Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, how much time is remaining on the division in morning business?

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, let me take a couple of minutes to speak on a couple of subjects which I feel very strongly about and that we are facing. First of all, I want to talk about energy. Certainly, during this whole year we have been giving consideration to and having some emphasis on energy. The public interest has been higher, and we have problems. When gas prices are higher, everybody recognizes the issue that we have with energy. But when those settle down a little, the problem is still there. We in the Congress have tried to deal with it for this whole year. Now we are in the process of having a conference committee try to come out with conclusions. I just wanted to urge that we move forward with the conference committee and that we finally come up with an energy policy in this country. We do not have one. We find ourselves in the position of being nearly 60 percent dependent on importation of oil in order to meet our needs. We don't want to be in that position, particularly with the unrest in the Middle East from where much of our oil comes. We certainly need to find solutions that will make us less dependent. It is not only an energy issue, it affects our economy. I do not know of anything that affects our economy more than energy. We use energy when we turn on our lights, when we have heat, and when we have air-conditioning. In terms of the economy itself, nothing is more important than energy. I am hopeful that we can move forward. We have put together a conference committee. The House bill is somewhat less extensive than the Senate bill. On the other hand, certainly there are a great many things in which there is common interests. Someone reviewed it and found that there are probably 55 issues in which we have a common interest. We need to move forward. We are ready to do something. The committee has not yet actually met. Staff is meeting. I just can't say how important it is for us to move forward and complete that conference committee and bring those issues back to the Senate and the House before the September time expires. We are talking, of course, not only about the idea of having increased production in our country, which we can have, we are also cognizant about renewables. We are talking about research to make coal cleaner for the air. We are talking about all kinds of issues with a balance between production and conservation. That is what we ought to be doing in policy. I am really anxious that we find a way to move forward. Obviously, there are some issues on which there is disagreement: For example, an opportunity to have production in ANWR on the North Slope, which is part of the House bill and not part of the Senate bill. We ought to resolve that and come to a conclusion. That ought not be what holds up having an energy policy in this country. We can deal with the idea of having access to public lands so we can have production. And we can conserve and protect the environment at the same time. We have done that for a very long time in the West where most of the public land is located. We can do that. There are those who try to make the point that if you have access to the land, it suddenly is going to be spoiled, and so on. That doesn't need to be the case. There are ways in which we can have effective production and at the same time have effective maintenance. Obviously, there are areas in which we don't want to have that kind of use, whether it be wilderness or the national parks or special parts of the forest. But, in general, half of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government. The largest percentage of that is Bureau of Land Management lands. Those are lands that ought to be available under law for multiple use. Certainly, it should be used carefully. We want to do that. There is also a great debate over what we do in terms of trying to get better efficiency out of our energy. And we can do that. There is a great debate on CAFE standards and mileage standards and whether that ought to be the best we can do or whether that ought to be put in law over a certain length of time. Again, we can resolve those issues. The idea of using ethanol can also be resolved. We need to work at it. The other issue that obviously is going to be on the floor right away is one that we have worked on in the Finance Committee for some time; that is, prescription drugs and pharmaceuticals, which we will be talking about today, and, as I understand it, from the leader's comments, probably for the next 2 weeks, which is fine. It is an issue that really needs to be resolved. Obviously, it impacts a great many people in this country, particularly those on Social Security, the elderly. More and more, we find ourselves utilizing pharmaceuticals. Hopefully, that has been helpful to health care. Utilization is one of the reasons, of course, the costs per individual have gone up, in addition to the price of pharmaceuticals. In the Finance Committee we worked on this bill, which is where the jurisdiction is. But I am disappointed that coming to the floor with a bill that has been approved by the committee is apparently not going to happen. The leader is going to go ahead and has already put a bill on the floor that has to do more with the patent rights than it does on the whole question of pharmaceuticals, and then to bring a bill as he chooses to do it as opposed to the committee approving a bill. Interestingly enough, that is exactly what happened with energy. The bill was taken out of the Energy Committee by the leadership here, and then we dealt with it on the floor for I don't remember how many weeks. But that is not the way we are supposed to work. We have committees and committees are supposed to report and bring their recommendations to the floor so that the great detail of these things has already been done. When you do not do that, then it comes to the floor, and we find ourselves, as we are now, frankly, behind in the work we ought to be doing towards the end of this session, and largely because of the idea of going around the committees and then bringing these controversial issues to the floor. I do not think pharmaceuticals are controversial in terms of us wanting to deal with it, but there are lots of things in it. It is a very difficult issue. I am disappointed--if that is finally the way it works out--that we don't have a bill reported from the committee of jurisdiction. It is a tough issue. There are lots of issues to talk about. Who should be the beneficiaries of a pharmaceuticals program of this kind? There are some who want it for everyone. There are some who want it simply as part of Medicare. And then, should the emphasis be on low- income individuals or should it be for everyone? I do not know the answer, but that is one of the issues that has to be talked about. What can we do in terms of trying to get better prices, in terms of having prescription drugs available for people to buy? Or do we simply want to subsidize them at whatever price comes out? It is a very difficult issue, and one with which we have to deal. Since we are talking about a kind of stand-alone situation with pharmaceuticals, we have to talk about a delivery system. How do you do this? How do you do this to allow for the local pharmaceutical, the local drug stores, the local pharmacies to be able to participate, as well as mail distributors? I think that is very important, particularly for those of us in rural communities. We need to make sure the drug system--whatever we come up with--and the delivery system are available in rural areas. We find some problems with that generally in terms of health insurance. In low-population areas, there are not the choices available as in other places. We need to ensure that is the case. And then there is the cost, of course. There are at least three proposals that will be before us. One of them--I think it is called the Graham bill--will be one that gives very extensive coverage but over a 10-year period costs nearly $1 trillion, apparently. At least that is the best sort of pricing that we can get so far. There is one that is the tripartisan bill. That comes out to a price of about $370 billion over 10 years. Again, it is difficult to get the scoring on these, but we have that. And then, of course, there is another proposal out there. I think it is the Hagel bill. That is largely one in which there is a group purchasing process, and you would belong to the purchasing card arrangement and basically use the idea of volume to be able to have substantially less cost. I think it would cost about $150 billion. I never thought I would be talking about $150 billion being less, but that, nevertheless, is the way it is. So we are faced with some tough decisions. Unfortunately, we will not have a committee-approved bill before us to deal with, I am afraid. The difficulty with that, of course, is that in the Senate we also do not have a budget; therefore, a point of order rises on anything that is above what was considered to be in the budget, which is $300 billion. So a point of order can be raised on two of these three bills that I mentioned; and then it takes 60 votes to get those passed. If there are not 60 votes, they will not be successful. I think we find ourselves in a real difficult situation in dealing with something that almost everyone wants to complete. Unfortunately, it now becomes something of a political issue in terms of what you can do during the election period to talk about what an advocate you were on the floor. That should not be the purpose. The purpose ought to be to come up with a workable program designed to deal with the people in most need of assistance, designed to have a delivery system that gives people some choices which comes through the private sector; and those choices would exist all around the country, not simply in cities and highly urbanized areas, with some control over cost. We are finding ourselves, obviously, in a great spending spree. Part of it, of course, is the result of terrorism and some of the events that have happened, and partly as a result of less revenue coming in as a part of the economy. So I guess on balance I am saying we find ourselves in a tough position. I hope we can zero in on what it is we want to accomplish and find the best method of accomplishing that and get it done in the very near future. So I think we have lots of challenges before us. I mentioned a couple: energy, pharmaceuticals. We ought to be able to get a budget so we have limitations on our spending. In the Senate, we obviously have not yet begun to deal with the 13 bills that we need on appropriations. We have not started on that. So I think we have allowed ourselves to get into a pretty tight situation in terms of dealing with the issues. I am pleased that yesterday we were able to at least complete something in the accounting area that will deal with some of the problems we have seen in terms of corporate misbehavior. Hopefully, that will work. So I just wish we could move and get on with the work we know we have to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to talk about an important issue specifically to Wyoming, the Yellowstone National Park. In a broader sense, it is an issue that affects all kinds of parks and Federal public lands. It has to do with the question of access to these lands. Particularly, I am very interested in national parks, having grown up just outside of Yellowstone. I served as chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee for a long time. So I am very interested in parks. We are in the process of working on an issue that I think has broader implications. It is the ability to use snow machines to see Yellowstone National Park in the wintertime. It is something that has been done, of course, for a number of years, and certainly there have to be changes that take place with use, and, as people are involved, unfortunately, those changes have not taken place as much as they should. Now we find ourselves in a dilemma with efforts made to eliminate the opportunity for people to use these machines in the wintertime. As I mentioned, I think the purpose of the park is to maintain the resource, and all of us would agree to that. It is one of the national treasures that we have. We spend a lot of time here on parks--to establish new parks, and so on. The second purpose of having a park, of course, in addition to saving the resource, is to give the opportunity for the park's owners to enjoy it--the people of America. And of course it needs to be done in an orderly way so there is not a problem with destroying those resources. As I mentioned, snow machines in Yellowstone Park have been used for a good numbers of years. They are limited to the roads that are prepared for snow machining. You cannot go off the road; you stay on those roads. That has been the rule through the years. They enter, basically, in three of the entryways that come into Yellowstone Park, which is fewer than there are in the summer. Of course, the wildlife remains in the park in the winter, for a good part of the time at least, and so one of the problems or complaints has been that the idea of preparing the roads for the use by snow machines provides an exit for the buffalo, and they go into Montana. There are concerns about brucellosis, and so on, and they don't like to have that happen. The fact is that the roads are going to be prepared for use, whether visitors can use them or others, because they have to be used by the rangers and the people who are in the park. In any event, this issue kind of came to a head about 2, 3 years ago when the Clinton administration had prepared a regulation that there would be no more use of snow machines in the wintertime. Well, many of us do not agree with that. We think there can be ways in which snow machines can be managed so that they can be changed if they need to be, that would take away the problems of that exit, and rather than to eliminate them, we think there ought to be a way to change them. Indeed, during the course of this time, there have been a number of changes being made, partly by the manufacturers. Of course, there can be a regulation and a standard as to how the machines would be allowed to reduce emissions they have had in the past. They would also reduce the noise, which has been something people have been concerned about. So we are prepared--and the manufacturers are prepared--to go into the market with machines, probably four-cycle engines rather than two, that would change both the emissions and the noise. As this went on, of course, as the Clinton administration pushed their regulation, there were lawsuits brought. Then there was a change in the administration. The original EIS that was done was extended, and we took action in the Congress to extend the use period for another couple of years, and another supplemental EIS was held so there could be some additional alternatives. The alternatives, of course, could be: Continue as it is now; eliminate it entirely; allow for coaches rather than individual snow machines; or change the rule so there could be some combination of the two. The time is down now pretty close to where there should be, in this month, as a matter of fact, a reestablishment of the options that would be available, any favored option by the administration. I met recently with the superintendents of the two parks, both the Grand Teton and Yellowstone, and they are prepared to do that. I think they are prepared to favor the option that would allow for the changes to be made in the machines and also for additional noise, but they could potentially have limitations on the numbers that could travel. It is kind of interesting because those who oppose it, of course, do not want to include any machines, regardless of the situation. There are now machines that have less emissions than an automobile. There are only about 600,000 of these machines and 1.6 million cars in the summer, so it is quite hard to figure out how they are going to do extensive damage. As I mentioned, there was a lawsuit. The snowmobile manufacturers, the State of Wyoming, and others brought a suit over the ban last summer. The settlement was agreed to. It called for a supplemental EIS, which I mentioned, which now has been done, and it called for some reasonable and commonsense resolutions and changes to the debate. The public process has been open. There have been lots of responses. Because the environmentalists organized it, they had more people against it send in a card than those who were for it, but those who really took time to examine the issue and come up with alternatives, that was pretty evenly divided between those who want to continue and those who do not. We are down now to making some decisions, and I think that is what we ought to do, and we are in this process. I am disappointed that since then, a bill has been introduced in the Senate to eliminate snow machines in the park. It seems to me that is entirely inappropriate when we go through this whole process that has been laid out where people can be involved in this decision, and then suddenly we decide we are going to make the decision here. I hope that is not the case. I think we have had, as I said, an opportunity, and we can continue to talk about it and we ought to certainly let that process work its way through, which I think it will. Everyone is for the protection of our parks. We all want to do that, and we can do that. We have had this sort of a problem in public lands, where you have to get a balance between usefulness and protection, and we can do that. We are into another thing now on limiting roads in the forests. Obviously, there ought to be some limitation, but there also has to be access. It is not only access to people who want to hunt or do those kinds of things. I have received lots of communications from veterans, for instance, who say: Gosh, I cannot hike 5 or 10 miles to get there. So we have to find a balance, and this is one of the areas in which a balance is necessary--not the only one. But I am saying that our resources of public lands and public uses also have to have access for a number of reasons. It also is an economic issue for people who live around the parks, as we do in Wyoming. So we hope we can go ahead with this and that the administration will continue to pursue the idea of having a resolution that provides for management, provides for protection, but provides people an avenue to still continue to enjoy the park. I thought it was kind of interesting that one of the complaints about the noise--and I understand that--is people who go there do not want to have noise in the wintertime. Well, there is nobody there unless they go on machines because there is no place they can go without them. It is too far away. I wanted to raise that point. I feel very strongly about it, of course, as do many of us. We certainly hope we can go on through this process and end up with an alternative that allows for the use of visitors to Yellowstone Park in the winter. It is a beautiful place. When one goes up there by Old Faithful and goes up the river, talk about the wildlife. One of the things that is sort of interesting is you drive along and if you want to stop, there is a buffalo right alongside the road in about 2 or 3 feet of snow, and they move right along in this little place pushing the snow out of the way so they can eat what is left of the grass below. They are not concerned whether someone is there with a snow machine. I see my friend from Alaska is present to speak, and I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I think about 10 minutes, please.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this is an issue we have talked about for a good long time. Some of the things I have heard today are quite different than what we have talked about before. Nevertheless, everyone is entitled to their own views. I think, as has been mentioned, we ought to remind ourselves what the purpose of this particular vote is about. It is to make it possible for the Secretary to apply for a license to construct a site at Yucca Mountain. If this fails, then ever since the 1980s, 24 years of work, and $4 billion worth of expenditures will be halted and nothing more will happen. This is not the final issue to be talked about. This is not the issue of transportation. This is the issue of whether or not to move forward and license the site, which will then provide the opportunity and the necessity of moving on to other issues, such as defining the transportation routes and dealing with the safety of transportation. I think we ought to keep in mind what we are doing here and that is to authorize them to move forward in licensing the site. The site, of course, is one of the most important issues before us. It has been said a number of times that there are 131 different sites where waste is stored. Not all of those sites will disappear, of course, but many of them will. Those that have been Government used, that are not continuing to be used, will be gone. We will have fewer sites. I do not hear anyone talking about solving the problem. All I hear about is avoiding coming to a decision. I think we need to ask ourselves which is better in terms of safety: to have it generally in one place or to have 131 different sites? Talking about trying to have protection and security, how much security do you think there is in every one of these sites? If you are talking about September 11, you have to talk a little bit about having all these sites. We are trying to consolidate some. So it has been interesting to hear the kinds of reactions that we have had. The site is there, of course, because Yucca Mountain is 90 miles from the nearest population centers. It is one of the most remote places in the country. The climate is conducive to storage. There are multiple national barriers in order that tunnels can be stored. There is great depth, 2,600 feet deep underneath, an isolated basin. So this is something that has been selected with a very great deal of study from a number of places. This is the one that was decided upon to be the best. So that is where we are. It is interesting, all we hear about are problems. I think it is up to us to talk about some solutions. I hope we can do that. In fact, I think to say this Energy Department material is not useful is a stretch. Certainly this material has been studied. Experts have put this information in there. Some of the information we are hearing lacks a little bit. At the hearings we held, there was a gentleman who had been the past director of highway safety who was talking about highways. I asked him who he was working for. It turned out he had been paid by the State of Nevada. Talk about people being in support of the idea and causing people to have their positions the way they are. Let me talk a minute, though, about transportation. Obviously, transportation could very well be going through our State of Wyoming, although, as the Senator from Alaska points out, those decisions have not been made. Everyone is talking about where it is going to go. That has not been decided. In fact, I have written a letter to the Secretary of Energy to ensure, as we move through this particular decision, that we will move on, then, to an equally difficult decision about transportation, and also to get assurance--which he has assured us-- that the Governors and officials in the States will coordinate and will be cooperative workers in terms of deciding what the routes are. In any event, we have talked a little bit about the history of transportation. It is very impressive. We have had 30 years of transportation of nuclear waste of various kinds without an incident. We have had that over 1.5 million miles. It is handled safely. I was surprised. At the hearing, they had a sample on the floor of the kinds of containers that spent nuclear material is in. I had no idea, frankly, what it was. But they are in solid pellets, approximately the size of a pencil eraser. And they are secured in multiple layer metal tubes. They are hard, and they are solid. Nuclear waste is not fluid. It is not a gas. It will not pour or evaporate. It is in these big, hard vats that are set up for it. Nuclear waste, nuclear fuel does not burn, as a matter of fact. It is not flammable, even if it is engulfed in fire. Spent nuclear fuel cannot explode. We sort of get the notion that it is going to go up in a big puff. That is not the case. It is transported in strong thick-walled casks, casks that have been dropped from 30 feet in a free fall from helicopters to be tested. And they have a puncture test with a special way to do it. They have flatbed trucks that have been smashed into a 700-ton concrete wall at 80 miles an hour. There is safety here. Safety, of course, is a high issue for all of us. No one would suggest it should not be. Most of it will be done by train, not on the highways. These are the things we will have to deal with and we will deal with over a period of time. We should start, of course, with dealing with the question. We have agreed, in 1982, to take care of this waste, particularly in the commercial uses that have been there. They have been taxed $17 billion to do something with it. What they are doing with it now is not the safest thing that can be done. I know when you talk about nuclear, everybody swells up, but it is interesting to also recall that Illinois, for example, generates over 30 percent of their electricity with nuclear. Of course, there is nuclear waste. But we need to do something with it. We are going to be moving more toward it. On the other side, it is one of the cleanest kinds of electric generating fuels we can have. I guess if I have been impressed by anything in this discussion, it is that we haven't really dealt with the problem, How do we solve it? What we have talked about, what we hear about almost all the time, is how do we avoid making a decision on an issue that is there, and one that is obviously going to be there until we do something about it, until we follow through on what we agreed to do in 1982 and have not done since, and haven't heard much about, as a matter of fact. We spent $4 billion in Nevada. We didn't hear much about that. Fine. I hope we can go ahead and deal with this, support this portion of the total decision that needs to be made, move forward on this site, and then deal with the other issues that come before us. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I just want to respond to the comments made with respect to OMB. I want to read from a letter from the Director. Dear Senator Warner, I am writing to express deep concern over the possible Kennedy amendment [proposal]. While packaged in good-government clothing, this amendment will severely limit the Department of Defense's ability to acquire services necessary to help the Department meet current threats. The Department of Defense must have the flexibility. . . . While agencies are embracing competition, focusing on core mission, and eliminating barriers to entering the marketplace, this amendment does the opposite. The Senator was talking about support from this Department, and this is not what is there. It would require the Government to consider reforming non- core activities that it doesn't have the skills to do when entrepreneurs and their employees are ready, willing and able to perform. We most focus our agencies on performance and accountability. Now--when our nation is at war against terrorism of global reach--is not time for the Secretary of Defense to have fewer options, for the sake of moving more functions into government hands. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield our final 5 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. THOMAS. I yield 5 minutes for the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of our time. We have 7\1/2\ minutes. I yield myself 5 minutes out of our 7\1/2\ minutes. I want to respond to the Senator. He asks, who opposes this? Let me give you some idea of who and why. One, the amendment will increase costs to DOD by $200 million a year. Secondly, he talks about the report of the General Accounting Office. There were 10 recommendations that were put out. His deals with one. That is a reason to oppose this. The amendment would adversely affect DOD's mission. It would mandate, for the first time, that the Federal Government compete with the private sector for work not concurrently performed. It has problems with the A-76 issue. The Secretary of Defense opposes the Kennedy amendment. The administration has indicated that his proposal goes against the President's governmental performance tasks. Let me share with you, very briefly, a couple of other comments. This is from the Executive Office of the President, from Mitchell Daniels, who was quoted yesterday as supporting it. He says: I am writing to express deep concern over the possible Kennedy Amendment. He goes on to say: We must focus our agencies on performance and accountability. Now--when our nation is at war against terrorists of global reach--is not the time for the Secretary of Defense to have fewer options, for the sake of moving more functions into government hands. That is why people are opposed to it. The Secretary of Defense, in a letter, says: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the draft amendment proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy. Then he closes the letter by saying: The proposed amendment would increase Department costs and dull our warfighting edge. Then, just in numbers, we all mentioned the Secretary of Defense and OMB. We also have organized labor. The Seafarers International Union, the Industrial Technological Professional Employees, International Union of Operating Engineers, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers--these are some of the folks who have found that this will not help implement what we are seeking to do; that is, to be able to utilize the members of the military and the things they do at a time when it is more difficult to fullfill those responsibilities. To shift some of those responsibilities back to the military away from the private sector seems to be absolutely contrary to what we are seeking to do. I urge all Members of the Senate to oppose this amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair, and I thank the floor managers of the bill for arranging this time and setting it up for this evening. Mr. President, I wish to comment a little more on this bill. It is one that I believe is very important. It is very important because it changes what we have done in the past. It changes the concepts and the principles that we have had for a very long time. I suppose there are always different ideas about where we ought to be going in Government. I am one who believes that those activities that are not inherently governmental certainly ought to be available for the private sector and that, indeed, we ought to try to contain the size of the public sector--I think all of us would say we want to do that--and to use the competition among the private sector to get the most efficient task done for us that we possibly can. Of course, as has been mentioned, this has been the policy of the Federal Government for a very long time. Frankly, it has not worked very well. We have not been able to find a way to identify those issues, those activities that are nongovernmental, or at least not inherently governmental, that could be contracted out. We have not gone through the system. So we finally, in 1998, passed another bill that provided for the identification of various activities. Unfortunately, there was not much done with it. The administrations were not very interested in doing that. As has been mentioned, we now have some principles that have been put in place that will provide for a more efficient way of moving toward the concept with which I think most of us would agree, and that is we ought to do in the private sector, in the competitive sector, all those activities that are appropriate. If that is our view, then this amendment is inconsistent with that view and, indeed, makes it much more difficult for us to accomplish that. For example, these are some of the things that were set forth by the Defense Department that they believe are difficult and that should cause us not to pass this amendment that is before us. First, it would have more requirements. The amendment would significantly increase the numbers of public-private competition by requiring each competition for new work and work already under contract without any benefit to the taxpayer or war fight. Private sector competition already provides savings and efficiencies in the work that is covered by this amendment. Certainly, costs ought to be something that we are always aware of, but as we get into this business of terrorism and all this spending that we must have, then increased costs seem to me to be even more important. The amendment would increase costs to the Department. This is information brought forth by the Defense Department. It would increase costs to the Department by over $200 million a year. Cost for additional competitions is likely to exceed $100 million or $4,000 per position. By requiring 10-percent cost savings, with no limitation, DOD will not be able to take advantage of savings greater than $10 million but less than 10 percent. Added costs would likely exceed $100 million a year in addition to what is already there. Less efficiency: The amendment would adversely impact mission effectiveness and efficiencies. Awarding contracts for services will be significantly delayed under the contract. The average time to conduct a public-private competition is 25 months, whereas the average time to award a competitive contract with private firms is less than half of that. Time is important in the defense industry. We are in a time when we need to make changes quickly. Because contractors must commit more resources to pursue public- private competitions due to longer lead times and more involved process, there would be fewer competitors on such competitions, thus limiting DOD's access. So it would result in the opposite of what we say we have been for, for a very long time, and that is more insourcing. The amendment would foster insourcing, which would exacerbate the Federal human capital crises. We talk a lot about the military and what we are going to do and how we fulfill the numbers that are necessary. Here is an opportunity to make that even more difficult and require that we do that. DOD does not have idle capacity available to compete for either new work or work currently being performed by contractors. If DOD were to win new work or already contracted work, hiring would have to increase significantly at a time when we are already faced with difficulties. The Government personnel system is not nimble enough to hire or move large numbers of personnel on short notice. This is the assessment of the Department of Defense of themselves. Having DOD personnel perform new work or work previously contracted out is not the best use of limited defense resources. Further, they say it preempts congressional intent. Well, we are the ones, of course, who ought to know that. It has been indicated that this is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But here is one that is kind of interesting. It is also supported by a letter from the Laborers International Union of North America. This is a labor union that is opposed to this amendment and has two pages of materials as to why they are opposed. Then, of course, I suppose not unexpectedly, there is a letter from the Contract Services Association of America. These are the people who are involved. These are the people whom we have been seeking to give more opportunities, to make this work, than they have had in the past. It is interesting how no more real attention has been paid to this than the number of people and organizations that have come out in opposition to the amendment. This says: Attention, Members of the U.S. Senate--and it lists national security officials and experts, about 15 of them: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, OMB Director Mitchell Daniels, the Under Secretary of Defense, a number of admirals, a whole list of people who say this is not a good thing for us to do; organized labor, the Laborers International Union of North America, AFL-CIO; Seafarers International Union, AFL-CIO; Industrial Technical Professional Employees Union, International Union of Operating Engineers, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, and others, as well as small minority- and women-owned businesses. It is quite a large list. So it is interesting, and I think very important, to recognize the number of groups that have indeed expressed their opposition to the amendment we are seeking to deal with now. This time, of course, will be very important. We have some others who want to speak who will be coming out a little later to speak, as well as tomorrow. Again, there are many reasons that have been set forth as to why the Kennedy amendment should be stopped. The amendment would arbitrarily require the Federal Government to compete with the private sector for performance of noninherently government services, whether or not there is an incumbent Federal workforce performing the act. It is totally beyond what we sought to do unanimously in the Senate, and we are very interested in seeking to keep that from happening. Over 50 years of bipartisan policy has mandated the Government should not compete with the private sector for noninherently governmental functions. Nevertheless, this amendment would require every new contract modification, task order, or renewal undergo a lengthy public- private competition under OMB Circular A-76, whether or not the Government even has the requisite skills or the personnel required to perform the work. Today, less than 2 percent of all Government services contracted are conducted under A-76 because only that small portion of Government has been involved in the incumbent Federal workforce. So this changes things dramatically and not for the better. The amendment would cripple Government performance. The amendment would undermine robust competition for opportunities that already exist. So there are a lot of things that are involved. One of them has been that the A-76 process has been one that has needed help, and continues to. For those who do not know, the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-76 is the Government's policy that is used to determine who can best provide products and services it needs. The circular defines Federal policy for determining whether commercial activity should be outsourced to commercial sources or kept within the Federal Government. OMB Circular A-76 was first issued in 1966 and has been revised numerous times since. The A-76 process is very formal and intricate, often a lengthy process for conducting public-private competitions. In order to win an A-76 competition, an outside proposal must be at least 10 percent less than the Government proposal. The average A-76 study requires approximately 30 months to be completed. For years, individuals within the Government and the private sector have criticized the A-76 process. Two years ago, the Congress called upon the General Accounting Office to evaluate the A-76 process because of concerns about its effectiveness. A GAO panel unanimously agreed to 10 principles. In particular, the panel agreed unanimously that public-private competition should not be mandated, particularly for already contracted or new work. However, that is exactly what the Kennedy amendment proposes. The amendment goes against the recommendations of the GAO panel. In fact, Senator Kennedy's amendment would derail the GAO panel's recommendations and therefore would cause us a great deal of slowness and indeed potentially losing the idea of the reconsideration and the changing of A-76. The goals of the FAIR Act were very clear. They were to create more cost efficiency and streamline the Federal Government, to eliminate the Government's direct competition with the private sector. This amendment would in fact do very serious damage to the FAIR Act. The amendment, for the first time, would mandate the Federal Government compete with the private sector. The Kennedy amendment would drastically grow Government workers. Page 12 of the amendment allows for unrestricted growth. I can hardly understand why anyone would offer such an amendment in this wartime situation where the numbers are very difficult in the military. Furthermore, as we have mentioned, the amendment would increase costs to the Department by over $200 million, which would complicate the process. So it is basically a step backwards in terms of what we have been seeking to accomplish over a period of time. I think the goals that have been out there have been shared by both Democrat and Republican administrations. The movement was forward in the last administration, slowed at the end, but now we have more movement in this administration than in the past to move toward private-sector activities. The administration is opposed to this amendment, and a similar amendment was offered in the House of Representatives and was defeated in the same authorization bill. I hope we can take a long look at what this means in terms of the principles we have established in the past and are seeking to continue to establish. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Kennedy amendment. In 1998, this body passed unanimously the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998. I was one of the principal sponsors. The FAIR Act was passed unanimously, as I said. It was a carefully crafted compromise at that time between the private sector and the unions, the first time a process was codified to help assure proper implementation of a 47-year-old Federal policy that states the Government shall not be involved in commercial activities, a policy that has been in place for a very long time, and a very clear policy, I believe, that we ought to go to the private sector for those things that can be done in the private sector that are not inherently governmental. We passed that unanimously. It is now in the process of being implemented. The sponsor of this amendment spent most of his time talking about the Defense Department support of this proposition. I want to share a letter or two that I received. This one happens to be from the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld: Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the draft amendment proposed by Senator Edward Kennedy. . . . As you know, we have made a top priority of finding efficiencies and savings within the Defense Department to enable us to improve our tooth-to-tail ratio. . . . The draft Kennedy amendment would increase Department cost by requiring public-private competitions for new functions and for previously contracted work already subjected to competition. It would also adversely impact mission effectiveness by delaying contract awards for needed services. This is very strong opposition from the Secretary of Defense. This next letter comes from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell Daniels. He says: I am writing to express deep concern over the possible Kennedy amendment. . . . While agencies are embracing competition, focusing on core mission, and eliminating barriers to entering the marketplace, this amendment does the opposite. It would require the government to consider reforming noncore activities that it doesn't have the skills to do when entrepreneurs and their employees are ready, willing and able to perform. Finally, let me share one more letter, from Assistant Secretary of Defense Powell Moore. He says: The Department of Defense strongly opposes an amendment to be offered by Senator Kennedy that would restrict the Department's ability to contract with the private sector. The following information sheet outlines the Department of Defense' views on the proposed Kennedy amendment. Very briefly--and this is from the Department of Defense--the amendment would increase costs to the Department by over $200 million a year. By requiring 10-percent cost savings with no limitation, DOD will not be able to take advantage of savings greater than $10 million but less than 10 percent.

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS. He says further: Less efficiency: The amendment would adversely impact mission efficiencies and effectiveness. I just got through saying we unanimously adopted the outsourcing bill, the FAIR bill. This amendment, according to the Department of Defense, would foster insourcing which would exacerbate the Federal human capital crisis we are now in, in this war on terrorism. Finally, he indicates it preempts the congressional intent. This amendment would preempt implementation of the recommendations of the congressionally mandated, GAO-chaired, commercial activities panel. I intend to spend a good deal more time talking about this as we have more time after the vote. There are a number of others who wish to speak as well, and I will say I will object to any certain time before noon tomorrow for a vote on the Kennedy amendment. I yield the floor. Vote on Amendment No. 3969

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator from Virginia is correct. Indeed, the Secretary says the added costs to which the Senator refers are likely to exceed $100 million per year in addition.

Mr. THOMAS. I object to that.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 with my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. Specifically, this legislation will exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) program from taxable income. Enactment of the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the amount of federal dollars available so more students could participate in the NHSC program. Under current law, the NHSC provides scholarships, loan-repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in national designated underserved urban and rural communities. The tax law changes in 1986 resulted in the IRS ruling that all NHSC payments were taxable. Congress eliminated the tax on the scholarship in 2001, but the loan- repayments and stipends continue to be taxed. To assist loan repayment recipients with their tax burden, the NHSC loan program includes an additional payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount so the loan repayment recipient can pay his or her taxes. Close to 40 percent of the NHSC Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income.'' The current situation should not be allowed to continue. Given the fiscal restraints we are facing, we must ensure that federal dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. It is obvious that today's NHSC loan repayment structure does not meet that goal. Our legislation resolves this issue. For over 30 years, the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) program has literally been a lifeline for many underserved communities across the country that otherwise would not have a health care provider. I know this program is critically important to my state of Wyoming and to many other rural states that has difficulties recruiting and retaining primary health care clinicians. There are 2,800 Health Professional Shortage Areas, 740 Mental Health Shortage Areas and 1,200 Dental Health Shortage Areas now designated across the country. However, the NHSC program is meeting less than 13 percent of the current need for primary care providers and less than six percent of need for mental health and dental services. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the number of students in the program and allow more provides to be placed in these shortage areas. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 is crucial to the future well being of many of our rural communities. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I am pleased to rise today to introduce the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 with my colleague from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. Specifically, this legislation will exclude loan repayments made through the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) program from taxable income. Enactment of the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the amount of federal dollars available so more students could participate in the NHSC program. Under current law, the NHSC provides scholarships, loan-repayments, and stipends for clinicians who agree to serve in national designated underserved urban and rural communities. The tax law changes in 1986 resulted in the IRS ruling that all NHSC payments were taxable. Congress eliminated the tax on the scholarship in 2001, but the loan- repayments and stipends continue to be taxed. To assist loan repayment recipients with their tax burden, the NHSC loan program includes an additional payment equal to 39 percent of the loan repayment amount so the loan repayment recipient can pay his or her taxes. Close to 40 percent of the NHSC Federal loan repayment budget goes to pay taxes on the loan repayment ``income.'' The current situation should not be allowed to continue. Given the fiscal restraints we are facing, we must ensure that federal dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. It is obvious that today's NHSC loan repayment structure does not meet that goal. Our legislation resolves this issue. For over 30 years, the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) program has literally been a lifeline for many underserved communities across the country that otherwise would not have a health care provider. I know this program is critically important to my state of Wyoming and to many other rural states that has difficulties recruiting and retaining primary health care clinicians. There are 2,800 Health Professional Shortage Areas, 740 Mental Health Shortage Areas and 1,200 Dental Health Shortage Areas now designated across the country. However, the NHSC program is meeting less than 13 percent of the current need for primary care providers and less than six percent of need for mental health and dental services. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 would increase the number of students in the program and allow more provides to be placed in these shortage areas. The National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Act of 2002 is crucial to the future well being of many of our rural communities. I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I will make a few remarks this morning in our remaining time regarding one of the issues before us. We, of course, have spent a good deal of time on emergencies over the last number of months, and properly so. We have had emergencies. Obviously, the most compelling one has been terrorism and homeland defense. In addition to that, we have talked about a number of other things. We have had fires; agriculture, which we felt is something of an emergency; as well as health care, which the Senator from Washington talked about. Indeed, most legislation that comes up is sort of deemed an emergency, at least in the view of the sponsor. There is one thing which I think pretty clearly should be one of the most important, something that will affect us over time and one that we can avoid, which is the energy problem in our country. Probably nothing touches more Americans than energy, whether it be electric energy or gasoline for one's automobile. Finally, after a considerable amount of effort in both Houses, we do have an energy bill that has passed both Houses. It is designed to give us an energy policy which we have not had for a very long time. Obviously, there are differences between the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill. Both of them have many of the components that were put forth by the President and the Vice President early last year in terms of an energy policy. Yesterday, we had the appointment of a conference committee named by the House, and I am pleased with that because we will be able now to go forward in putting together these two bills and coming out with an energy policy for the United States. I want to emphasize how important that is. We have seen some problems recently in California, of course, and problems can occur in other places. We will likely see some this summer if we continue to have the heat we have had, and the demand for electric power. There will be some problems, I suppose, relative to that. We are seeking a policy that does several things. No. 1, it avoids having an energy crisis. There is no real need for that. We know what is needed. It is very simple to set forth what we have to have in the future. We are also seeking to try to do whatever we can. It is very possible to avoid overdependency on imported oil and fuel. We are now 60 percent dependent on overseas countries for our oil supplies. These are our challenges. In addition, an energy policy that looks forward to cleaner air and protecting our environment is one everyone is committed to. There will be great debate over ANWR and whether or not a small footprint on 19 million acres of a wildlife refuge in Alaska would be detrimental. That is yet to be decided. However that turns out, there are things we have to do. One opportunity we have is to continue to make coal a cleaner resource. Regarding electric generation, 50 percent is generated by coal. That will continue to grow, I suspect, and be a larger percentage over time. We need to make sure we can make the coal-generated electricity as clean as possible. Our bill will provide for additional help with respect to that. It is important we do that. Coal is probably the largest energy resource we have available in the United States. Regarding gas and oil, again, we have become very dependent on imports. We have great opportunities in this area in the continental United States, in Alaska and the West. We need to do that and be balanced with the environment and production. We need access to public lands to do that. We will work on that. We have an opportunity now to deal with one of the issues that impacts, probably more than anything else in this country, our policy on energy. We are ready to move with that. It needs to be balanced between renewables, production, environment, and usage. We can do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, we always have different kinds of things to talk about and issues that are before us. That is our job, of course, to deal with the issues. There is no end to the number of issues that come here. We focus on them, as we should. In addition to that, however, it seems to me that it is appropriate from time to time that we focus a little bit on the appropriate role of the Federal Government. What is the appropriate role of Government spending? I understand the pressures that come from wanting to do something about every problem, partly because we do want to do something about every problem, and partly because of the politics of it. Now we find ourselves getting more and more into the kind of setting, a kind of culture, if you please, where, as the Federal Government continues to grow, every issue that arises--at whatever the level--the first request is let us get the Federal Government involved; let us get some money from the Federal Government; let us get some programs from the Federal Government. So continuously we get larger. If you walk down the street and ask in general terms if you think the Federal Government ought to be larger, if you think it ought to be less large, if the issues ought to be considered more close to the people where they have more input at the State and local level, the answer is yes. I believe we need to stand back from time to time and take a look at what we are doing in terms of the future, and maybe try to get some vision of where we want to be in the next 10 years or 15 years. What do we want our society to look like in terms of government? Do we want a national government for everyone? I don't think so. That is not what we are. This is the United States of America. We are a federation of States. The Federal Government's role is fairly well defined in the Constitution, and those things not there are to be left to the States. But we move the other way. I am not anti-Federal Government. I think there is obviously a very serious role for the Federal Government. One of them we are exercising now is defense. That, obviously, is a Federal role, and one that we should and are pursuing. But take a look at all the things we are in. Take a look at all of the little things in the supplemental budget which we passed last week, and tell me that those are Federal responsibilities--all of those little items in there that we are funding. I am sorry, they are clearly not. It seems to me that we have to take a look at the concept. I think some of the things we are looking at now are very important. One of them is Medicare. Obviously, Medicare is a Federal program. But we need to take a look at it and see where it is going over time to be other than just patching here or patching there or putting a little more money in there, and then come to the Chamber and complain about not having enough money. But we never seem to look at where we might be. I am a little frustrated at the feeding frenzy at the public trough of the Federal Government that we have been engaged in over the past several decades. As a matter of fact, I think that is going to be more difficult as we go forward. First of all, of course, we need to debate and pass a responsible bipartisan budget resolution. To most people, the budget means you have a budget which hopefully you can stay within. If you can't, you can't. It means more than that here. A budget, of course, is some limitation on what you are spending. That is what your plan is, and that is what you are doing. But, in addition to that, there are some restraints that can be used here on the floor of the Senate. If an appropriations or spending bill goes beyond the budget that we have established, then it becomes more difficult. You have to have more votes to pass it. It is a very important thing. Here we are without one, I think, for the first time in 27 years. Certainly, we need one. We need to take a long look at some of these appropriations bills that are coming up. We need to do that very soon. We will be talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in expenditures. Of course, we should be helping to strengthen education. What is the role of the Federal Government in education? Now it contributes about 7 percent to elementary secondary education--most of it in special education. But we continue to look there for more and more money. There are all kinds of recommendations to do that. I think one of the interesting ones that I run into--and the Presiding Officer does as well--in terms of the Finance Committee is taxes, tax changes, tax credits--tax this and tax that. Every day something comes up that someone wants to give a tax credit for some certain kind of behavior. Then the next day we come to the Chamber and say the tax system is too complicated. It is complicated because every day we use it more to affect behavior than we do for raising money. There is just no end to it. Let us give a tax credit to do this or give a tax credit to do that or we will give a tax credit to help build small communities or give a tax credit for charitable giving or whatever, all of which on their face are nice ideas. But if you step back and say what the role of the Federal Government is in that, then I think maybe you would have to take a closer look at what is really happening. It is one that I believe is very important. There is constitutional direction, as I mentioned. Some people interpret that in different ways. But, nevertheless, it does indicate that there is a limit to what the Federal Government should do. I don't know. I suppose different States have different things. A good deal of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government. So one of the things I hear the most is there is too much Government regulation--Federal regulations that impact everybody--probably more than anything else. The Senator from California was talking about environmental restrictions. That is all I hear--an excessive amount of non-use restrictions on public property--and the idea that you don't have access to the Federal lands that belong to the people. The access, obviously, ought to be limited so that you preserve the environment. But the idea that you have to have roadless areas so you cannot access the property, the idea you cannot go to Yellowstone Park in a snow machine, even though the snow machine can probably be made cleaner than an automobile--these kinds of things are constantly there. At the same time, we want the Federal Government to get bigger, with more regulations. It is quite a frustrating thing. I know it is difficult, but we need to take a look at really where we want to be. Last summer in Wyoming, I had a series of meetings, two in almost every county; we called it Vision 20/20. We asked people to share with us what they saw in the future for their families, their town, their county, and their State. It was interesting. Of course, it was different in different parts of the State, but several things were pretty unanimous. It would be fun to have this body sit down for a day and say: What do you see as the role of the Federal Government? What do you see the Senate doing in terms of spending, in terms of programs 15 years from now? Do we want to continue to spend the way we have over the last several years? If so, what would be the totals? A couple years ago, we tried pretty much to have some limitations and held the general budget to about 3 percent, which was basically inflation. This year, notwithstanding terrorism and the necessary emergency spending, it is probably 8 percent--probably more than that, close to a 10-percent increase in Government spending. Of course, we will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that the problem is because of tax reductions. I don't agree with that. Tax reductions are necessary when you have a slow economy, to get things going. Tax reductions help us plan to see the kind of Federal Government we really want--perhaps one with a smaller role--and identifying those things that are clearly the role and responsibility of the Federal Government; perhaps reducing Federal taxes so locals can have more taxes, to do with it what they want. One of the things I think most of us, I suppose from every State, work on more than anything else is what a bill or a proposal means in terms of our States. For instance, health care. I come from a rural State. Health care delivery in Wyoming is quite different than it is in New York City, so a Federal program that is designed for metropolitan areas doesn't fit at all. There has to be enough flexibility. The same is true with education and most everything else we do. But we don't always give that flexibility. So we find ourselves with programs designed to go nationwide which don't fit nationwide. Yet because we constantly have these Federal programs going, it is most difficult. I mentioned to you that we are always saying we need to simplify taxes. Yet we use them to affect behavior more than almost anything. The size of the Government continues to grow. We worked very hard last year to get the bill passed that required agencies to look at their activities, and those that are not totally governmental could be put out into the private sector for private contracting. I think it is an excellent idea to try to keep the Government as small as possible. Some of our folks are opposed to that idea; they want more and more Government and more and more Government employees. Those things that are not certified Government things ought to be dealt with in the private sector. So I know these are general comments and you don't have an answer for all these issues, but there is a frustration that builds as you go through everything we look at every day, and more and more bills being talked about. As an example, we are going to have hearings this afternoon on the Park Subcommittee, which I used to chair. I love parks. But there need to be some criteria as to what a national park should be. Failing having criteria, what they say in every community that has an area they would like to develop and set aside is, let's get the Federal Government to take it over and let it be some kind of a Federal park. It is not a Federal park just by its definition. But I understand when we are working for something in our States--some call it pork, and some call it other things, but it doesn't matter--we don't look at the broad picture, we just look at that. It is difficult. So I am hopeful we can take a long look at what we are doing and, as opposed to simply dedicating ourselves to an election in 2002--to which I think you will find many of these things are very related--let's take a little longer look at where we are going to be. That is really our job for the future. These young pages sitting here, where are they going to be 20 years from now? We have some responsibility to look at that. I think it is a very strong responsibility. So I hope we can put our emphasis a little more on our responsibility as the Federal Government, how we can best do that, what it means in the future, how we can help build the strength of local and State governments so that it will be close to the people and the people can indeed have a real role in what is being managed in their area. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to say good-bye to a good friend who has worked with me for over 10 years. Dan Kunsman has been my Communications Director for the last eight years, adding to some 3 years of assisting me on the House side when I was the lone congressman from Wyoming. Also a native son of Wyoming, his work for me and the great State extends deeply into the heart and soul of the West and will continue long into the future. Dan joined my office in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1991 right out of school. Dan did a great job for me and was promoted to Communications Director when I was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994. Dan has not only been valuable in Washington, he was also a crucial part of three, statewide, victorious campaigns. He also took time from our efforts on sabbatical to assist with the success of my good friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, on his initial election effort in 1996. We're part of a team, my staff and I. Along with my wife, Susan, we feel strongly bound to service for the people of Wyoming. As we say in the West, Dan's a good hand. That's a high compliment. It means that he's part of the team, reliable in a storm or any circumstance. In the House, Senate and on the campaign trail, Dan has proved to be one of the brightest and most effective public policy communicators and political strategists in Wyoming and Washington. Dan has decided to join Brimmer Communications and will lead a new Washington, DC office for the public relations firm based in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. While it's always hard to see good people move on, in this case, I'm glad Dan plans to go to a strong firm at home and stay close to Wyoming people. I'm not always the best at saying good-bye. I don't like to say it. So I'll just say see you, and I hope that's true. I'll look forward to it. To our friend, Dan, I wish him and his wife, Isabel, the best of luck, and I know the Senate does as well.