Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to follow up a bit on what my friend from Arizona has talked about. Certainly, each of us recognizes that things have changed substantially since September 11. I spent the weekend in Cheyenne, WY, and much of it with the National Guard. These great men and women are continuing to carry out their duties in protecting the country, as well as now doing the special things, such as airport security, and other requirements they have. Some have just returned from Bosnia, as a matter of fact. I guess my point is, things changed for all of us; and special things come up at times such as we are in now. But it is also necessary for us, after we have done the things we have to do for those special times, to go ahead and do the things that we ordinarily have to do. Life goes on, and we have to continue to pursue that. I think very much that is the case now with issues we have before us, special things such as airport security, special things such as the declaration, really, of war on terrorism, which we have done. Those things needed to be done. Now, of course, we need to do appropriations. But we also have to do the mundane things such as the confirmation of judges, the seating of U.S. attorneys, many of whom have a very real role in this matter of domestic terrorism. I, too, believe we have to work these two things out together. I understand the frustration of the leadership in the majority when they are seeking to move things, but I have to remind us, for example, that on July 21, 2000, while objecting to Majority Leader Lott's attempt to proceed with the intelligence authorization bill, the minority leader-- now majority leader--said this: I hope we can accommodate this unanimous consent request for intelligence authorization. As does Senator Lott, I recognize that it's important. I hope we can address it. We must address additional appropriations bills. There is no reason that we can't. We will find a compromise if there is a will, and I am sure there is. But we also want to see the list of what we expect will probably be the final list of judicial nominees to be considered in hearings before the Judiciary Committee. This is what he said as he held up that appropriations bill. Our friend from Nevada, on July 24, while objecting to Senator Lott's repeated attempt to move forward, said: We believe there should be certain rights protected. Under this Constitution, we have a situation that was developed by our Founding Fathers in which Senators would give the executive branch, the President, recommendations for people to serve in the Judiciary. Once these recommendations are made, the President would send the names to the Senate and we would confirm them and approve of those names. One of the problems we are having is it is very difficult to get people approved and confirmed. This has nothing to do with the energy and water bill. It does, however, have something to do with other bills. That was as he objected to continuation. We find ourselves in the same position. We need to move forward to do the things that must be done. We need to do the things that are ordinarily done. I suggest we can do those things at the same time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THOMAS. Would it be appropriate to ask unanimous consent that we have morning business until 5 p.m.?

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. The idea that we in the minority ought to be involved is something we learned from you when you were in the minority. So it is not a brand new idea. When the majority brings bills forward, they need to work with everyone here so we can pass something. I am just surprised at what the Senator said, that this is a brand new idea.

Mr. THOMAS. I hope so as well. One other observation: We have these items now that are of such high priority that have to do with security, and I think we need to be very watchful that we do not find ourselves using security as a vehicle for doing some things that have very little attachment to security. I thank the Senator for his response.

Mr. THOMAS. I understand that. I agree with the Senator that we need to move forward. Another point. When there are bills with a special purpose, such as airport security, and provisions are added that have nothing to do with it, when you are in the minority, you have to have some opportunity to participate in the decision. I say to the Senator from Nevada that it is the leadership's role to find some compromise so we can move forward. I know the Senator has done that, and I admire what the Senator is doing.

Mr. THOMAS. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THOMAS. The idea of being able to object is not a brand new idea. It was exercised by you when you were in the minority; isn't that true?

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I want to talk this morning a bit, as we have for some time, about energy. Energy, of course, is something we have talked about for some time--a good long time, as a matter of fact. Our experiences last summer in California emphasized the need for some changes in our energy policy so that we have more stability and reliability in energy. Of course, we also became aware of some of the things we must do in terms of energy, and we have worked on it for a very long time. Now, since September 11, I think we find some very compelling additional reasons that we need to do some things with energy. Obviously, we have not had an energy policy that we need to have in place over the years, and that is what we are seeking to do--to develop energy policy. Partly because, I suppose, of the lack of a policy and a real direction where we want to go over time, we have become very dependent on overseas oil sources. We are nearly 60 percent dependent on OPEC and others. So now, in terms of some of the uncertainty in the Middle East and around the world, I think we find ourselves with more concern about where we need to be in terms of energy. We have at least two compelling reasons, it seems to me, that make energy development and energy security even more important. One is to support our military activities. We have to have the energy to do that. The other is that we are talking about a stimulus for the economy, about building our economy. Obviously, fuel and power and energy are key to that, in whatever means they are used. So I believe we find ourselves now with even more reason to move to developing an energy policy that will ensure we have the energy necessary for all the needs we have. We have talked before about the need for research so we can find better ways to produce energy, so that we can find better ways to conserve our energy. Those things are possible, and we can do them. We have talked more about how we find diversity in a policy so we don't become dependent on one source of energy--and that we can look toward nuclear--whether it be renewable, gas, or coal, and to have diversity that helps strengthen those sources. We have talked a good deal about renewables. That is obviously something we need to pursue. Most important of all, I imagine now as we look at where we are, is production. We need to ensure we can have domestic production, and that we can increase our domestic production, so we become less dependent upon the supply from overseas. So I believe very strongly that we had compelling reasons to deal with energy before, and certainly September 11 has added to the necessity for us to do that. We have worked hard in the Energy Committee, of which I am a member, to respond. We have had hearings, we had marked up a title in our energy bill, and we are moving forward on that bill that was quite broad. In the meantime, the House has passed an energy bill which has a good deal of the things in it about which we have talked. So they moved forward with that over in the House. It has great support from labor unions and from many environmentalists, and it certainly has strong support from the administration. That bill is passed and available for us to deal with now. Unfortunately--or fortunately--there has been some change in what we are doing. The chairman of the committee has indicated that he has been asked to not have any more committee activities, and there will be a bill put together, apparently, by the majority leader to bring before us. Unfortunately, we have talked about this before and have not arrived, I don't believe, at any commitment as to when that will be done and how it will be done. Of course, some have considerable concern that there would not be input from all of the folks in the Senate. There is some concern about that. I believe what we need more than anything is the assurance that there will be an energy bill before we adjourn. There are a number of things that are very important to us. One is airline security. I think it is very important that we do that. We are also working on changing the rules and the law on terrorism so that our agencies can work more efficiently and our law enforcement and others can do that. We are working on a stimulus for the economy in the Finance Committee, and I think that has to be one of the high-priority items. We need to do our appropriations, which is our normal duty and one that needs to be moving along. So we have a full plate. But I believe strongly that energy now-- particularly because of the threats of the overseas intervention-- becomes one of the items we must add to our list to complete. I am hopeful that changes that apparently have been suggested will result in yet some way for us to get on the floor with the issues we think are terribly important for energy--to get the bill out that we can work on so we can develop and have an energy policy that will be supportive of the economy and supportive of our war on terrorism. I think it is necessary we do that. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to find a way to bring together the needs of this country, supported by the White House, supported by both sides in this body, and already has been supported by the House, and that prior to finishing our work, we complete work on an energy policy that will meet this country's needs. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS. No objection.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas who has worked very hard on aviation matters. We are moving forward. No one is seeking to hold up this bill. All of us agree aviation security is something that needs to be done and needs to be done very soon. The Senator from Montana has been a part of this committee and has worked very hard. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to discuss for a little bit the airline issue. I thank my friend from Arizona for the work he has done on this issue. Certainly, security in flying is an issue on which all of us want to move forward. So this is not a failure to act. Some people have said we are holding it up, it is slow, and so on. I do not think that is the case at all. I think what is the case is that this is a very important issue. This is an issue that could be done in several ways. I think there is a legitimate effort to try to ensure that we think it through enough to come up with a process that would most likely achieve the goals that we have; that is, of course, safety and security on airlines. There are a number of different issues that need to be talked about, but I do not think there is a soul in this body who does not want to move forward on airline security. It is the security issue of the moment. There needs to be some major changes in the process. We have had security for some time. We have a higher security level now, I believe, than we did before September 11. I happen to have been in Wyoming three times since then and have found that there is security. There are armed people in Dulles, for example--more security. Is it enough? Probably not. We probably need to do it better and more professionally. And that is what this is all about. But I do want to make the point that I think you will see airline passenger numbers going up. There is more security than there has been in the past, but we need to change the process. And we need to do it as quickly as we possibly can. We need to have more experienced people there, particularly in baggage examination. We need to do it so that we do not develop a long- term Federal bureaucracy. That is an opinion that some do not share. But, nevertheless, in order to achieve the goals we want, we have to make some changes. And even though I would like to see it done in the next 15 minutes, and move out of here, I must say, I am glad that we are taking the time to examine these issues and to come up with what we think is the best solution, even if it takes a little longer. As I say, we now have substantially more security than we did have. In some of the smaller States, the National Guard has been made available to help, and so on. One of the puzzles, of course, is to find the proper agency. I don't know that it is a puzzle, but it is a challenge to find the proper agency to supervise and be responsible for airline security. Many believe--and I am one of those who think it--that it ought to be a law enforcement agency and not really belong in the FAA. Those people have responsibilities, but law enforcement is not one of those responsibilities. So that is one of the issues. I see my friend from Texas is in the Chamber. She has been very involved in this issue. I yield my time to her.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I say to my friend from Nevada, all Members are anxious to move forward with this airport security bill. Unfortunately, the impediment basically has been the threat to bring up amendments that are unrelated. This ought to be held to moving that. There will be a conference going on designed to come to an agreement with regard to this bill. Hopefully, we will be back on the floor with it today. I am pleased to hear the Judiciary Committee is finally moving on the judges. We have a total of 6 that have been confirmed. There are 107 vacancies; that is a 12\1/2\-percent vacancy. The total of nominees not yet dealt with is almost 50, 49. We certainly have an obligation to move forward on that issue. I hope as we are working through all the items that are of such priority that we can set some priorities and take those that obviously are most important, those that deal with terrorism, those that deal with security. They have to be the highest priority. Those that deal with the economy have to be priorities. And of course we have to do our normal duties. I have been talking about this for several weeks. We have not moved very quickly. Hopefully we will be able to come back to this bill very soon today. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will talk about where we are with regard to aviation security. I appreciate very much the comments of the Senator from New York and her information about railroad security. I certainly agree with her that we have to look at all our transportation systems and, indeed, we have an opportunity to look at it all. If it is different in different parts of the country. Of course, we don't have to have Amtrak trains in Wyoming. Nevertheless, I fully understand the importance of railroads. I raise the question of how we complete the work before the Senate. Hopefully we will have back this afternoon a bill to improve aviation security. It is called the Aviation Security Act, and it has been developed for that very purpose. It has to do with the Deputy Administrator for Aviation Security. It has to do with the Aviation Security Coordinating Council. It has to do with training and improving flight deck integrity. This bill is an aviation bill. We have a number of things on which we have not quite yet come together on this bill, but I think our challenge is to pass this bill. I don't think there is anyone who would argue on the point of the Senator from New York that we need to do that and we need to get to railroads, but I guess there is a question as to whether those issues will hold up doing what we want to do with regard to aviation. That is the question before the Senate. Hopefully, it will be resolved shortly so we can move forward. Obviously, there are unique aspects to airlines and airports. There needs to be changes made in their operation. And there have been. We have already made a great deal of progress in terms of security. There is a great deal more to make. I hope that not only this issue but other issues that have been suggested become a part of this air security bill could be handled on a free standing bill so we move this bill as soon as it is possible to do that. We have before the Senate that challenge. There is no question about the safety aspect of other modes. We have not come together on this one yet. There is a difference of view as to the proper agency to do this work, whether it ought to be a law enforcement agency, whether it ought to be the FAA. There are fairly strong feelings about that. But that has not been resolved. There are questions as to staffing and what supervision and criteria will be required in order to have people who are, indeed, qualified to do the kind of work that is necessary to be done, and whether or not these persons ought to be supervised by a law enforcement agency of the Federal Government, which I happen to think is probably the better way to do it, and do some contracting so we can move more quickly. We do have questions and problems. We are talking about that now. I am hopeful we can settle a couple of those disputes. One is the idea of bringing in other issues into this bill through amendments and changes that would then require the same kind of consideration, or whether we can move this package, designed for airline security and aircraft safety, and turn to the others that are equally as important. Which is the better way? There are other fairly unrelated issues having to do with health care, unemployment compensation, all of which are very important, but they are not part of this issue and not part of the considerations. I am hopeful we can deal with these issues as they come forward. We are slowed by the idea of bringing more and more issues into the same base bill when it is designed to be specifically oriented toward airline safety. I suggest we move with this bill and come in as soon as possible with the other issues that are equally important, but we not hold this waiting to try to make other proposals fit into this bill. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I do agree and in fact, I think the American public would be shocked to learn that under a depression-era statute the DOD is required to purchase national security products from Federal prisoners. In addition, FPI's entry into services generally, and data services related to mapping and geographic information in particular is troubling. This is an inappropriate area for prison work for a number of reasons. First, Congress has included mapping and geographic information services within the statutory definition of professional architect-engineer (A/E) services. This law requires Federal agencies to award A/E contracts (including those for surveying or mapping services) to firms based on their ``demonstrated competence and qualification'' subject to negotiation of a fee ``fair and reasonable to the government'', rather than awarding such contracts to the lowest bidder. The vast majority of States have also adopted this process in their codes and it is recommended by the American Bar Association in its Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments. Public health, welfare and safety is dependent on the quality of work performed by professionals in the fields of architecture, engineering, surveying and mapping. To add to these highly technical and professional services the drawings, maps and images processed by prison inmates is questionable to the public interest. There are prisons engaged in a variety of digital geographic information services, including converting hard copy maps to electronic files; plotting maps at various scales; creating databases with information on homeowners, property appraisal and tax assessment; digitizing, and other computer aided design and drafting and geographic information services. FPI is involved in a program to provide support services to some of the Nation's most classified and sensitive mapping programs. I believe it is highly inappropriate for prisoners to be involved in programs where their work later becomes classified. It is unwise to provide inmates access to information about individual citizens' property and assets, address information, and other data that carries serious civil liberty implications. I want to emphasize that inmates working for FPI in geographic information services often have access to homeowner data, property appraisal and tax assessment records and other information that most citizens would not want in prisoners' hands. It is equally dangerous in today's climate to give prisoners access to underground utility, infrastructure or power system location data. Moreoever, to train prisons in imaging techniques and technologies makes the potential for utilizing such skills in nefarious counterfeiting operations upon release from incarceration too tempting. These are examples of where prison industries has gone too far and where constraints are needed.

Mr. THOMAS. I agree with the good Senator from Michigan and want to point out that FPI has been fighting such changes for more than 5 years. Furthermore, FPI's reluctance to increase the micropurchase threshold points to FPI's unwillingness to recognize the legitimate needs of its Federal agency customers. Lastly, I want to point out that this amendment does nothing to address the numerous other competitive advantages that FPI enjoys. As I pointed out on the Senate floor last week, FPI will retain advantages such as: paying inmates between $.23--$1.15 per hour; not having to pay Social Security or Unemployment compensation; not having to pay for employee benefits; exemption from paying Federal and State income tax, excise tax, and State and local excise taxes; and utilities being provided by the host prison. Under this amendment FPI will continue to enjoy these, and other, competitive advantages. In no way does this amendment shut down FPI. In fact, FPI will continue to produce products for DOD contracts because the private sector cannot compete against not having to pay market wages, employee benefits, and Federal and State taxes.

Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely. The Senate voted overwhelmingly to end FPI's mandatory preference on DOD contracts, and we have not and would not agree to any amendment that would undermine that action. As Senator Levin stated, last week's vote sent a clear message that the Senate fully supports eliminating FPI's mandatory source status.

Mr. THOMAS. I agree. The only reason for dropping this language from the bill is that it is redundant.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about the future as I hope it might happen in the Senate. Obviously, we have a great many things to do, many of which are time imperative, that we need to do them immediately, and I am for that. I am very proud of what I have seen here and what I have seen at home with respect to our national reaction to this terrorism assault and the disaster with which we are faced. I believe the President and his team are doing what needs to be done, are doing the necessary research and intelligence gathering that is necessary. This is the most unusual kind of an emergency in which everyone is ready to do something but you have to first discover what it is that is proper to do. I think that is being done: Positioning the military, to the extent that that will be necessary--again, a different kind of war but one in which the military obviously will be a very prime portion of it; moving to establish domestic defense, working with our States--I was just this week with our National Guard in Wyoming, and the Governor was setting about to have that be part of the security for airports--and the things that need to be done will be given, I hope, an agenda for strengthening our domestic defense regarding intelligence. I am pleased the President is asking Members to seek to continue to do the emergency things that must be done, while, at the same time, returning to our daily business and routine. We can do both, urging everyone to have the patience we must have to retain our commitment and determination to move forward with things we must do. I am proud of what I see at home. People have the same conviction that we must do these things and are committed to doing whatever it takes, supporting our country and supporting our President. It is a shame to have to go through this terrible time but I am very proud with the Nation coming together, proud of what I see as a show of patriotism and support for America. I am also very pleased with the performance of this Congress. There has been an unusual and remarkable show of nonpartisanship to do the things that, indeed, must be done. We have come together. We have much yet to do. I believe it would be good if we prioritized the activities to complete through the year. Among the 435 Members, there are different ideas of priority, but we have to come to a decision as to what has to be done immediately. I wish we could do that. Clearly, our priorities will rest with the emergency demands brought about by the war on terrorism, coupled with the emergency demands we now have with the economy. We have special activities dealing both with defense and the economy; we have our regular operational items we must do, such as 13 different appropriations, none of which, yet, has cleared and gone to the President. This is what goes into the regular operation of government. It seems to me it makes good sense to keep those separate. We should separate the issues in the emergency category from the normal operational issues we face. It would be a mistake to expand what will be long-term operational functions in this emergency way and run the risk of having those be there when the emergency is over. We ought to deal with those differently. Certainly many of the things we need to do now will not be in place in the future. I believe we should agree on a list of priorities, must-do items we need to do for defense and terrorism. We should agree on a list of priorities. The administration has things we ought to do administratively. We should agree with them to do them. We should make a priority list of things to do to stimulate the economy, whether tax relief, withholding tax changes, whatever. There are a number of things out there. We met last week with Chairman Greenspan, Bob Rubin, and others. We will continue to do that. In fact, tomorrow we will meet with Secretary O'Neill. I hope we can do this and come up with a list and commit ourselves to it, leaving us free to do the things we have to do that are now before the Congress. We have a great deal to do. It is not easy to set priorities, but that is part of our responsibility. If we can do that, I would like the leadership to set up a committee to come up with the lists and present them to the remainder of the Congress. That will move the Congress forward to do the things we must do in a divided fashion--what we must do as a priority against the operational agenda. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

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