Last week the Finance Committee, of which I am a member, held a markup to consider the pending legislation. We asked the proponents of that to come up with their plans. Frankly, they didn't have any specifics as to how this would be handled. With just the idea we would have the Government negotiate, it sounds like, wow, we would come up with some real good stuff. The fact is--the bottom line is--I think most of us want to see the market work. When there is competition, when there are these kinds of things, it does cause the market to work. So I think before we pass any bill, we should know and consider, find out, as clearly as we can, what impact it has on the folks. We do not want to talk too much, it seems, on the Senate floor about how that will work. I think we should talk about how it works. I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but they believe expanding the Government is the way to solve health problems. I do not agree. I do not believe Government price fixing is the answer to the question. Current law has increased choices, has lowered prices through market competition, and that is the system we have in this country. Market competition is where we need to go. So we should let the market continue to work and say, as the saying goes, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' So I think that is how we are challenged. I am hopeful we can move forward. I think we have a lot of things to do. We need to get on with immigration. I do not think there is anything more important to the country than to have an immigration law that works, that we have a closed border, that we have people coming to work legitimately and legally who return after their period of work or go through the process for becoming citizens. The system we have now is not working, and we need to change that. I think energy continues to be a factor in the future, very clearly. There is no doubt there is going to be more demand. There is no doubt there is going to be a more difficult time in acquiring energy sources from around the world. We have to depend more on our own, including alternatives. I think alternatives are a very good solution over time as we find out ways to use them and use them in the volumes that are necessary to fill our needs. In the meantime, I think we need to be very careful to assist in developing those things we know how to do now that will make us have supplies in the interim as we wait for these alternatives to develop-- coal, for example. Coal is our largest fossil resource. We know ways to have plants develop electricity from coal, where we can extract carbon, reinject the carbon, help with the climate change, and at the same time have a supply of energy we need. So these are some of the things I guess I am a little frustrated we cannot move toward. We spend too much time hassling over some of these problems that should not take that long. We should get on with dealing with health care, get on with dealing with energy, get on with dealing with immigration, get on with dealing with spending, get on with dealing with the size of the budget. These are the real issues out there that I think the American people--and I am sure Wyoming people-- are concerned about. So I urge we move as quickly as we can, working together, so we can find ways to move forward and solve some of the problems that are before us. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I will take my 10 minutes this morning. I wanted to speak a little bit about the Iraq supplemental bill which is really the issue that is pending. We are not going to be able to get to it today, but nevertheless it is the pending unfinished business. Despite what the majority leader has indicated, it is too bad we have not been able to move this forward. The Senate went on Easter recess, of course. The majority stressed the importance of completing the bill before the end of March and getting it to the President without delay. Democrats in the Senate, of course, have blocked votes on the amendment to supplement the part that we could have--where they indicated they wanted to speed up the process. Regrettably, we are now on the 64th day since the President submitted his request to Congress, and we have still not sent up a bill. To make matters worse, we don't even have a conference committee in place to work out the differences between the bill that has been passed in the Senate and the bill that has been passed in the House. The Senate is ready for a conference for this bill. The committee of the conferees has been announced, and they are prepared to get this work done. On the other hand, the House of Representatives is on recess and no House conferees. So we are still held up, and will be, on the bill that is really important and needs to be moved. While our troops at home and overseas are facing funding uncertainties, the Democratic House leadership is taking a couple of weeks off. This makes it very difficult. We talked about what we are going to accomplish. It is interesting to accomplish it in the Senate, but it has to go through the House and the Senate and then to the President to have the impact the bill is supposed to have. The Speaker of the House should call the Members back to Washington to complete the supplemental bill and get it to the President by the end of the week. I would like to associate myself with the letter that was sent to the Speaker of the House asking her to call the body back to Washington. It is important to remind people that our troops did not take the week off. Our military leaders are in the best position to know the needs of our troops. They have left no doubt that the funding is urgent and needed without strings and pork. Last week, my staff met with General Mattis and General Lehnert of the U.S. Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton. For those of you who do not know General Mattis, he is a straight-shooter, my kind of marine. He offered a grim assessment of the barracks the marines will be returning home to. His report concluded that conditions are unacceptable for the marines and sailors who have just returned from the combat environment. Repairs and maintenance are needed. The service is ready to act. Unfortunately, the first items that will be cut when funding begins to dry up will be this maintenance. So, even though certainly we will have to get money to the troops, this delay will have an impact on the troops who are returning. More and more marines and their families will be seeking counseling, and there will be cuts in the counseling programs that are available for our returning service people. These programs may not be available if we do not move forward. Of course, as I said, it has been 64 days since the start of this issue. Certainly we need to take care of our marines' mental health and see to it that they are not living in dilapidated barracks and we are going to have to work hard to get this done. It is very simple. We can do that. Over the Easter break, I joined with others welcoming home the Wyoming Army National Guard's 2nd Battalion, 300th Field Artillery Unit. Let me tell you, to get these troops back home was one of the great events I have seen in a very long time. Like those who came home before them, I am so proud of their service and their sacrifices. Given the lack of passage of the supplemental that was submitted to Congress 64 days ago, I am not sure their return would have happened if it had been scheduled for a few months from now. Our first and only priority should be the funding to our troops in the field. Unfortunately, the emergency legislation is larded up with pork and extraneous measures. Not only does the legislation attempt to tie the President's hands by micromanaging, but the majority is trying to push through pet projects at the expense of funding our troops. When the House does return and finally appoints conferees, I hope this Congress does the responsible thing and sends the President a clean bill. Our troops deserve that the Congress give them the funding they need to succeed. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I am disappointed that the majority has not allowed me the chance to offer my amendment. We have a long tradition of Members debating and considering amendments. I have been denied the opportunity, and other Members have been denied the opportunity. I am very sorry for that. I think it is fair to say the majority party in the Senate is attempting to turn the body into the House where the rights of the minority are ignored. It is a sad day for the body. The American public wants Congress to debate these tough issues. In any event, after the election, the new majority indicated it will not be business as usual. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk. My amendment deletes unrelated measures to the spending bill. It includes a number of things, as you know, that we have talked about some. It includes the Transportation Department backlog of $389 million; fisheries, $216 million; conservation security, $115 million; tree assistance, $40 million; asbestos abatement, $25 million; Presidential nominating conventions, $180 million; MILC programs, $31 million; LIHEAP, $640. As you know, the purpose of this bill is an emergency spending bill. I came to the floor during the budget debate to express my displeasure about the process and specifically with emergency spending. The bill before us now is a prime example. It started out as $100 billion in emergency spending for ongoing combat, added another $18 billion of additional nonemergency spending and a host of other things. So I simply wish to make it clear that these provisions--many of them have merit, no question about that but, unfortunately, this bill is not where they belong. It is the wrong vehicle. I have tried for a number of years to get drought relief in the normal course of funding and will continue to do that for agriculture. But it does not make it emergency spending. So, in any event, in the beginning of the fiscal year, Members of the Senate have said they were going to get our financial house in order. We are hoping to do that. I think this is not the way to do that. The American public deserves to know whether Members of the Senate who have committed themselves to get their financial house in order will back up their words with action. So these are extraneous provisions that have little or nothing to do with meeting the supplies needed by our troops. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment. I have amendment 675 at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is certainly one of the most important bills we have had before us and one, frankly, that is the most time-constrained of any we have had before us. Normally, we have a good deal of time to talk about bills and we have budget bills that won't go into effect until next year, but the fact is, this bill, which is for the funding of troops, these dollars need to be available within the next couple of weeks, as we understand it, of course. So it is important that we recognize that and that we understand the purpose of this bill is to fund our troops. Whether you agree with the troops being there, the troops are there, and the fact is that it is up to us to provide the support they need and the dollars which are necessary to provide them the support they need in the position they are in. If there were ever a bill that should be recognized as having a unique purpose and should not be attached to other kinds of nonpertinent issues, I believe this is one. We are going to have the opportunity to decide whether we want to attach other issues to this bill and extend it, whether we want to have a situation where there is a veto and all those time-consuming things or whether we indeed want to have a clean bill that provides for the support of our troops who are now in Iraq and Afghanistan. For weeks now, the President has repeatedly said he will veto the bill if it ties the hands of the generals on the ground. What he is saying is he and the generals have a plan, and the fact is the plan seems to be making more advances and accomplishments than we have had in the past, so we need to allow that to continue to work. We have all said the President needs a different plan. The President now has a different plan. There is new leadership in Iraq. So I think we need to understand where we are with respect to this bill because we certainly have been on notice and are well aware of the looming veto. That veto would simply take more time and keep this money from getting where it needs to be to support the troops. Not passing this legislation, of course, would only delay the critical resources and the necessary equipment and training for our soldiers who are getting ready to deploy or have, in fact, deployed. Secretary of Defense Gates has warned the Congress that if we delay emergency spending for our troops already deployed, many will not be able to come home. This is a very serious statement, and we need to pay attention to it. I don't want to portray the President's plan in Iraq as being a success so far, but our commanders on the ground are reporting good news and that we are making progress, and that is what it is all about, of course. We need to be there until we have completed our task. I understand that explaining what the completion of the task is may not be easy, and people have different views about what that should be, but it is pretty clear we need to be able to get the Iraqis in a position to govern themselves before we can return. I am for returning as soon as possible, but I think setting an artificial definition for when they return is not appropriate anywhere and particularly not appropriate on this bill. I just do not understand how Members on the other side can say one thing in their States and then stand and do the opposite thing--stand for supporting their troops in their States and then come here and have exactly the opposite position in Washington. At this point, we are where we are, and we need to have funding for our troops in the field, no question. Nobody would argue that, and I think no one would dispute that is a time sensitive issue as well. We are going to be here this week on this bill. We are going to be gone next week. If the bill were to be vetoed, then we would have to go through that whole process. One can see that if we are going to get this done by the date which we have all heard, which is April 15, it is important we take off these kinds of things that are holding it up. We should not play political one-upmanship when it comes to funding our men and women who are in theater or are ready to deploy--I don't think there is any question about that--nor should we attempt to move legislation by buying votes for things that would be at the expense of our troops. Unfortunately, the emergency legislation we have before us has been larded up with all manner of nonemergency spending and extraneous measures. Not only are we attempting to tie the President's hands by micromanaging the war, but we are trying to push through pet projects at the expense of our troops. I understand the politics of this place. When someone has something they would like very much to have done, the greatest thing to do is to put it on the bill that has to pass, and even though it is inappropriate, even though it is not a part of the purpose of the bill, of course, I understand that helps get it done. But the request submitted to the Congress was to have $100 billion for troops and hurricane relief. The bill we are considering contains an additional $20 billion--$20 billion--for individual Member requests, a minimum wage increase, and small tax packages. The last time I checked, none of these is an emergency, so they do not qualify for this bill. I understand the merits of many of these things, and they should be considered. But, again, in terms of how we do things here, this is an emergency bill, and things that are in here ought to qualify as emergencies or else not be on the bill. So we have to say: Do they have merit? Of course they have merit. There is no question that many of them do and should be individually addressed in the normal legislative process. They should be considered because they have merit and, indeed, are worth consideration. However, we are also faced with the question that the majority has said we must get our fiscal house in order. That is what we have been hearing, but that is not what we have been doing. It is easy to say that, but it is hard to do it. We do need to take a look at spending. This is an emergency bill-- this is outside the budget--and so it is a wonderful place to pen on a lot of things that are additional spending that really aren't within the limits of spending, which all of us seem to be so proud to be putting on in this Congress. So I think we have to take a look at all those things. Almost to a person, everyone has come to the floor and promised the American public that future spending would be paid for. These things that are added are not paid for. So we are not keeping that promise that has been made. I think this week the majority will have an opportunity to stand by their words. We must keep Federal spending under control and accountable. To add things that are inappropriate, that do not fit on the bill, that are outside the budget--to use this opportunity is not being accountable. To add projects to emergency spending, which by definition is outside the normal budget process, is not the right way to accomplish this goal. It is going to be tough. We are going to have projects that everyone on both sides of the aisle thinks: Oh, that is good for my State-- whether it is shrimp or spinach or whatever. So there will be support for those things. But the fact is, they do not belong on this emergency bill. I remind my colleagues of the budget resolution for 2007 which explicitly defines what constitutes an emergency. It says all of the five following criteria must be satisfied in order for something to be considered an emergency: No. 1, is necessary, essential, or vital; No. 2, sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; No. 3, a pressing and compelling urgent need requiring immediate action; No. 4, an unforeseeable, unpredictable, and unanticipated issue; and, finally, not permanent but temporary in nature. The Senate has to establish the criteria, and I think we ought to follow it in this budget area. I know we cannot fix the problems in just 1 week. There should be an effort to remove all the extraneous and nondefense spending. I look forward to bringing an important question before us, privatizing these things. The American people will soon learn whether the Members of the Senate have committed themselves to getting their financial house in order, whether they will back their words with action. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, very quickly, this is a very simple vote, actually. What it has to do with is limiting the amount of additions that can be put on supplementals that are designed for Defense spending. The amendment I am offering would attempt to bring some discipline back into the emergency spending process. It simply holds to a supplemental those things that a supplemental was designed for. The very nature of emergency spending is above and beyond the approved budget. If we want to control spending and control the deficit, then we need to control what we put on these kinds of supplemental bills we are seeing worked out right as we speak. However, too often the emergency supplementals are larded with all kinds of pet projects and spending that Members cannot pass in the regular process or others put it in there to get theirs passed. It is an abuse of the process. We are going to end up holding our troops hostage because of extraneous spending. I ask that Members support the amendment, that we hold spending in the supplemental to the military for which it is designed.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The amendment will bring transparency and discipline, but not order, to this budget process. The budget resolution is supposed to provide a blueprint for Government spending and allocate dollars for appropriators to spend in particular areas. However, this budget goes away from that responsibility in a number of areas and fails to even set up a cap for overall spending. It does so by including a number of unlimited reserve funds that amount to no more than a blank check signed by the American taxpayer. There is no end to what can be spent. My amendment would strike these reserve funds from the budget. We owe it to the American people to give them a budget that means something, that let's them know up front how much we are spending and how we are going to pay for it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering will bring some transparency--

Mr. THOMAS. The reason we are here, of course, is to deal with the budget. I think that is a very important part of what we do in this Congress. It has to do with funding programs, but it has also to do with determining what our spending is going to be in the year. Frankly, for many of us, having some idea, some control over spending is one of the key issues we face. The amendment I am offering would bring some transparency, restraint, and I hope discipline to this budgeting process. The budget resolution is supposed to provide the blueprint for Government spending and allocate dollars for appropriators in the future. That is what it is for. That is why we do it in the budget, so that for this year we will have a budget that says: Here are the programs, here are the dollars, this is what we do. To be sure, it is a difficult task. It is always difficult, and there are limited resources and always unlimited demands and infinite requests. It is a tough job putting together a budget. However, it requires hard choices. I understand that. It is a time when we make choices among the competing priorities, and that is what budgeting is for. That is, in fact, the purpose of the budget. I am concerned, in this budget, about the reserve funds that are placed there. This budget abdicates responsibility in a number of areas and fails to even set a cap on overall spending. The primary mechanism by which this happens is because of the so-called reserve funds. This budget contains 22 separate funds, the purpose of which is to allow spending beyond the limits specified in the budget decision. In a vast majority of cases, the additional spending authority is totally unchecked. Not only is spending unchecked, there is actually no money in any of these reserve funds. Of course, each of them is specified to be deficit neutral. What does that mean? What it means is that, in a budget that includes not a single penny of net spending restraint, taxes can be raised to pay for any reserve fund spending. This could be an additional $1 trillion in tax increases already assumed in the budget. So that is the opportunity that is provided because of this reserve provision. Now, I know we have designated reserve funds in the past for various things, but the practice is not one we should encourage or continue or proliferate. The American people sent a message last November. They want fiscal discipline. I could not agree more. And no more ``business as usual'' when it comes to spending. So we have a budget but then we have a way to say: I want to expand the budget. And we pay for it by increasing taxes. So we really say: We do not have a budget at all until we are through with the year. I cannot understand that. So I hear the folks who are saying we need to control spending. Perhaps my friends on the other side of the aisle are not quite as conscious of that as we are. Even if we do make a miscalculation in the budget resolution, we need to move funds from one area to another, and that should be spending neutral. In other words, we should make hard choices, decrease spending in one area if we have to increase it in another. As it is currently constructed, these reserve funds are the equivalent of a blank check signed by the American taxpayer. So these tax-and-spend funds need to be eliminated. I urge my colleagues to join me in support for this amendment. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have an amendment numbered 498 at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2007'' with my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Specifically, the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2007'' permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for services provided to seniors. This will result in an increased choice of mental health providers for seniors and enhance their ability to access mental health services in their communities. This legislation is especially crucial to rural seniors who are often forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a mental health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today-- compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists are able to bill Medicare for their services. It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as well as the critical role they play in the mental health care infrastructure. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of masters level social workers, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program. Particularly troubling to me is the fact that seniors have disproportionally higher rates of depression and suicide than other populations. Additionally, 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. It is quite obvious we have an enormous task ahead of us to reduce these staggering statistics. Providing mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists the ability to bill Medicare for their services is a key part of the solution. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming has 174 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 263 clinical social workers for a total of 474 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2007'' will more than double the number of mental health providers available to seniors in my State with the addition of 528 mental health counselors and 61 marriage and family therapists currently licensed in the State. I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2007'' with my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln. Specifically, the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2007'' permits mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists to bill Medicare for services provided to seniors. This will result in an increased choice of mental health providers for seniors and enhance their ability to access mental health services in their communities. This legislation is especially crucial to rural seniors who are often forced to travel long distances to utilize the services of mental health providers currently recognized by the Medicare program. Rural communities have difficulty recruiting and retaining providers, especially mental health providers. In many small towns, a mental health counselor or a marriage and family therapist is the only mental health care provider in the area. Medicare law--as it exists today-- compounds the situation because only psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers and clinical nurse specialists are able to bill Medicare for their services. It is time the Medicare program recognized the qualifications of mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists as well as the critical role they play in the mental health care infrastructure. These providers go through rigorous training, similar to the curriculum of masters level social workers, and yet are excluded from the Medicare program. Particularly troubling to me is the fact that seniors have disproportionally higher rates of depression and suicide than other populations. Additionally, 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas and one-fifth of all rural counties have no mental health services of any kind. Frontier counties have even more drastic numbers as 95 percent do not have a psychiatrist, 68 percent do not have a psychologist and 78 percent do not have a social worker. It is quite obvious we have an enormous task ahead of us to reduce these staggering statistics. Providing mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists the ability to bill Medicare for their services is a key part of the solution. Virtually all of Wyoming is designated a mental health professional shortage area and will greatly benefit from this legislation. Wyoming has 174 psychologists, 37 psychiatrists and 263 clinical social workers for a total of 474 Medicare eligible mental health providers. Enactment of the ``Seniors Mental Health Access Improvement Act of 2007'' will more than double the number of mental health providers available to seniors in my State with the addition of 528 mental health counselors and 61 marriage and family therapists currently licensed in the State. I believe this legislation is critically important to the health and well-being of our Nation's seniors and I strongly urge all my colleagues to become a cosponsor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to talk a little bit about the bill that we are on, the State homeland security formula and the security bill. Certainly, I am hopeful that we will be able to complete that soon. I hope that we can continue to move forward at a little faster pace, perhaps, and do some of the things that need to be done. I understand the complication of many of these bills and the importance of them, but I think we do need to consider some of the things that are ahead of us--immigration, for example, and health care, and some of those kinds of issues that are before us. This morning, I would like to spend a few minutes on one concern I have in the pending bill which has to do with rural America. During last week's debate, the Senate effectively voted a significant cut for rural States. Now, of course, I understand we have to consider the impact of homeland security, but the idea that rural States are not impacted I certainly don't think is completely true. Under the bill, my State stands to receive roughly $10 million out of $3 billion--$10 million in Wyoming. Some people think all we have is cows and sheep and maybe an oil well or two, but the fact is that we do have a base of energy. As a matter of fact, in some ways that may be one of the most susceptible risks to security. So I do think there needs to be a little more discussion in that respect. For years now, the States of New York and California have used Wyoming as a poster child for wasteful homeland security because Wyoming receives a per capita amount. The per capita amount is relatively high. Why? Because we have a very small population, half a million compared to 30 or 35 million. So the per capita formula is not an indication of the need for the State. It is easy for New York and California to play with the numbers and sort of mislead the audience by leaving ouy the actual amount of money that Wyoming generally receives. We also rarely hear mentioned that their States, these large States, receive hundreds of millions of dollars through the same program, the homeland security grant program. But that is not even half the story. These same large States conveniently fail to disclose the fact that their States also qualify for funding from the urban grant program, a program that excludes my State and other rural States. So this is one of those times when you have to take a look at all the States and realize this idea just of population does not work. As we can see on the floor of the Senate, population is not the only condition for having two Senators here, fortunately. In any event, from fiscal year 2003 through 2006, homeland security funding for California has been $1.1 billion and New York received $932 million, compared to Wyoming receiving approximately $20 million its first year. In 4 years that figure has fallen to $10 million. At any rate, as I am suggesting, there is a certain amount of inequity in terms of the funding formula in this bill. When we do receive Federal assistance, that money goes a long way, of course. Unlike many of our urban counterparts, we make the best use of it and always have, but that doesn't mean that rural areas are not at risk. In fact, as I said, in many ways you can say it might be easier to attack the rural areas than some of the others. Most people don't know that Wyoming is the largest net exporter of energy in the United States. Our energy powers the Nation and is critical to maintaining our strong national security. So rail lines and transmission lines and refineries are very important not only to our State but to the Nation. There is no question that the economy favors dense areas. We have debated this, as a system, and I suppose we will continue to do that. As a matter of fact, we had a vote where I think we lost by only one in terms of increasing the basic amount States would receive. Hopefully, we can take another look at this as we go about working with the House. I would like to also comment on a pending amendment which is inconsistent with the majority's will to prohibit nongermane amendments. I don't recall the 9/11 Commission making this recommendation, but we have an amendment pending that would reroute hazardous materials through our Nation's small towns instead of through big cities. I don't in any way want to infer that it is the intention of this amendment to put small towns in harm's way. Unfortunately, the amendment has been filed and, indeed, will put individuals in rural areas at more risk than those in urban areas. There is no question that we need to secure the rails. Coming from a State where the economy relies to a large extent on railroads, I know all too well that security is critical to this infrastructure. It certainly is important to us, and we are making significant progress in that regard. The Federal Government and the railroads have agreements targeted at reducing the risk of hazardous materials that are in high- threat urban areas around the Nation, and these arguments didn't happen overnight. I understand that, and that is proper. They are well thought out, with the input from security and industry professionals and all of the experts in Congress. Mandatory rerouting would not eliminate the risks. Instead, it shifts them from one population to another. Forced rerouting could also foreclose routes that are top performers in terms of overall safety and security and result in increased risk in exposure and reduced safety and security. If we force these trains to reroute, imagine the cost of the goods that will be passed along to the consumer. Railroads are required by the Federal Government to transport hazardous materials. They cannot pick up and abandon a line that is not profitable. Under this measure, railroads are going to have to build a new track and acquire a lot of land that bypasses major metropolitan areas. Imagine the demand for the use of eminent domain, which is one of the difficulties that we have, of course, and is necessary when you talk about this kind of infrastructure. Finally, I would like to respond a little bit to some of the arguments that the other side has made with respect to keeping this bill clear of extraneous and nongermane amendments. Last week, the minority leader requested that the Senate vote on a package of security-related amendments. The majority declined and decided to filibuster the package instead and block consideration. Instead of having these honest debates on amendments to improve the bill, the majority sent out a conflicting message. On the one hand, they argued the amendment to strengthen the security of the country was nongermane and partisan. On the other hand, they argued that a union- backed elective bargaining provision was relevant to our Nation's security and wasn't partisan. Mr. President, I am very troubled by the inconsistency, particularly on this bill. I know many Members feel the same way. In fact, I would like to reference the comments made on the floor of the Senate last week by the Senator from Michigan, who came to the floor expressing frustration with the lack of progress on the bill. The Senator was concerned about amendments being offered by the Republicans that would strengthen our national security but were not relevant to the 9/11 Commission recommendations. It was stated, and I quote: I find myself needing to express concern about the place in which we find ourselves at this point--unable to move forward with the final bill and the relevant 9/11 Commission amendments that have been offered because of an effort by the Senate Republican leader to offer a wide- ranging number of unrelated amendments to the bill. Unfortunately, this frustration was directed at the wrong side of the aisle. Union collective bargaining is not an issue recommended by the 9/11 Commission and should not be in this bill. It seems to me we are hearing mixed messages from the other side. It appears that they are willing to include provisions backed by the unions but not willing to debate and vote on tough security-related measures such as those contained in the Cornyn amendment. The amendment offered by the Senator from Texas would do so much more to strengthen our national security than the labor measure, but Members on the other side have aggressively defended that amendment of last week. Of these two measures, there can be no debate as to which provision does more to protect our Nation. The other side of the aisle has it wrong. I generally agree with what the Senator from Michigan said last week, but you cannot have it both ways when it comes to securing our Nation. If we want to limit this bill to debating and implementing the 9/11 recommendations, let's not compromise national security at the same time by allowing collective bargaining of the TSA screeners. Setting this policy would greatly hinder TSA's flexibility to respond to terrorism threats, flesh intelligence, and emergencies as they arise. TSA needs to have the ability to move the screeners around as schedules and threats change. TSA was created to be a nimble agency. Let me give some examples of how TSA has proven its ability to quickly respond. During the August 2006 United Kingdom air bombing threat, TSA screeners were briefed and deployed where they were needed to respond to the threat. TSA has employed its flexibility to evacuate patients at the Texas VA Hospital in the path of Hurricane Rita and helped with the evacuation of people in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Last year, when Lebanon erupted into violence and fighting broke out, TSA was able to rapidly respond to expedite the evacuation of thousands of Americans in Lebanon and thousands of legitimate refugees. TSA deployed 27 of its officers to Cyprus when fighting broke out. TSA was able to quickly respond, assisting airport authorities with verifying passenger identification documents and screening the large volume of evacuees. This labor-backed provision has nothing to do with enhancing our homeland security, and the President has repeatedly said he will veto the bill if collective bargaining is included. If we are going to be sincere in improving homeland security, that is one thing, but moving forward with collective bargaining for TSA is unexplainable. The 9/11 Commission made a lot of recommendations, most of which I support, but a collective bargaining provision didn't even make the list. I can only hope that when the bill passes and it goes to conference that conferees will do the right thing and drop the provision. Failure to do so will only delay our effort to strengthen this Nation's security. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is a very equitable and timely distribution of these funds. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.