National Security Personnel System Act

Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: First, I recognize that the Senator has time. But I didn't know if we were going to alternate speakers. Does the Senator from Wyoming intend to use all of his 15 minutes and then turn it over to me?

I am sorry. I don't want to in any way deny the Senator from Ohio his right to speak. Usually one side makes an argument, and then the other replies, and then go back. Are we not doing that?

This discussion will be on my time. But usually when we have a time allocation we go back and forth. Is the Senator from Wyoming going to take all of his 15 minutes and then give me all of mine? Is that the way we are going to do it?

Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio has the right to speak, but it was not part of the agreement. I was just referring to the usual and customary behavior in the Senate.

No. We didn't.

When do I get my time? There are 15 minutes on each amendment?

Mr. President, I rise with vigor to unabashedly oppose the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming. The reason I do is that he reintroduces the words ``quota'' and ``target.''

The amendment of the Senator from Wyoming essentially says that a ``target'' or a ``goal'' is to be considered--``target, target, quota, quota.'' I thought we didn't like targets and quotas. I am surprised that the Senator from Wyoming is so enthusiastic about them.

Under the Thomas amendment, Federal managers will still be forced to meet arbitrary quotas for privatization without real criteria, rationales, or consideration. Under the Thomas amendment, the goal is to get a quota or a target--not better government.

Let us be very clear. My original amendment never did seek the end to privatization. Privatization must be based on thoughtful criteria as established by the Congress in the FAIR Act.

Let us privatize Federal jobs where appropriate, but let us keep a strong, independent Federal workforce.

I want to deal with the very valid issues raised by the Senator from Maine. I agree. I wanted to modify my amendment. I wanted to modify my amendment by adding what is now in the first paragraph in the Thomas amendment, which I agree to--that nothing in this section would prevent any agency of the executive branch from subjecting work performed by the Federal Government employees to be contracted out to public or private competition.

I wanted to do that this morning. The Senator from Wyoming would not agree to that modification. We went into a dialog. In the dialog, the Senator from Maine, again, offered a very constructive recommendation-- that nothing in this section would limit the use of such funds under the Government Performance Act.

I was willing to go with that. If we had agreed to that, we could have agreed to that modification this morning and Senators could be heading home tonight. But, no, OMB had to get into the act. They insisted that this paragraph say, unless there has to be a target or quota. Sure. They say based on research and sound analysis.

Let me tell you. When the fox is guarding the hen house, I don't care what accounting system they have. They are still going after targets and they are still going after quotas. That is why I object to the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming.

I would love to have agreed to the original two paragraphs that I think would have met the very valid concern of the other side.

I salute those on the other side who are reformers. But, no, we didn't go that route.

I am still opposing it. Anything with the word ``target'' in it and anything with the word ``quota'' in it. I am fighting today. I am fighting all night, if I have to. I will fight tomorrow, and I will fight on until the end of the 108th Congress.

I am not going to destroy the integrity of the civil service system with arbitrary quotas and with arbitrary and capricious targets. We are going to do this right. We are going to do it under the law. We are not going to turn Federal managers into bounty hunters.

How much time do I have?

Mr. President, I hope when we do another process such as this and enter into negotiations and when the negotiation is over we don't come back and offer something that had been rejected as an amendment.

I am disappointed that this amendment is being offered. That is politics. Everyone has a right to offer their amendments. I accept the offer of the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Ohio for the long haul and for discussion.

This is very serious. We do know we need a modernized civil service. We do know we need to reform. But we do not need targets and quotas where OMB has said itself, get rid of 127,000, 500,000 jobs this year. So 127,000 people? Who are we going to get rid of? Let's start with the Nobel prize winners at NIH. Who needs them? They can go off to the private sector. Good-bye. Who needs a Nobel prize winner for finding the cure for Alzheimer's? Maybe we could contract out Customs officers. Maybe we could go to rent-a-cop agencies.

Or what about those secretaries who keep the agencies going--like the one who went to my high school who has worked for the FBI for nearly 50 years in Baltimore, who has helped keep the FBI going, such as when the FBI was out trying to find the sniper who killed several Marylanders and people from Northern Virginia.

I don't know what is so hostile about Federal employees. If we want to save money in pensions, and if we want to save money in health care, that is another issue. But bounty hunters? No. Maybe bounty hunters are OK when you go after predators, but I don't think the Federal employees should be subjected to bounty hunters.

Guess who else is opposed to this amendment. Federal managers, because they say all they are going to be doing is paperwork to be able to justify this.

I could elaborate. Everybody knows I am opposed to the Thomas amendment because it is just a dressed-up version of going after quotas, which I tried to stop in the first place.

Mr. President, I know that it is getting late. I think we ought to have a vote on this. If I prevail, by defeating the Thomas amendment, we are done. If not, I am going to come back and have another say.

Mr. President, I yield all of my time back.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which is provided for under the unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I believe we can move expeditiously along on this debate. Might I inquire from the Presiding Officer the amount of time we have to debate this amendment?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, my amendment is the original amendment that I had pending this morning. It seeks to maintain the integrity of the civil service system by making sure that civil service is never subjected to bounty hunters looking to get rid of their jobs through arbitrary and capricious targets and quotas. It makes sure that the civil service never lapses into cronyism or political patronage.

My amendment prevents Federal agencies from establishing or applying arbitrary targets or quotas for the contracting out of Federal jobs.

I want to be clear that my amendment does not prohibit privatization. Privatization can continue to go forth as established by Congress in the FAIR Act of 1998. It allows contracting out. I don't object to that. What I object to is targets, quotas, and bounty hunters. Firstly, this is the smallest Federal workforce since the 1960s. Next, we are at war. We are fighting a war against terrorism. We also created a new agency called Homeland Security. Lastly, we are facing the largest number of potential retirees from civil service in over 30 years.

Don't we want a civil service? I am proud of the civil service. Members of my family have been part of the Federal civil service. My brother-in-law was a librarian, I have a sister who was a secretary, and I am a Senator. I believe if we are going to recruit and retain the people we need, we need to make sure we do not embark upon this arbitrary, capricious, hostile, and predatory behavior. That is not the way to govern. That is not the way to inspire. That is not the way to recruit, and it is certainly not the way to retain.

It is not that Barbara Mikulski is opposed to this; Federal managers are opposed to this amendment. They are concerned that they are going to be writing lots of justifications on how to retain jobs. They want to fight for America. They want to fight for or perform the missions of their agencies. We went from an era of patronage politics. Now we are embroiled in an atmosphere of partisan politics. I wish we could get back to performance-based politics, sound civil service, good reform, some of the ideas being proposed by the other side of the aisle, looking at what should be contracted out, which would maintain the mission of the agency, give value to the taxpayer but dignity to the Federal employee.

So what is wrong with that? I will tell you why the amendment is being opposed. What we want to be able to do is allow the privatization to occur under the laws that now exist.

The FAIR Act of 1998 and the 76-OMB circular that was established in the 1960s in the Kennedy-Johnson era is what I want.

My amendment simply prohibits the arbitrary and capricious contracting out by saying:

None of the funds made available in this act may be used by

an executive agency to establish, apply, or enforce numerical

targets or quotas.

That is all it says.

If you are for quotas, vote for this. If you are for targets, vote for this. If you are for arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking, go ahead and do it. Who is going to hire these people? Are we going to create new corporations?

What about all those guys who worked for Enron? Maybe they could get into ``let's hire a public employee and privatize.'' And all the guys from WorldCom, maybe when they get out on parole they could start a new agency to pick up these Federal employees.

I do not know for the life of me why we are so hostile to Federal employees. We have less of a workforce now, and we are asking them to fight for America; we are asking them to work for missions, the agencies. We took away their privileges in homeland security, and now we are going to take away their jobs.

I thank the Senator from Nevada for asking to be a cosponsor. I reserve such time as I may have.

Is the Senator yielding back all his time?

Excuse me?

Mr. President, I want to make a few quick points. First, my amendment, word for word, was voted for in the House of Representatives. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and to my very good friend, the Senator from Virginia, that this amendment was offered by two Congressmen from Virginia, Moran and Wolf. This amendment passed the House 261 to 166. Tom Davis, Jo Ann Davis, and Frank Wolf voted for this. I might also note that the Presiding Officer voted for it when he was in the House. So it had bipartisan support.

I wish we had that bipartisan support. I wish the people who voted for it in the House would vote for it now that they are in the Senate. That is No. 1.

No. 2, who would be contracted out? OMB has told the agencies, 127,500 people by the end of 2003. They are going to go for the largest numbers in the quickest way. It is going to be clerical. It is going to be support. It is going to be the mail. It is going to have a tremendous impact on people of color who have worked their way into Federal civil service.

If one reads the Federal Managers Magazine, they have said the VA has said it is going to have a tremendous impact, they fear, on their diversity. The same has also been said by other agencies.

Again, I am not looking for quotas in diversity anymore than I am looking for quotas in contracting out, but I want us to know who is going to be affected. It is not going to be that high-tech software engineer.

I believe that just as the Northern Virginia High Tech Council has offered great ideas and ingenuity through their members, so has Maryland. We understand that.

Let's look at NIH. Let's look at FDA. Who is going to be contracted out there? Is it really going to be the Nobel prize winner? No. It is going to be a lot of folks who do the thankless day to day work who are going to be contracted out.

Now, my colleagues also need to know, I fear for national security. In many of these agencies, it is going to be the blue-collar jobs, such as the electricians, the people who are the facility managers, and others.

Vote yes on Mikulski.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I wish to present to the Senate a series of amendments that have been modified since they have been introduced. After that, the Senator from New Jersey has an amendment to offer on which there will be a 15-minute time limitation equally divided. I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes equally divided on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey with no other amendments in order.

After the Senator's amendment is presented, we will have a vote in relation to that. I will probably move to table it. We, then, will have a series of amendments from the agriculture subcommittee and from the interior subcommittee that have been worked out. Following that, Senator Stabenow wishes to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution and speak briefly.

We will then go to third reading. We have, I believe, two Members who wish to speak briefly before third reading. If Senators will stay with us, we will probably have about 45 minutes to an hour of time ahead of us.

Does the Senator from Nevada have any comment about that?

I think I misspoke. I think Senator Stabenow wishes to have a sense-of-the-Senate regarding conferees. Am I correct?

I have not said that. The Senator has that right. But I am offering modified amendments before we take up the Senator's amendment.

Mr. President, I now offer a series of amendments, and after I name them I will ask that they be considered en bloc: Amendment No. 112 offered by Senator Bunning and Senator Santorum--these are modifications at the desk that have been cleared on both sides-- amendment No. 6 by Senator Coleman; amendment No. 83 by Senator Reid; amendment No. 85 by Senator Reid; amendment No. 131 by Senators Harkin, Durbin, and Landrieu; amendment No. 136 by Senator Mikulski and others; amendment No. 144 by Senator Santorum; amendment No. 156 by Senator Domenici; amendment No. 172 by Senators Landrieu and Snowe; amendment No. 150 by Senator Murkowski and myself; amendment No. 199 by Senators Durbin and Hutchison; amendment No. 186, which is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution by Senator Bond; amendment No. 142 by Senator Reid; amendment No. 178 by Senator Nelson of Florida; amendment No. 57 by Senator McCain--that is the Korea sense-of-the-Senate resolution-- amendment No. 167 by Senator Byrd; amendment No. 166 by Senator Byrd-- that is the China commission--and amendment No. 188 by Senator Dodd.

To my knowledge, we have no objections to any of those.

No. 112 was cleared. We showed that to you. It was the one modified by your subcommittee.

It was.

Will the Senator make the statement after we adopt this package?

I still have the floor, Mr. President.

We have not been able to clear that one yet. It is not in this package. We have another series in a package. There is another package coming later.

We will confer with the Senator.

I now ask unanimous consent that the series of amendments that I have referred to be modified in accordance with the submissions that are at the desk.

Modified in accordance with the way we presented them to the desk. I, first, want to modify them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

I ask, then, that No. 112 be taken out of this package.

It will be at the desk, and we will consider it later.

I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.

Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg has 5 minutes on his amendment on the Superfund.

Very well.

Amendment No. 112, As Modified

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 112.

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

Mr. President, I ask for the immediate adoption of the modified amendment.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have not seen the modification.

I remove that objection.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 10, 28, 47, 65, As Modified; 88, 110, 139, As Modified;

155, 201, 218, 151, 50, 34, 126, 158, En Bloc

Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Senate, I have two more amendments that have been cleared. I will make a request after I recite the amendments.

Amendment No. 10, Senator Nelson of Florida; amendment No. 28, Senator Kennedy; amendment No. 47, Senator Feinstein; amendment No. 65, as modified, Senator Kyl; amendment No. 88, Senator Warner; amendment No. 110, Senators Boxer and Feinstein; amendment No. 139, as modified, Senators Graham, Nelson, and Voinovich; amendment No. 155, Senator Domenici; amendment No. 201, Senator Feingold; amendment No. 218, Senator Hatch; amendment No. 151, Senator Murkowski and myself; amendment No. 50, Senator Sarbanes; amendment No. 34, Senator Craig; amendment No. 126, Senators Bingaman and Domenici; and amendment No. 158, Senators Bingaman and Domenici.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc.

Is that agreeable?

I urge they be adopted en bloc.

I have another list. I will similarly make a request that they be considered en bloc: Amendment No. 33, Senator Craig and Senator Durbin; amendment No. 102, Senator Leahy. It should be modified so that ``shall'' reads ``may.'' I ask for that modification now.

Amendment No. 205, Senator McConnell; amendment No. 236, Senator Harkin; amendment No. 243, Senator Edwards. Further, at the desk are modifications for amendment No. 135, Senator Talent; amendment No. 116, Senator Leahy; amendment No. 226, Senator Kohl; amendment No. 163, Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Harkin. I ask that those amendments be so modified according to the items at the desk.

On amendment No. 187, there is a substitute at the desk. On behalf of Senator Leahy, I ask that the substitute be considered as part of this package in lieu of the original version of this amendment.

Amendment No. 62, as modified, Senator McConnell; amendment No. 238, Senator Dodd; and amendment No. 129, Senator Kerry and Senator Snowe. Mr. President, amendment No. 62 is a modification. I did not read that. I ask that that original amendment be modified according to the papers that are at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc.

I ask that they be adopted en bloc.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

amendment no. 226, as modified

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when we reach third reading, Senators Kyl, McCain, Dayton, and Stabenow be recognized for 5 minutes.

The Senator is correct, but we do not have the modifications yet at the desk.

I inquire of the Senators mentioned if those four Senators will be willing to speak after final passage.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Kyl, McCain, Dayton, and Stabenow each have their time after final passage and that Senator Coleman be added for 5 minutes.

Senator Stabenow may proceed now.

Mr. President, Senator Stabenow seeks 5 minutes on a matter of the sense of the Senate regarding instructions to conferees.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator be recognized for 5 minutes at this time and I regain control of the floor after that.

The request is that the other Senators speak after final passage. Two Senators have a plane to catch to go on a very important mission for the Senate and they need to leave.

Mr. President, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution concerning instruction to conferees, and I am pleased to consider the Senator's suggestion. I ask that the sense-of-the-Senate amendment be agreed to.

Mr. President, there are two remaining amendments. No. 207 is at the desk as well as No. 143, as modified. This is the modification for No. 143. I send it to the desk.

I ask that the amendments be adopted en bloc.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion on to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have two amendments at the desk that are intended to address a critical shortage in nutrition funding for schools, food banks and soup kitchens brought about by the Bush administration's decision to pay for Federal farm disaster assistance using funds available to the Secretary of Agriculture under Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935.

Since 1935, the so-called Section 32 program has provided the means for the Secretary of Agriculture to assist farmers and ranchers by purchasing surplus commodities, which are then used to help poor Americans by providing emergency food assistance to those in need. It creates a ``win-win'' situation allowing us to help our farmers while feeding the hungry.

Section 32 is the primary source of federal funding for purchases of food distributed to the needy through schools, state and tribal governments, food banks, soup kitchens, and other charitable institutions. Last year, USDA surplus food donations to the needy through Section 32 totaled more than $250 million. And the President's budget for 2003 called for $215 million in Section 32 surplus food donations this fiscal year.

On October 10 of last year, Senator Tom Harkin and I wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman seeking assurances that federal funding for these programs would not be diminished this fiscal year due to the Bush Administration's use of Section 32 to pay for the Livestock Compensation Program. We were concerned that this maneuver--taking some $752 million out of Section 32--would constrain the Secretary's ability to provide the needed and historic levels of funding for federal emergency food assistance programs.

The Secretary never responded to our letter, but White House and USDA officials met with hunger program advocates and assured them there would not be cuts in federal emergency food assistance. Senator Harkin and I found this quite remarkable, because it appeared evident from the beginning that the Bush Administration had over-

committed its Section 32 funds. According to the President's own budget figures, it was clear that Section 32 funds would be depleted once the Livestock Compensation Program (LCP) was implemented and that was before a $185 million cost over-run was reported by USDA in early December, bringing the cost of the LCP program to $937 million.

According to the President's budget submissions and information provided by USDA, an estimated $5.9 billion in funding will be available for Section 32 during fiscal year 2003. This includes approximately $5.8 billion in new appropriations and approximately $92 million in carryover funds. Taking the original estimate of $752 million out of Section 32 to fund the Livestock Compensation Program leaves only $5.148 billion to meet the Department's other obligations under Section 32. That amount is not enough to fully-fund the child nutrition programs and meet the Department's other obligations under Section 32.

In fiscal year 2003, to meet requirements of the Richard B. Russell School Lunch Act $4.746 billion was scheduled to be transferred from Section 32 directly into the child nutrition programs' cash account and $400 million was budgeted to purchase commodities for the child nutrition programs. In addition, $75 million was budgeted to be transferred to the Commerce Department for fisheries activities; and $25 million is needed for Agriculture Marketing Service administrative expenses. These expenditures alone exceed the level of funding available in Section 32 after the LCP program is implemented, leaving no funding food banks, soup kitchens and the like.

I understand that the Administration has since shifted monies among various accounts, and was able to alleviate some of the pressure on Section 32 by tapping the Commodity Credit Corporation to pay for a portion of the commodity purchases for the School Lunch Program. This allowed USDA to come closer to balancing its books and freed up some money for emergency food assistance, but a gap still remains.

In a December 3 letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Secretary Veneman acknowledged that even after shifting funds among various accounts, USDA would be able to donate no more than $125 million worth of surplus commodities to food banks, soup kitchens, etc. this year.

That is half of last year's level and roughly $90 million less than budgeted for by the President.

It is a sad fact that this food is sorely needed. According to USDA, in 2002 more than 33.6 million Americans were food insecure--at risk of hunger. Nearly 25 million of them turned to charities that operate food banks or soup kitchens for food. Sixty-two percent of the people requesting emergency food assistance were members of families--children and their parents. Thirty-two percent of the adults requesting food assistance were employed. Of those people seeking emergency food relief, more than one-third (36 percent) had to choose between buying food or paying for housing. Many seniors have to choose between purchasing food or purchasing prescription drugs. For many Americans, wages and pensions have simply not risen enough in the last years to cover the increased cost of living, and food has become unaffordable.

These cuts couldn't have come at a worse time. With the weak economy and increased joblessness, demand for emergency food assistance is rising. A recent survey by U.S. Conference of Mayors found that during the past year requests for emergency food assistance in our nation's cities increased by an average of 17 percent-the sharpest increase in 10 years--with 83 percent of the cities registering an increase.

Now is not the time to reduce federal emergency food assistance funding. Now is the time to increase federal emergency food donations, not decrease them.

In his amendment, Senator Cochran provided an additional $250 million for surplus commodity purchases, largely addressing this year's shortfall. If these funds are fully utilized to provide emergency food assistance this fiscal year, then I would agree that at least this year's problem has been adequately addressed. However, I am concerned that the Administration might elect not to use these funds this year.

And so I ask Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl whether they will entertain a question regarding the intended use of these funds.

Is it the Senators' intention and understanding that the $250 million made available in the Cochran amendment for the Section 32 program be used to provide emergency food assistance to those in need this fiscal year?

I thank the Senators for their assurances. In light of this, I will withdraw my amendments.

Let me add that the subcommittee would appreciate being informed of these discussions. There are millions of impoverished people in Latin America who lack access to clean, safe water, which is a cause of chronic disease and environmental pollution. The Senator from Rhode Island's initiative, the Clean Water for the Americas Partnership, could help address these problems, and I would hope that USAID would work with him and the Subcommittee to support it.

sawtooth nat. recreation area

Mr. President, the amendment is at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the underlying amendment. We discussed this amendment this morning and delayed a vote in hopes of coming to a compromise over some of the concerns that were raised. For nearly 2 hours the administration officials, my staff, Senator Collins' staff, Senator Brownback, and Senator Mikulski worked to find a way to address these concerns. Unfortunately, the Senator from Maryland did not agree with that.

So I am offering this amendment. The compromise was reached that the administration believes allows the Government, the President, to continue setting important management goals for the public-private competition. What this is, of course, is allowing for the FAIR Act, which was passed in 1998, to continue to be effective, where we can go through and list those items that are not inherently governmental and have some competition for those items in the private sector so we can have certainly a more efficient Government. This is the way we think we ought to do it.

This amendment would allow for the restrictions on the quotas. But when there has been study, when there has been a real approach to what can be done and the kinds of activities that fit, then we can move forward.

The complaint here on the amendment has simply been because of setting quotas. Quotas does not mean that people will be replaced by private enterprise, but, rather, areas that are not inherently governmental will be used.

I turn now to the Senator from Maine for her comments.

Mr. President, I yield now to the Senator from Ohio.

I understood we had 15 minutes to present our point of view and that the others would present their point of view.

That was my understanding.

Mr. President, do I have time remaining?

I would like to turn to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President I remind my colleagues that the amendment this body just agreed to contains word for word the amendment of the Senator from Maryland. However, it goes on to explain that as we go through the 76 process; it is not the quotas that matter. That is what gives some guidance to management. What you have to do is study the issue and make sure that is the appropriate place.

It seems to me we ought to be looking a little bit ahead instead of being defensive about big Government and everyone working in the big Government. We all like Government. We like the employees. They do a good job. The point is, do you want an efficient Government or one that continues to grow and pays no attention to efficiency and has no competition? What we are talking about is a bill that was passed in 1998 which said we are going to list those functions within the Federal Government that are not specifically governmental, that could be done outside the Government, and compete.

I cannot imagine what is wrong with the idea of having competition, what is wrong with the idea of being more efficient. They are still jobs. We are not taking away jobs. They may be moving to the private sector where they can compete and do that particular function of Government more efficiently.

The idea that we just sit here and defend civil service because they are working--it disturbs me when we talk about secretaries. This does not have anything to do with secretaries. This has to do with those functions in Government that can be done by contracting with the private sector. There are a lot of those functions, and there are a lot of those functions that are already in place.

We need to go ahead with what we have done. I suppose it is somewhat philosophical: If you do not like the private sector, if you do not like competition or like to create opportunities for people to compete, then I suppose that is the way you feel.

There are a number of reasons to oppose the amendment.

The administration worked at this compromise. The administration and OMB said they are going to suggest to the President that if this provision passes, that the bill be vetoed. Senior advisers are recommending the President veto any legislation that challenges a management agenda to be more efficient.

By the way, before this appropriations bill was passed, this amendment was taken out. It was in there, and it was defeated last year. This is not the first time we have dealt with this issue, and each time it has been defeated because most of us think competition is a good idea. Most of us think efficiency is a good idea. Most of us think we ought to keep Government as small as we can and get the job done that way.

Therefore, I urge we defeat this amendment that is before us and continue to move ahead with the opportunity for the Federal Government to carry out a plan of more efficiency and a plan that passed in the Congress to do that.

I yield back my time.

I am yielding back.

I yield back my time. I am sorry.

I guess we are going to use this time. I might as well join in.

I want to read a part of a communication from OMB:

Now is the wrong time to short-circuit implementation of

the common sense principle of competition--a proven

prescription for reaping significant cost savings and

performance enhancements--especially since numerous agencies

are starting to make real progress. The principle of

competition was unanimously adopted by the recent

congressionally-mandated Commercial Activities Panel.

Prohibiting the funding for public-private competitions is

akin to mandating a monopoly regardless of the impact on

services to citizens and the added costs to taxpayers. If the

final version of the bill would contain such a provision--

Talking about this amendment--

the President's senior advisers would recommend that he veto

the bill.

Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Mikulski that would prevent Federal agencies from establishing, applying, or enforcing any numerical goal, target, or quota for the contracting out of Federal jobs. The Mikulski amendment is identical to language that passed the House by a large, bipartisan margin and was included in the House fiscal year 2003 Treasury appropriations.

I was very troubled by the Office of Management and Budget's directive to contract out 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. I was concerned because the OMB privatization quotas encourage agencies to privatize Federal employee jobs without public-private competition, which is unfair both to the affected employees as well as the taxpayers. In fact the OMB quotas force agencies to privatize Federal employee jobs that even Federal managers believe should continue to be performed by reliable Federal employees.

Senator Mikulski's amendment is reasonable and fair. It allows for the contracting out of Federal employee jobs, but it prevents jobs from arbitrarily being privatized. Instead it will ensure that thoughtful criteria are established before Federal employee jobs are given away. This is an issue of fundamental fairness, and about establishing a fair and reasonable process.

I strongly support Senator Mikulski's amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. President, today I offer, on behalf of myself and Senators Snowe, Landrieu, Lieberman, and Levin, an amendment to H.J. Res. 2, the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations resolution. The purpose of the amendment is to reverse severe budget cuts to the SBA's largest small business lending program, commonly referred to as the 7(a) loan program. As part of the administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request, the President under-funded the program by 56 percent, leaving small businesses short than $6 billion in critical loan dollars.

In order to restore over a billion dollars of that short-fall, this amendment would transfer unused funds from SBA's STAR loan program to the 7(a) loan program. As my colleagues may recall, the STAR program was a temporary loan program that I established with Senator Bond to help small businesses across the Nation hurt by terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Thousands of small businesses nationwide were helped by the $3.6 billion in loans already made available through the STAR program, and I thank Senators Hollings and Byrd for helping me to secure the funding.

The authorization for the STAR loans has expired and rather than let the remaining money lapse, we should re-allocate it to help small businesses have access to regular 7(a) loans. Just as we took care of small businesses hurt by 9/11, it is time to turn our attention to those who need financing in this down economy when banks are restricting capital to small businesses. Not only is the 7(a) loan program SBA's largest lending program to small businesses, but it is also the single, largest source of long-term capital available to small businesses in this country. As banks have cut back on lending to small businesses, demand for SBA's loan programs have grown by more than 16 percent, and this is one of the few sources for working capital loans. As I said a few minutes ago, by reprogramming this money, we will be able to leverage over a billion dollars in loans to small businesses, thereby stimulating the economy and creating and preserving jobs. Further, transferring this money would be budget neutral and has the support of OMB.

There is much at stake for small businesses in all of our States. In my home State of Massachusetts, if we implement the President's budget as requested, small businesses stand to lose $121 million in loan dollars and almost 3,700 jobs. As a nation, we would lose $6.2 billion in loans, which translates into 189,000 jobs either lost or not created. In this economy, we can not afford to lose any more jobs or hinder job creation.

This amendment was part of a more comprehensive proposal that Senator Bond and I put forth last Congress. One part was to use more accurate data and a more predictive cost model, and the other was to transfer money from the STAR program to the 7(a) loan program. That legislation had the bipartisan support of then-Budget Committee Chairman Conrad, then-ranking Member Domenici and Senators Landrieu, Snowe, Harkin, Hollings and Byrd. It was approved by the Office of Management and Budget and voted out of the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, politics kept it from passing the House. This Congress, our incoming Chair, Senator Snowe,

has quickly taken up where Senator Bond left off, re-introducing last year's bill, now S. 141, to correct the program's subsidy rate model. I thank her for her swift work and for joining me today in offering this amendment. I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

In closing, I want to thank Chairwoman Snowe, Senator Bond, Senator Conrad, Senator Domenici, Congressman Manzullo, and Congresswoman Velazquez for their previous and continued efforts in this fight for small businesses. In addition, I would like to thank the countless small business groups, from NAGGL and NADCO to the small business coalition lead by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which included among many others, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Small Business United, and the American Bankers Association, for their hard work and support with regard to this matter.