A bill to improve the calculation of the Federal subsidy rate with respect to certain small business loans, and for other purposes.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Became Public Law No: 108-8.
February 25, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
January 10, 2003
Introduced in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S206-207; text as passed Senate: CR S207)
January 10, 2003
Received in the House.
January 27, 2003 • 2:01 PM
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
January 27, 2003
Referred to the Committee on the Budget, and in addition to the Committee on Small Business, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
January 27, 2003
Mr. Nussle moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
February 11, 2003 • 4:36 PM
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H354-361)
February 11, 2003 • 4:36 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 141.
February 11, 2003 • 4:36 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H354)
February 11, 2003 • 5:10 PM
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H354)
February 11, 2003 • 5:10 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
February 11, 2003 • 5:10 PM
Presented to President.
February 14, 2003
Signed by President.
February 25, 2003
Became Public Law No: 108-8.
February 25, 2003
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about S. 141 on the floor
BAM
TSOJS
PJL
CT+18
Floor Debate
23 membersWhat members said about S. 141 on the floor
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…
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…
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 rise today in support of legislation that I introduced today to permit the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Small Business Administration, SBA, to use a…
Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation that I introduced today to permit the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Small Business Administration, SBA, to use a recently-completed econometric model to calculate the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) small business loan guarantee program, the flagship loan program at the SBA. I am very pleased that Senators Bond, Kerry, Crapo, Bennett, Enzi, Burns, and Landrieu are original cosponsors of this important legislation.
Our bill, once signed into law by President Bush, will allow the 7(a) loan program to meet the borrowing demands of our Nation's small businesses, which is approximately $10 billion for fiscal year 2003. Without this bill, the program would limit 7(a) loans to less than $5 billion for FY 2003. Currently, the 7(a) program is operating at a very reduced capacity, with a loan size cap of $500,000, to avoid exceeding the program limitations.
By limiting the 7(a) guaranteed small business loan program, we are unnecessarily hampering much-needed job growth in the United States. Just 2 days ago, we here in the Senate passed much-needed legislation to extend jobless benefits for 20 more weeks. These benefits are intended to help those persons who have already been unemployed for 6 months. This is much too long for someone who is actively looking for a job. And we should be doing everything possible to support job creation opportunities.
The SBA 7(a) small business loan program is just the answer. According to the SBA, the 7(a) program is its most efficient program for creating new jobs. Historically, the SBA maintains the ``job coefficient'' for the 7(a) loans is $32,382. The SBA ``job coefficient'' is the amount of an SBA-guaranteed 7(a) loan that leads to one job.
Based on the SBA's ``job coefficient'' for the 7(a) program, the impact of the small business guaranteed loan program is staggering. According to the OMB, enactment of our bill and implementation of the econometric model will reduce the credit subsidy rate of the 7(a) program from 1.76 percent to 1.04 percent. This reduction will expand the size of the 7(a) program from $4.85 billion to $8.2 billion, an increase of nearly $3.5 billion. Based on the SBA 7(a) ``job coefficient,'' the increase in lending from our bill will result in nearly 21,000 more loans to small businesses that will support 103,690 jobs. And no additional Federal Government spending will be needed to support this change.
The good news about the expansion of the 7(a) small business loan program does not stop here. Part of our strategy to expand the 7(a) loans program is to reprogram leftover, no-year funds previously appropriated for the SBA's STAR terrorist disaster recovery loan program, which is set to expire on January 10, 2003. If the reprogramming is approved later this month as part of the Omnibus Appropriations bill, the leftover STAR funds would be used for the regular 7(a) loan program. At this time, there is approximately $20 million remaining, which would support an additional 12,000 loans to small businesses totaling $1.92 billion, while assuming a credit subsidy rate of 1.04 percent established by the new econometric model. SBA-guaranteed loans to small businesses made with these funds would support 60,000 more jobs.
Unlike many stimulus plans that project benefits that occur years after enactment of the proposal, the expansion of the SBA's 7(a) program makes a critical expansion of the jobs a ``today'' event rather than a promise in the future. Once our bill is enacted, the increased lending between now and September 30, 2003, will guarantee 21,000 small business loans that support over 103,000 jobs. And after the STAR reprogramming is approved, 12,000 loans can be made to small businesses that support another 60,000 jobs. That's over 163,000 more jobs between now and the end of fiscal year 2003. How incredible is that?
The ``econometric model'' is a significant reform in the way the SBA and OMB calculates the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) loan program. Our bill provides that the OMB and SBA will adopt the new econometric model effective retroactively to October 1, 2002. Developed by the SBA and OMB, the econometric model will use far more comprehensive data about individual borrowers and loans when forecasting anticipated defaults and establishing loan reserves to cover them.
Under the Credit Reform Act of 1990, the annual appropriation for the SBA must, in advance, provide sufficient funds to cover the cost of a Federal loan guarantee, after taking into consideration the fees paid by small business borrowers and lenders under the 7(a) program. This amount, referred to as the credit subsidy rate, is determined by the OMB prior to the submission of the President's annual budget request to the Congress.
Critics of the credit subsidy rate for the 7(a) program have cited the use of historical loan performance data that pre-dates the enactment of the Federal Credit Reform Act as a major cause of a credit subsidy rate that greatly exceeds actual loan performance. The consequence is the use of the most conservative loan default rates, year-in and year-out, and the failure by the OMB and the SBA to adjust historical loan performance data to reflect 7(a) program changes, both statutory and regulatory, that have lead to real reductions in the default rates and improved program performance. According to an in- depth analysis undertaken by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the excessively high credit subsidy rates have resulted in nearly $1 billion in unnecessary fees being paid by small business borrowers and lenders to the U.S. Treasury.
It is very unrealistic to believe that a 100 percent accurate credit subsidy rate estimate can be derived for the 7(a) loan program, or for any other Federal credit program. The econometric model, designed to calculate the 7(a) credit subsidy rate, is a major improvement over the ``old'' model.
Originally, the administration stated that the econometric model would not be available until FY 2004. After extensive discussions with the senior White House staff, the administration has agreed to accelerate their use of the model retroactive to October 1, 2002, the beginning of FY 2003. Their policy change is a very positive effort to help small businesses and promote job growth.
Our bill is designed to waive a key provision of the Federal Credit Reform Act that prohibits the Congress from changing a credit subsidy rate estimate once it has been transmitted to the Congress as part of the President's annual budget submission. This may be the first time this provision has been waived since implementation of the act in FY 1992.
We would not be where we are today resolving this important matter without the tireless efforts of my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Mr. Manzullo, chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, fought for this change every step of the way. The ranking member, Ms. Velazquez, was especially vigilant in her efforts. In the Senate, my friend and colleague from Massachusetts, John Kerry, has kept the committee focused on resolving this issue for the past year. We have all fought hard to resolve the credit subsidy rate controversy for the past year. We have all fought hard to resolve the credit subsidy rate controversy for FY 2003.
Resolving the 7(a) credit subsidy rate issue is good for small businesses, is good for those seeking work and is good for America. It will mean more jobs, more opportunity and economic fuel for start-up companies. It will also be invaluable in growing small businesses. I urge each of my colleagues to vote a resounding ``aye'' for this important bill.
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…
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.…
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.
Show 8 more
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…
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.
Mr. President, if the Senator from Alaska will yield, I think there is an understanding that I am going to modify the amendment I have at the desk. I thank the manager. Amendments Nos. 6, 83, 85,…
Mr. President, if the Senator from Alaska will yield, I think there is an understanding that I am going to modify the amendment I have at the desk.
I thank the manager.
Amendments Nos. 6, 83, 85, 131, 136, 144, 156, 172, 150, 199, 186, 142,
178, 57, 167, 166, and 188, As Modified
I thank the manager.
Amendment No. 192, As Modified
Mr. President, I call up my amendment, which is at the desk.
I thank the Chair.
The authorization level under the Superfund law for this year is $11.5 billion. The bill before us provides $1.27 billion. Of that amount, 50 percent comes from the Superfund trust fund and the rest comes from general revenues.
There is now about $120 million in unobligated funds left in the Superfund trust fund. My amendment takes $100 million of that and adds it to the $1.27 billion so that we can increase the number of contaminated sites we will be cleaning up, but also to give some encouragement to a group of highly trained professionals so they can look to a continuation of a career that has been devoted to getting these sites cleaned up.
My amendment doesn't fully fund the program, but because the average cost of cleanup in a normal Superfund site is $12 million, this $100 million could help protect eight more communities from contaminated ground water and toxic soil in their neighborhoods.
From the beginning, an important principle of Superfund has been that those responsible for the contamination should pay for the cleanup. The polluters--not the general public--should pay.
In keeping with this principle, my amendment draws only from the trust fund, not from general revenues.
Unfortunately, it seems that some have lost sight of the ``polluter pays'' principle at the heart of the Superfund program.
In the appropriations bill before us, taxpayers, not polluters, would pay for 50 percent of the cleanup program. This simply isn't fair to our Nation's taxpayers.
But the ``polluter pays'' principle is fair. It has worked, and it should be preserved. Yet the tax on petroleum and chemical products-- the sources of contamination at most Superfund sites--has been allowed to lapse. We need to reauthorize the funding source and reinstate a dependable revenue stream for the program, but that is a debate for another day. In the interim, we have to do more with what we have.
In the 4 years leading up to the year 2000, an average of 87 Superfund were being cleaned up each year. Since then, the number has dropped by half: 42 sites cleaned up in 2001 and 47 sites cleaned up in 2002. This isn't acceptable nor is it responsible.
Adequate funding for Superfund is a very serious matter for the people of my home State of New Jersey. My State has 113 hazardous waste sites on the National Priority List (NPL)--more than any other State.
But I would quickly point out this isn't simply an urban-State problem. The largest Superfund site in the country right now is in Coeur d'Alene, ID, one of the most beautiful States in our country. And yet there is this blight in their midst. And we see the same thing in Montana, another rural mountain State, so beautiful with nature's blessing.
Sure.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. We have worked diligently together to try to turn these Superfund sites from environmental and health hazards into productive properties for the affected communities.
I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
I thank the Senator from Vermont.
Yes. I yield to my colleague.
I thank my distinguished colleague.
Mr. President, nationally, one in four Americans lives within 4 miles of an NPL site. That is unacceptable. Contaminated sites endanger our environment, they endanger our health, they endanger our economy.
We have money in the trust fund. We should use it. We desperately need to clean up these sites and make them safe and productive again, especially for the sake of the communities that surround them. Having these blighted locations throughout our country is simply that; it is a plague on these communities. We ought to get on with transforming them from wastelands into industrial, commercial, and residential sites that benefit everybody.
This amendment is cosponsored by several of my colleagues, including Senator Corzine, Senator Boxer, Senator Kennedy, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Nelson of Florida, Senator Jeffords of Vermont, Senator Kerry, and Senator Schumer.
Mr. President, I hope we will be able to use these funds for the purpose intended: cleaning up more Superfund sites faster in the coming year. I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleagues.
Mr. President, no one would suggest that we shouldn't look for more efficient ways to do things with regard to the Superfund program. And there is always redress, unfortunately, to the court if one wants it. But the Superfund Program has been working: 87 sites a year, on average, were being cleaned up, up until the year 2000; over 800 sites in all. That is pretty darn good. We learned how to do it. The program is working. To deprive it now is really not what ought to be happening. I am sure citizens across this country would agree with us: More money, more cleanups. That is what we want out of the Superfund Program.
I yield back whatever time remains.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership. I rise in support of his amendment, and, as the Senator from Ohio said, in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from…
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership. I rise in support of his amendment, and, as the Senator from Ohio said, in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Maryland.
My friends and colleagues, we need to always, as a government, be looking at new ways of adopting innovation and have improvements-- whether it is our national security or homeland defense. There are many ideas, many systems, and many programs in the private sector that can perform more efficiently and better for the American people. We need to examine those.
I think the Bush administration's proposal is very modest and reasonable, and it is supported by a variety of private sector groups. The Mikulski amendment is opposed by a broad range of organizations, such as the Northern Virginia Technology Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Professional Services Council, the Contract Services Association, and many others.
For small businesses, large businesses, disadvantaged businesses, minority-owned businesses, let us care about the jobs in the private sector. Let us also care about those governmental services that are essential for our security, but let us make what we are procuring the best for all Americans.
I ask my colleagues to support the amendment of Senator Thomas and oppose the amendment of the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Mikulski amendment. As we focus on this after having previously accepted the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, let me share with my colleagues the views of people who would be affected by this in the private sector.
The Information Technology Association of America recognizes that as a result of this amendment, rather than promote competition and better management of the Federal Government, the Bush administration would face restrictions. There are many companies in the ITAA. There are large companies, some small startups, as well as industry leaders in software and the Internet. All of these companies would be denied opportunities or hampered by this amendment and therefore urge us to vote no.
Other associations, such as the Northern Virginia Technology Council, which consists of 1,600 members and 180,000 employees, urge us to vote no as well. Bobbie Kilberg, the president, says this amendment would significantly limit private sector involvement and discourage competition vital to the technology community.
The Contract Services Association of America, an industry representative for private sector companies that provide services to the Federal, State, and local governments--they include small disadvantaged businesses, Native American-owned businesses, section 8(a)-certified companies--wants to have those folks working for the public good.
The Professional Services Council recognizes that we want to hold the executive branch responsible for efficient management of services and looks at this amendment as one that would harm the ability of the administration to do so.
The Chamber of Commerce of the United States looks at this issue in a way with which I agree, and that is, that this is the time to create more efficient and effective partnerships between the public and private sectors, not to restrict policies that limit funding or flexibility in sourcing and decisionmaking processes.
We talk about homeland security. It is very important. Many wonderful public servants will be involved in homeland security, but what is really going to help homeland security is the adaptation, the utilization of technologies from enterprise services that allow them to analyze the volumes of information, share it within those agencies, also with other agencies in a secure way, and with State and local governments.
It is important that in this time when we are worrying about the cost of Government and worrying about the taxpayers, we should not be limiting the ability of our Government to respond to changing economic and security needs of the American people.
While I understand the heartfelt sincerity of the Senator from Maryland, I think there are a lot of people we need to be worried about, and let's make sure we are providing the very best of services to the people of this country.
Competition has always been good. It has made it better. Let's adapt, let's innovate, and let's move forward in a principled way. I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Mikulski's amendment to prohibit arbitrary, ``one-size-fits-all'' privatization quotas for Federal agencies. Under the amendment, agencies would still be…
Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Mikulski's amendment to prohibit arbitrary, ``one-size-fits-all'' privatization quotas for Federal agencies. Under the amendment, agencies would still be able to compete, convert, and contract out Federal activities, but on a case-by-case basis, with the goal of maximizing quality and cost- efficiency.
Under the OMB quotas, Federal departments and agencies are encouraged to privatize five percent of their jobs now, and 50 percent by next year. The administration's current policy will lead to the privatization of 850,000 jobs, nearly half the Federal workforce.
Fair competition and contracting out can be effective when used in the right way. But, this quota system imposes a blanket mandate on all Federal agencies, without taking into account individual agency needs. Agencies are not all alike. It may be appropriate to contract out the construction of military equipment or the mowing the lawn. But, many Americans will have serious concerns about contracting out the food inspections conducted by the Department of Agriculture, or the tax audits performed by the Internal Revenue Service. It makes no sense to impose the same privatization policy on every agency.
The Government has a responsibility to provide its services efficiently and effectively and with accountability. Under the administration's quota system, a broad range of sensitive and critical activities could be privatized without accountability, including some that could put our national security at risk. Those who safeguard our borders and those who repair our planes, ships, and tanks should be held accountable for their work.
Despite the growing reliance on private contractors, Federal agencies today do not have a method in place to hold contractors accountable. Many of us have deep concerns about privatizing so much of the Federal workforce in the absence of reliable and comprehensive measures to determine the quality of the tens of billions of dollars of work performed by private contractors. There are no mechanisms to track the quality of service contracting. Some agencies served by contractors today do not even know which services are being provided by contractors.
In addition, privatization under the administration's current quota system can occur without competition. Many Federal jobs will be lost, with no opportunity for the Federal employees to compete and demonstrate their efficiency. Currently, when Federal jobs are opened to competition, Federal workers are hired more than half the time. It makes no sense to privatize work that Federal workers can do more efficiently. The administration's proposal gives an unacceptable preference for private contractors over public workers.
The administration's proposal will reduce the standard of living for large numbers of Federal workers, since contractors have incentives to reduce costs by offering inferior compensation. According to the Economic Policy Institute, one in ten contractor employees earns less than a living wage. When work is privatized, displaced Federal workers are likely to lose their health benefits and their security for the future.
Several groups have voiced their opposition to the administration's plan. The Federal Managers Association, which represents the executives, managers, and supervisors in the Federal government, has stated its support for the Mikulski amendment. As the association states, the amendment will ``provide Federal agencies and departments with the ability to use competition to truly benefit the American people and not require competition for the sake of fulfilling quotas.'' Even the Commercial Activities Panel, comprised largely of contractors, opposes the privatization plan because it believes that such decisions require informed judgements and analyses that consider the specific needs of each agency.
The Mikulski amendment will preserve the high standards which make Government responsive to the needs of our citizens, and I urge the Senate to support it.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Leahy regarding the restoration of Section 32 funds that were depleted to finance the Administration's ad-hoc program to provide emergency…
I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Leahy regarding the restoration of Section 32 funds that were depleted to finance the Administration's ad-hoc program to provide emergency aid to livestock producers.
On two separate occasions last year, the Senate passed provisions on strongly bipartisan votes to provide disaster assistance for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Rather than acknowledging the need for this emergency disaster assistance legislation, the Administration devised a program of limited help to livestock producers and thereby put in jeopardy Federal assistance for the school lunch and other domestic nutrition and hunger relief programs this fiscal year and possibly next.
The Administration funded the Livestock Compensation Program through the use of Section 32 funds. Section 32 provides funds for school lunch and other domestic nutrition and hunger relief programs. Further, through Section 32 purchases of surplus commodities--such as fruits, vegetables and portk--USDA is able to support producers and provide food to child nutrition programs, soup kitchens and food banks, and Indian reservations.
When the LCP was announced, the Administration estimated the program would use $752 million from Section 32. However, due to the ``open ended'' nature of the LCP and an under-estimate of its projected cost, as of December 3 the program had drained an additional $185 million-- for a total of $937 million--from Section 32. Even at the $752 million level, it was apparent that the Administration had over-committed the resources of the Section 32 account by several hundred million dollars.
Use of such a large amount of Section 32 funds diverted resources away from other agricultural producers who benefit from use of Section 32 for the traditional purpose of removing surpluses from the market. The shortfall in Section 32 funds also jeopardizes child nutrition programs that depend on bonus commodities as well as The Emergency Food Assistance Program which relies on surplus commodities to supply soup kitchens and food banks and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
As a result of the current economic downturn, State, local and private contributions to food banks and other emergency nutrition facilities are declining while demand for emergency food assistance is on the rise. In fact, a recent U.S. Conference of Mayors report shows that the need for emergency food assistance has increased by a sharp 19 percent this year. Pulling back on the Federal commitment to domestic food assistance programs run by faith-based and other institutions at this time would be unjustified and irresponsible.
I therefore commend Senator Cochran for including an additional $250 million in Section 32 funds in his disaster assistance amendment. If used carefully, this amount should be sufficient, although a larger amount would have been justified. It is essential that Senate and House conferees protect the intended use of these funds. I join my
colleague, Senator Leahy, in requesting that the Administration be directed to use these funds for surplus removals and restoration of funds in the Section 32 account that were diverted to other purposes this fiscal year.
the importance of assisting Fox Islands Electric Cooperative in providing affordable and reliable electricity to the residents of north
haven and vinalhaven
Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maryland has raised a very legitimate point about the use of arbitrary quotas or numerical targets to guide the contracting-out activities of Federal agencies.…
Mr. President, I think the Senator from Maryland has raised a very legitimate point about the use of arbitrary quotas or numerical targets to guide the contracting-out activities of Federal agencies. It seems to me that having one target for every agency may well be counterproductive and not result in the greatest efficiencies.
On the other hand, I am concerned that the amendment of the Senator from Maryland may have some unintended consequences. It could be read as rejecting the notion of ever having competitive contracting, to see whether a specific function is best performed in-house or contracted out to the private sector.
I am also concerned that it could have an impact on other laws, although I know that is not the intent of the Senator from Maryland.
We have consulted with the General Accounting Office and have come up with some language to try to deal with this. I do want to assure the Senator from Maryland, as the new chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I want to work with her to try to resolve this issue because the issue she has brought to our attention is a legitimate one. So I hope to continue, in my new capacity, to work with her, to work with the Senator from Wyoming,
to work with the Senators from Virginia who have also expressed concerns about this issue.
I join the distinguished senior Senator from Maine in asking the distinguished chairman and distinguished ranking member to give this unique situation consideration in conference. While many Americans have experienced the inconvenience of a temporary blackout or brownout, frequent power outages and high energy prices for the citizens of North Haven and Vinalhaven have imposed significant financial burden and uncertainty on the community.
The placement of the cables on the sea floor, in combination with their old age, means that the lines are susceptible to damage from rough seas and fishing activity. Blackouts resulting from a severed or damaged cable not only incapacitate local businesses, but also disable the Water Districts, hampering their ability to maintain adequate water supplies to the towns' residents.
Due to the complex nature of working underwater, repairing the undersea cables is both expensive and time consuming. Fox Islands Electric Cooperative currently carries $2.7 million in debt owed to the Rural Utilities Service and estimates that replacement of the submarine cables will cost $7 million dollars. While the islands' electricity costs have always been above average due to its remoteness and small population, frequent disruptions and repairs have raised electric rates even further for the citizens of North Haven and Vinalhaven. As the distinguished chairmen and distinguished ranking member continue their work on the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill in conference, I would greatly appreciate consideration that may be given to Fox Islands Electric Cooperative.
That is correct. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered in lieu of my motion to instruct the conferees that is already at the desk. Mr.…
That is correct.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered in lieu of my motion to instruct the conferees that is already at the desk.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, as I indicated, my amendment is a sense of the Senate that insists that the conference report for the Omnibus Appropriations Act retain the Senate provisions that repeal the special interest vaccine component provisions that were originally included in the Homeland Security Act.
The purpose of this amendment is to send a very strong message to the Senate conferees who will represent our interests in the conference, and to the House, that we stand firmly behind the repeal of the vaccine component provisions that were contained in last year's Homeland Security Act. We need a strong show of support in favor of this amendment to demonstrate our commitment to public interest over special interests. We also need to ensure that the conference report of this bill maintains a full repeal of that language. Anything less is absolutely unacceptable.
Last November, Speaker Hastert and Representative DeLay gave only vague assurances they would strike the special interest provisions from the Homeland Security Act, and since then I have seen signs that their commitment to this process may have continued to slip, and we certainly do not wish that to happen after the hard work of putting this language into the bill.
Again, we need to send a very strong message to all the Members of the House and the Senate that we must have full repeal of this special interest provision, commonly referred to as the ``thimerosal provision.''
I thank my colleagues Senators Snowe, Collins, and Chafee, who worked to incorporate the spirit of the bill, S. 105, that I introduced at the beginning of the year that proposed a full repeal into the final version of this Omnibus Act. I also thank the cosponsors of my bill.
Most importantly, though, I thank the families of children with autism for working so hard to repeal the special interest provisions. They are the ones who have been successful in this effort, and I congratulate them. I joined them in a capital rally a few weeks ago where we praised them for their courage, hard work, and commitment. They traveled of their own accord and paid their own costs, which is very difficult and burdensome for a family of a special needs child. They came to Washington, DC, to fight to repeal this provision.
I promised those parents I would fight to remove it and that we would fight that it be repealed in total in conference and signed by the President. So I thank my colleagues who have been involved in this issue, and I ask that they join in keeping the promise to these very special families by supporting my amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, the 2002 farm bill authorized the Grants for Youth Program, an initiative to develop pilot programs and expand outreach to youth in rural communities and small towns across the Nation.…
Mr. President, the 2002 farm bill authorized the Grants for Youth Program, an initiative to develop pilot programs and expand outreach to youth in rural communities and small towns across the Nation. The Girl Scouts of the USA, Boy Scouts of America, National FFA Organization, and National 4-H Council will be key players in this initiative. The original Senate version of the fiscal year 2003 Agriculture appropriations bill included $6 million in funding for this new program. That funding was removed in the version before us.
I am offering an amendment to restore $3 million in funding for the Grants for Youth program. This program will be funded through the USDA Extension Service. In view of enhanced need for funds for education and other Federal initiatives for our children, we should also support private efforts to bring programs like Girl scouts, Boy Scouts, 4-H and Future Farmers of America to our underserved rural youth. It would be a mistake to keep these marvelous--and proven--youth programs from expanding to our rural areas.
provo airport control tower funding
Mr. President, I have long supported programs important to improving the lives of children and, last year, I had included in the fiscal year 2003 Agriculture appropriations bill a provision to expand an ongoing pilot related to the USDA Summer Food Services Program. This increase would have expanded to all 50 States a successful 13-State pilot program to streamline the process of setting up a summer feeding site. A report released last summer by the Food Research and Action Center found that the 13 pilot States increased their participation in the SFSP by 8.9 percent between July 2000 and July 2001. Participation in the rest of the Nation decreased by approximately 3.3 percent during the same time period.
While I understand the fiscal constraints we were facing during this budget year, I believe that it is important that we continue to work to find ways to increase the number of low-income children who receive healthy meals over the summer. I believe the expansion of the SFSP is an excellent way to do that, and I look forward to working with the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to make such an expansion permanent during the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act.
That is my understanding. I share your concern that the Administration might elect not make these purchases, and it would be my hope that the House and Senate conferees agree on language ensuring that these purchases are made this fiscal year.
I look forward to the opportunity to work with the distinguished Senators from Maine on this important project to provide a reliable and affordable source of electricity to these communities, and I will work with Senator Cochran in conference to remedy this problem.
Show 11 more
Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture…
Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, the distinguished junior Senator from Maine, the distinguished ranking member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairman and ranking member are aware, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service administers the electric programs that provide funding and support services for utilities that serve rural communities in order to assist in modernizing local infrastructure. I ask the chairman and ranking members to give consideration to the extraordinary electricity costs faced by the island communities of North Haven and Vinalhaven, and work to have the Rural Utilities Service assist Fox Islands Electric Cooperative in providing reliable and affordable electricity to these communities.
The 1,770 households in North Haven and Vinalhaven obtain electricity from four undersea electric cables that run twelve miles to the mainland. These cables, which are maintained by Fox Island Electric Cooperative and serve as the islands' only source of electricity, were originally installed back in 1978 and have now reached the end of their manufacturing life expectancy. Over the past five years the cables have been failing with ever-increasing frequency and since February, electric service has been interrupted four times.
I have been in touch with the Fox Islands Electric Cooperative and the communities of Vinalhaven and North Haven about this situation, and it has become clear that the escalating nature of this problem deserves attention. With that said, Fox Islands Electric Cooperative is confronted with the difficult decision of taking on significant debt to replace the submarine cables or continue operating the outmodeled transmission system. Unfortunately, both alternatives will continue to impose high electric costs on the townspeople. Each household on the island currently pay 15.5 cent per kilowatt hour, a rate almost triple the national average. Without assistance in replacing these cables electricity rates would rise to 23 cents per kilowatt hour.
As the chairman and ranking member are aware, the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill provides $30 million for the Rural Utilities High Energy Cost Project to assist communities with extremely high energy costs. If the communities of North Haven and Vinalhaven quality for the High Energy Cost Program, this could provide much needed assistance to the citizens who pay an extraordiarily high rate for their electric utilities. Any consideration that the distinguished chairman and ranking member can provide is much appreciated.
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment. I look over and see both Senators from Louisiana here. I can assure you that money is not just the answer. I remember at Bossier City…
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg amendment. I look over and see both Senators from Louisiana here. I can assure you that money is not just the answer. I remember at Bossier City there was a site that the Federal Government was going to clean up. It was going to cost X dollars. I don't remember the exact amount, but I didn't know this amendment was going to come up. After we spent quite a bit of time, we found that the responsible parties were willing to do it under State supervision. All of the parishes agreed to it. All of the citizens, neighborhood groups, agreed to it. Yet they were still going to do it. We ended up forcing this through and cleaning it up for one-half the amount of money and in one-half of the time.
We need to reform the Superfund system. I would argue with my good friend from Idaho, I think we have the largest Superfund problem in Tar Creek in the State of Oklahoma.
I will not yield to my friend because I think I need my time.
But I would say this: We have spent about $100 million on it over the last 15 years, and it has not resolved the problem. We want to reform the system. We need to reform the system. And, of course, there are no offsets. So I know that will mean something to some of the people.
But let's go ahead, give our committee a chance, give Senator Chafee, whose subcommittee has the jurisdiction, a chance to go in here and do a better job rather than pouring money on a system that is not working today.
Now I will yield----
One minute to the Senator from Idaho.
I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Idaho because we do have two of those devastating sites.
I yield whatever time I have to the Senator from Missouri.
Yes. We are in the process of making some major changes. You heard from the Senator from Idaho the improvements that have been made there. And this is one of the main agenda items.
So I urge the defeat of the Lautenberg amendment and yield to the Senator from Missouri.
Sure.
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time does the Senator from New Jersey have remaining?
Mr. President, I have to argue with my good friend from New Jersey. If he wants to use the Superfund Program as an example of a program that has been working, then we don't have any problems around here because it hasn't been working. We have been working on making major changes. We are going to make major changes.
I yield back the time and move to table the Lautenberg amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, would the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee yield for a colloquy regarding Land and Water Conservation Funds for Idaho? First allow me to commend the Chairman and Ranking…
Mr. President, would the distinguished Chairman of the Subcommittee yield for a colloquy regarding Land and Water Conservation Funds for Idaho?
First allow me to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee for their leadership and hard work on this bill. The Committee has had to make difficult decisions with scarce resources and have worked hard to do so in a fair manner. I appreciate Chairman Burns and Ranking Member Byrd's effort and diligence.
Idaho is a state of spectacular natural beauty and wildlife habitat. One jewel within the Gem State is the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, SNRA. The SNRA is a national treasure enjoyed by locals and visitors to Idaho alike. The opportunity to preserve important parts of its pristine beauty is available through the purchase of scenic easements. Further, when the SNRA was established nearly thirty years ago, a commitment was made to private property owners to secure easements.
In the past, funding has been inadequate to complete the easement purchases. However, in recent years, with the support of the Chairman and Ranking Member, we have been a renewed interest in completing the purchase of relevant easements within the SNRA. Idaho is grateful for the committee's support in obtaining these easements.
It is expected that $3 million in Fiscal Year 2003 will fulfill the easement needs in the SNRA. Unfortunately, funding for easements in the SNRA was not included in the committee-passed bill. I recognize the subcommittee is operating under significant financial restraints and not all worthy projects can be funded. Yet, it is my hope the Chairman and ranking member can revisit their important project in the conference.
Again, I am grateful the committee has previously responded to the opportunities to use land and water conservation funds to acquire easements in the SNRA to protect the valuable habitats and scenic values. Support for easements in the SNRA are locally-driven, with wide-spread support and anxious willing-sellers. Completion of this project will address the concerns of private property owners and protect this wonderful resource for all Americans to enjoy.
I would ask the Chairman and ranking member if they would work with me in conference to evaluate this request, with an eye toward inclusion in the conference report.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment offered by Senator Mikulski regarding the use of quotas in contracting out Government jobs. The administration has put forth proposals requiring…
Mr. President, I rise today in support of an amendment offered by Senator Mikulski regarding the use of quotas in contracting out Government jobs. The administration has put forth proposals requiring that a specified number of jobs usually performed by Federal employees be contracted out to private companies each year. Senator Mikulski's amendment would prevent any of the funding in the omnibus appropriations bill to be used in the enforcement of these quotas.
The administration states that this is an issue of efficiency. I disagree. There is no evidence that contracting out Federal Government jobs saves the Government time or money. In fact, the opposite is often true, the Federal Government is overcharged for less efficient work by private companies, work that could be done more efficiently and more effectively by Federal employees. Too often, jobs are simply contracted out without a proper public-private competition, and without continued monitoring of whether any cost savings actually results. Furthermore, by requiring that a set number of Federal jobs be contracted out each year, the jobs may be contracted out without any regard to cost savings.
In addition, national security is now of vital importance to our Nation. We must take a close look at the implications of contracting out to ensure that our national interests are being protected. We need Federal employees to do these jobs, jobs that are not suited to the private sector. Indeed, Federal employees are now screening baggage at our Nation's airports, one of the most vital roles in this unprecedented time. Requiring that a certain number of Federal jobs be contracted out each year could result in the contracting out of jobs vital to our national security.
I firmly believe that the United States Government should not contract out jobs merely for the sake of ``reducing'' the Federal workforce. Nor should we show a preference to contract employees over our dedicated public servants who have demonstrated such determination and commitment in this difficult time. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Mikulski's amendment and oppose the use of quotas in the contracting out of jobs already ably performed by our Federal employees.
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent. I ask to be made a cosponsor. Have the yeas…
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
I ask to be made a cosponsor.
Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
I ask for the yeas and nays.
I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Hawaii, (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
No. On our side, prior to third reading, we have Senator Stabenow who wants to make a brief statement on her sense-of-the-Senate amendment. And Senator Dayton is going to ask for up to 5 minutes before final passage.
Mr. President, 112 has not been cleared on this side.
Mr. President, what is the consent request?
Mr. President, before they are agreed to, I have to work out a situation on amendment No. 112.
Mr. President, if the Senator wants to call up amendment No. 112 now, he can.
Reserving the right to object.
Mr. President, there are still two amendments. On one we are waiting for the papers, and on the other we are waiting for clearance. One is amendment No. 207; the other is amendment No. 143. It is my understanding we worked out language so that these two are acceptable, but I do not have the language yet. We should have it momentarily.
I ask if the four Senators can speak after the vote. The reason I say that is the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the former chairman of the Intelligence Committee and present chairman of the Banking Committee are scheduled to leave on a plane immediately. They both have very important speeches to give. If they do not leave quickly, the speeches will not be given.
I am wondering if it is possible to do those speeches after third reading, but that does not work because we have amendment No. 143 and amendment No. 207 still awaiting action.
Senator Stabenow has a sense-of-the-Senate amendment that has to be part of the package, so I ask that she be allowed to do hers right now.
Five minutes is what she has agreed to.
It has been cleared on both sides.
No objection.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, yield for a question? My office was recently visited by the mayor of…
Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, yield for a question?
My office was recently visited by the mayor of Provo, in my home State of Utah. He reiterated to me the importance of erecting a control tower to handle an unusually large volume of air traffic coming into and out of the airport.
My colleagues may not be aware of this, but Provo's airport currently does not have a tower--even though it is the second most used airport in the state, providing a much needed training ground for new pilots and a landing area for corporate jets that keeps them out of the Salt Lake City International Airport traffic flow.
It is my understanding there are 143,000 operations at this airport per year. I share the concern of Mayor Lewis Billings and the citizens of Provo that this type of airport traffic with no control tower is very unsafe and, in the past, has led to a crash and a number of near misses.
I am very appreciative to the Senator from Alabama and the other Appropriations Committee members for this, and I know it will be very helpful to the effort. However, I understand the House appropriation for this same project currently stands at $1 million which would really help the city of Provo get this project underway. I am also very appreciative for the Appropriations Committee's vigilance in keeping the budget to an absolute minimum and restraining superfluous spending. I only ask that the good Senator from Alabama try to work in conference to recede to the House number.
Mr. President, I---- Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side? I thank the Chair. First, I share the concerns of the Senator from Maryland about this problem, and I want to do everything…
Mr. President, I----
Mr. President, how much time do we have on this side?
I thank the Chair.
First, I share the concerns of the Senator from Maryland about this problem, and I want to do everything in my power as chairman of the subcommittee on Government oversight and work toward dealing with the solution to the problem that is being presented.
According to the best information I have, this amendment would circumvent the administration's prerogative in the executive branch by prohibiting the administration from managing the Federal Government's competitive sourcing process. It would repeal initiatives passed on a bipartisan basis over the past 10 years, including the Government Performance Act.
The amendment would prohibit agencies from developing and implementing strategic plans allowing Federal employees to focus on high-priority activities, and it would prevent agencies from increasing efficiencies, lowering costs, implementing innovation and technology, and it would prevent agencies to meet their agency missions.
Additionally, the President has said that if this provision were in the Treasury-Postal appropriations, he would veto the bill.
We tried to work out a compromise based on some of these concerns that he had. We thought that it met the concerns of the Senator from Maryland. Unfortunately, it did not.
I urge that we vote no on her amendment and yes on the amendment we are proposing today--understanding this will not solve the problem and that we will need to deal with it throughout the remainder of the year.
I appreciate the efforts of my friend from Wisconsin. I agree that the Summer Food Service Program is important for several reasons. Not only does it provide children with a healthy meal, but many of…
I appreciate the efforts of my friend from Wisconsin. I agree that the Summer Food Service Program is important for several reasons. Not only does it provide children with a healthy meal, but many of the approved sites that administer the SFSP also provide educational and recreational opportunities that foster learning throughout the summer months while parents are working.
Again, I thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin, and I appreciate his commitment to this important issue. I look forward to working with him on this program during the upcoming reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act.
Section 32
As the language in section 205 of my amendment that was adopted by the Senate yesterday states, these funds would only be available for surplus removals and would restore funds in the Section 32 account that were used for other purposes this fiscal year.
I will be glad to work with the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Vermont to address their concerns during the Conference.
I thank the distinguished Senators from Maine, and I will be happy to work with them in conference on this important electric project, which will provide affordable and reliable electricity to the islands.
Mr. President, could I just ask---- Not wishing to object, I ask if any disposition has been made on amendment 126. I will wait for the remaining package. If not, I will ask for a vote on it. Mr.…
Mr. President, could I just ask----
Not wishing to object, I ask if any disposition has been made on amendment 126.
I will wait for the remaining package. If not, I will ask for a vote on it.
Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to my esteemed colleague from Montana. It is my understanding that the fiscal year 2003 Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report contains 4 million dollars allocated for the Next Generation Lighting Initiative. Is that correct?
I would be glad to. The Next Generation Lighting Initiative was first introduced as S. 166 in the 107th Congress. It was then included in H.R. 4, the Comprehensive Energy Bill, as amended by the Senate, which then went into conference with the House. Unfortunately, the energy bill failed in conference, but the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, and nearly the entire R&D authorization title were conferenced with the House. This agreed upon R&D authorization
title, with the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, is now found in H.R. 238, as introduced by the House Science Committee in the 108th Congress.
Yes, it is now S. 167.
One minute. The superfund site in Coeur d'Alene, ID, that the Senator from New Jersey referred to, 3 years ago was touted to cost $1 billion to clean up. As a result of a cooperative State plan, in…
One minute.
The superfund site in Coeur d'Alene, ID, that the Senator from New Jersey referred to, 3 years ago was touted to cost $1 billion to clean up. As a result of a cooperative State plan, in conjunction with EPA--the first unique plan of this kind, designed under a new State commission; and our new Director Whitman has signed off on it-- that same area can be cleaned up and meet all of the standards for less than $300 million over a 12-year to 15-year period.
Now, $300 million versus $1 billion is a heck of a lot of money. Because of these new cooperative relationships and State plans--that past EPAs refused to negotiate and bring States into the process--but because we are now doing that, I agree with the Senator from Oklahoma, there is great opportunity for reform. You just don't throw money at these problems. You resolve them in new, creative ways, and still meet standards for clean water and clean air.
You are correct Senator. Four million dollars is in the report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee in the form of a Dear Colleague letter dated…
You are correct Senator. Four million dollars is in the report for this purpose which originated from a request to the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee in the form of a Dear Colleague letter dated April 23, 2002, initiated by both Senator DeWine and yourself, which contains 22 bipartisan signatures.
My esteemed colleagues, Senators Bingaman and DeWine, I wish to thank you both for sharing with me the legislative history of the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, and I hope this is of aid to the Department of Energy as it manages this project. It will be useful background to my subcommittee as it performs its oversight duties in the upcoming year.
clean water partnership for the americas
I would be pleased to yield to the Senator to discuss this important issue.
Bill Text
5 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 141 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]
S.141
One Hundred Eighth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the seventh day of January, two thousand and three
An Act
To improve the calculation of the Federal subsidy rate with respect to
certain small business loans, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SUBSIDY RATE FOR SMALL BUSINESS LOANS.
Notwithstanding section 502(5)(F) of the Federal Credit Reform Act
of 1990 and section 254(j) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, in calculating the Federal cost for guaranteeing loans during
fiscal year 2003 under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(a)), may use the most recently approved subsidy cost model
and methodology in conjunction with the program and economic
assumptions, and historical data which were included in the fiscal year
2003 budget. After written notification to Congress, the Small Business
Administration shall implement the validated, OMB-approved subsidy rate
for fiscal year 2003, using this model and methodology. Such rate shall
be deemed to have been effective on October 1, 2002.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.