Mr. President, last week I proposed an amendment to this bill that would prevent the administration from privatizing parts of the Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, and related agencies. I would like to submit for the Record some…
Mr. President, last week I proposed an amendment to this bill
that would prevent the administration from privatizing parts of the Park Service, Forest Service, BLM, and related agencies.
I would like to submit for the Record some statements supporting my amendment. These are from the National Parks Conservation Association, the Wilderness Society, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the American Federation of Government Employees.
These organizations support my amendment because they share my belief that our National Parks and National Forests are public treasures that should be managed for posterity, not for profit.
Their letters cite many reasons why privatizing the operation of our National Parks and Forests would reduce the quality of maintenance and service.
As the letter from the Wilderness Society points out, the director of the National Parks Service wrote an internal memo warning that the administration's privatization policy could reduce visitor services, and cause layoffs of Parks Service workers.
These organizations realize that if we lose dedicated foresters, fire fighters, archaeologists and scientists, we will lose valuable knowledge about our precious public lands.
Protecting our National Parks and Forests is not just a job for these dedicated workers; it is a way of life. No job description can do justice to their dedication.
Just last month at Shenandoah National Park, a search team of four Park Service employees found a 10-year-old boy who was lost.
Today, the Park Service is reviewing their jobs, trying to determine whether they ought to be turned over to private contractors. Trying telling that little boy's parents that it isn't important to have workers who are familiar with our parks and forests.
These are some of the reasons that these organizations are opposed to privatization. There is another reason, which ought to concern every Member of this Senate. That is the unauthorized expenditure of public funds. It is our job as legislators to direct public funds to agencies and projects that will serve a public need. Congress has never authorized funds for outsourcing studies.
The Forest Service spent $10 million just last year on its outsourcing studies, 10 million that Congress had designated for preserving and protecting our national treasures. The Park Service has estimated that it could spend $3 million just to hire consultants. President Bush made a campaign promise to eliminate the $4.9 billion maintenance backlog that existed in the Park Service when he took office. That backlog is now estimated at $6.1 billion. Meanwhile, the Park Service has diverted funds from maintenance projects to conduct studies about outsourcing.
In the Pacific West region, several projects are being put off to pay for security measures and outsourcing, including: removing asbestos from old buildings in Yellowstone National Park, seismic safety rehabilitation for 18 buildings in Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and upgrading the sewage lagoon at Crater Lake National Park. These projects would protect our parks and visitors. That's why Congress set aside money for them.
Just because a private contractor knows how to run a business doesn't mean he knows how to take care of our public parks. A few years ago, one park needed five new courtesy docks on a lake. The lowest bidding contractor designed metal docks for an area where temperatures in the summer reach 115 to 120 degrees. Metal docks would have burned visitors, so the design had to be thrown out. That wasted $21,000, and only two docks could be built with the remaining funds.
In another incident, public workers used to handle their own garbage collection, at a cost of about $150,000 a year. Then they contracted it out. Six years later, the cost is about $500,000 a year. It is no wonder that environmentalists, park visitors, and public employees are so concerned about the effect this policy is having on our public resources. The Bureau of Land Management just wasted $60,000 to study 26 positions in two States. The BLM employees won their competitions.
In all, BLM will spend almost $2 million this year to show the administration that its employees are the most capable and efficient to do their jobs. The public servants at BLM don't need an expensive consultant to prove their commitment to preserving our public resources; they prove it every day. Congress doesn't need that, either. That is why we never voted for it
Ten million dollars in the Forest Service, $3 million in the Park Service, $12 million in BLM, and next year it will be more--unless we stop it.
Article I of the Constitution requires Congress, not the President, to authorize and appropriate funds. The administration is bypassing Congress to implement its own agenda and is using unauthorized funds to do it. We work hard to make sure we fund projects that are in the best interest of the taxpayers. The administration wants to take away that role. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in doing our duty as United States Senators.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, before the Senator from Washington leaves the floor, I would like to say it was only recently that I had the opportunity to see some of the natural beauty of the State of Washington. I, of course, had been to Seattle a number of times--the airport, went into town, and left. But I had the opportunity, within the past couple of months, to see various parts of Washington.
I will never forget the drive from Pasco, WA, to Seattle over the great Cascades. Those mountains and trees, the forests are so much different than the forests of Nevada. We are very proud of the great treasures we have around Lake Tahoe and other forests we have in Nevada. But the Cascades are in a different class, with totally different kinds of trees, different forests.
That is what the Forest Service is all about, having these people, who sign on to the Forest Service for life, to be the guardians and protectors of these great national treasures such as those around Lake Tahoe and those beautiful Cascades that I drove through.
To think we are considering putting these great national treasures out for profit rather than posterity frightens me. I appreciate very much the Senator from Washington standing up for the great Cascades. I am sure there are other beautiful parks in the State of Washington that you have described here that are as beautiful as I can imagine. But I want the Senator from Washington to know--and everyone within the sound of my voice--I was so impressed driving through those Cascades.
I repeat, I hope--and I know there is going to be efforts made to second degree this amendment because the majority is afraid of an up- or-down vote because we will win an up-or-down vote because people of both parties do not want to put these national treasures up for bid. What they are going to do is offer some kind of an amendment saying: Well, we have studied them. Let's get a report. And we will go ahead and continue doing the studies around Lake Mead, around the areas the Senator from Washington pointed out.
The reason this is such a calculated effort to hurt our parks is that they are taking money, as I outlined earlier, that has been set aside by congressional votes to take away the asbestos we have in some of our park facilities, to do work on sewers, and a lot of other things. They are taking money from that and studying whether it is a good idea to privatize. That is wrong. If they were going to do it the right way, they would come before Congress and say: We want to study what is going on in our national parks. Appropriate money for us.
They are doing indirectly what they know they can't do directly.
I hope everyone understands that this second-degree amendment, which will be offered shortly, is only an effort to help those who want to defeat this amendment to, in effect, get well by saying: Well, we voted for a study and the President has to report on these studies.
I want everyone to know a vote for this second-degree amendment--it may be a side-by-side amendment--is a vote to allow the outsourcing, the privatizing of the workforce of our national parks.
I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. President, I respond to my friend from Washington that this second-degree amendment, which I haven't seen but I have been told what is in it, would basically allow the outsourcing studies to go on. And they have no money to do that so they are robbing other programs to do it. So the answer to the Senator's question is, yes, they would continue doing the outsourcing studies, as they call them, in an effort to privatize the workforce in the national parks.
There is a handout that has been distributed. When you can't defeat a measure on its face, what you resort to is name-calling. Here is what they have written:
Now is not the time to promote inefficiency. The Reid
amendment would support the Federal employees union agenda to
grow the size of the Federal workforce and avoid competition
of any kind.
That is so mean spirited and so wrong. When you can't defeat an issue on its face, what you do is resort to name-calling. What they have done here is say, this is all a big ploy of the unions. I offered into the Record earlier today groups that support this amendment that is sponsored by the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Nevada. There wasn't a single union I put forward as favoring this. I am sure they do, but I haven't talked to them. But we have resorted to name-calling, saying this is bad because the unions like it. I am sure the unions do like it if, in fact, there are unions there. I don't really know. But this has nothing to do with unions.
It has everything to do with protecting a dedicated workforce and to not put these employees out to minimum wage. That is in effect what it is. I know what we will do as we do in all of these privatizing methods: We will come in with a low-ball figure. We can do it so much cheaper. And then as soon as the contract is entered, it balloons. I gave an example this morning. One of the parks was picking up garbage. It cost $150,000. They put it out for private bid. And now within 3 years time it is a half a million dollars for the same work Government employees were doing.
I appreciate very much the support of my friend from Washington. Again, I recognize her ability to support working men and women and not corporate America. I do know the Senator from Washington has done a great job of protecting the corporations in her State. But here is an issue that deals directly with working men and women. And, of course, the Senator from Washington has sided with the working men and women of our country.
Amendment No. 1754 To Amendment No. 1731
(Purpose: To substitute a requirement for an annual report on
competitive sourcing activities on lists required under the Federal
Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 that are performed for the
Department of the Interior by Federal Government sources)
Mr. President, it is my understanding that the time consumed by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich, will be counted toward the 25 minutes; is that right?
The unanimous consent request has 50 minutes divided-- actually 60 minutes. That time is equally divided. It is my understanding that the 50 minutes between Senator Voinovich and myself is to be equally divided. I simply ask that the time he already consumed should be counted against the 25 minutes. That is my statement in the form of a question.
I ask for that modification.
I object.
Mr. President, we will try this again. Is the time for Senator Enzi going to be counted toward the 25 minutes that the majority has?
Will the Chair inform me how long the Senator from Wyoming spoke?
Mr. President, everyone should understand a vote for the Enzi-Craig-Voinovich amendment is a vote to allow further outsourcing studies to go on. That is wrong.
What is this amendment about? It is about the Park Service spending millions of dollars in outsourcing studies which would siphon off funds critical to the needs within the parks.
The amendment that has been offered by a significant number of Senators--and I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Kerry and Senator Clinton as cosponsors--allows current studies to move forward on the implications to be evaluated. Current studies can go forward. A short pause is not too much to ask, for the protection of our national heritage is at stake.
The House included the same reasonable language in its bill. According to the House report, the Appropriations Committee was ``concerned about the massive scale of seemingly arbitrary targets and considerable costs of initiatives which are on such vast tracts that Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor understand the costs and implications of the decisions being made.''
That is the end of the quote. That is from the Republican House of Representatives report language in their appropriations bill.
The administration's own Park Service director has indicated the current
plan will reduce services to the public, will negatively impact the diversity of the Park Service, and will not save resources. That is from the administration's own Park Service director.
I would like to read from a letter sent to me by a Park Service employee. Remember, this applies to more than just the Park Service. The Forest Service, the BLM, and other Interior agencies are affected. This man even signed his name, and, of course, it jeopardizes his job. But he is a substantial man, I am sure. His name is Chuck Luttrell. It is a long letter. I will not read all of it.
Among other things, he said:
. . . will the public be tolerant of the selling of the
care and operation of our national treasures to a profit
corporation? Will our parks get the same care, will our
culture and natural heritage be safe in the hands of
companies that could turn out to be Enrons, Worldcoms?
He further states:
The United States of America owes and has pledged a
commitment to our military veterans. We have preferential
hiring regulations for veterans. A private contractor has no
such obligation. The Federal Government has the strongest
commitment to diversity and equality there is.
He says if it is put out to the private sector, veterans will have no further preference, and diversity will go out the window.
In recent years the Congress wrestled with the issues of
health care and insurance. Federal employees have excellent
health insurance options. Again contractors have far
different priorities and as we all know millions of people
working in private industry have no insurance.
Years ago Congress passed the Davis Bacon Act to ensure
that some workers earned a fair, liveable, negotiated wage.
We employees of Lake Mead's Maintenance Division are an
example of Congress' will. But any contractor that would
replace us has no such obligation.
The Park Service, in my 22 years of service, has never been
sufficiently funded. As an agency, we have always been on
starvation rations, and I can assure you that at my level,
Lake Mead N.R.A., there is absolutely no fat in the
system. For years our managers have been required to do
more with less.
The National Park System he talks about has 10 million visitors a year. Lake Mead is the second busiest park in the whole United States.
He goes on to say:
When it comes to saving the taxpayer's dollars nothing is
more efficient than having the work done for free. Nationwide
the National Park Service receives hundreds of thousands of
hours of donated labor. At Lake Mead N.R.A. alone last year
the public volunteered over 92,000 hours of which nearly
21,000 hours were in performing maintenance work. People will
volunteer to work for the National Park Service because they
recognize it is a noble and worthy gift to the country.
People do not, as we all know, volunteer to work for private
contractors.
He goes on to say:
Beyond being a workforce for our respective Parks, we
employees of the National Park Service are a national work
force. Lake Mead N.R.A. has sent people out over the years to
help with everything from oil spill cleanups to hurricane
relief. Every year Lake Mead employees are fighting this
Nation's wildland fires. This year, as always, we are on the
line protecting places like Denver, Colorado, and Show Low,
Arizona. But who will serve and man the fire camps when we
are gone?
It sounds cliche, but for the large majority of the
National Park Service's employees their work is more than
just a job. It is commonplace for people in my outfit to do
much more than just what is written in their position
descriptions. I am a carpenter. I also teach all of our
Rangers how to conduct water search and rescues. I'm not
special. The maintenance employees of Lake Mead N.R.A. serve
on the SCUBA team, on District fire engine companies, and
with search and rescue teams. We serve on Park committees and
often volunteer for special details. We are trained in first-
aid and are first responders. We direct traffic at accident
sites, we help land medical evacuation helicopters, and we
help handle victims and patients. We are also the eyes and
ears for our Rangers. We often are the ones who discover
trouble and report it. I don't think that it is too far of a
stretch to say that in some small way we are even part of
homeland security . . . let me say that we are essentially
ambassadors for the National Park Service. We are uniformed
employees constantly in the public eye. We are often the
first and sometimes the only ``official'' contact visitors
have with the Service. We answer questions, give directions,
and not all that uncommonly change a tire or two. We do all
these things and more, yet they are not in our job
descriptions and a contractor replacing us would not be
obligated to perform any of them.
I ask unanimous consent the full text of this letter be printed in the Record.
But it is just not employees trying to protect their jobs. They are people of good will who enjoy our parks. This is not a statement from an employee of the Park Service or BLM or the Forest Service. This is a letter from a person who cares about what is going on.
This letter is intended to voice my outrage at President
Bush's plans for privatizing our Nation's National Park
System.
The President's planned study and outsourcing of our
Nation's most valuable and symbolic resource should create
indignation in the heart of any American. Our parks have been
on the short end of the funding stick for years, but this
recent maneuver goes too far. As you know, private contracted
companies are only interested in generating the maximum
profit, no matter what corners and services get cut in the
process.
Will you allow our National Parks to become another victim
of the ``Wal-Mart Syndrome''? Are we going to allow a system
that services our nation's last natural treasures with a
network of uninsured low wage caretakers from the lowest
contract bidder?
The other factor that you should consider is the loss of
thousands of annual volunteer hours that our parks receive
from the American public. Hundreds of men and women give on
themselves each year to support our parks. However, no one
will wish to denote their personal time to maintain the
thousands of miles of roads and trails in our parks to the
benefit of some private company.
The President has gotten his war and desired tax cuts, but
I urge you as my representative to put your foot down and
stop this plan from proceeding.
Mr. President, from another citizen:
As a resident of Nevada I find the proposed outsourcing of
National Park Service personnel to be outrageous and almost
offensive.
Employees of the Park Service are driven by a respect for
the parks and love of what they do. Nevadans visiting our
national parks want members of the Park Service, not profit-
minded corporations, enriching their experiences. I oppose
privatizing the Park Service because it would hurt Nevadans,
endanger our national parks, and waste taxpayer money.
Too many private firms have gone this route, costing jobs
in local communities, opening doors for big business, while
causing the local economies to falter.
We live, work, and play in this State. Many of the Park
personnel are our neighbors and friends. They care deeply
about what they do.
I do not think a commercial corporation can do this--I have
visions of an HMO system for our National Lands and shudder.
Who gets the profit from this private enterprise? We've seen
enough of the favoritism the current administration employs,
and frankly, this seems another opportunity for more of the
same.
I would certainly no longer volunteer for the Forest
Stewardship activities in the Lake Tahoe basin. I doubt that
many would. Volunteering time for a profitmaking concern is
not logical--why help a corporation that doesn't care diddly
about the land, the lakes, or the environment increase their
profits and not be paid for the ``contribution?''
I'm one small voice but I am convinced that privatization
of our national park system would be another step to
demolishing what little resources we have now and what we can
hope to gain in the future to hold and treasure for future
generations.
I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
We read editorial comments from all over America opposing what is happening here. I have one editorial from the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, written by Michael O'Callaghan: ``These Are Your Parks.''
Among other things, he says:
Americans who love and use our nation's parks have been
wondering when former secretaries of the Interior were going
to speak. Two of them just did that Tuesday when Bruce
Babbitt and Stewart Udall challenged the attempt to privatize
the positions servicing the parks and the public visitors . .
. They both see the turning over of 70 percent of the jobs to
the private sector as both ``radical'' and ``reckless.''
Among other things, O'Callaghan states:
Privatization of services forces within our park system
would be but the first deadly step to turning them away from
public recreation into a big business. Next they could have
neon signs at park gates leading to Yellowstone Enron, RCA
Zion, U.S. Cellular, Crater Lake, or Death Valley Coors. How
about Basin Bank One? They already have signs in big city
ballparks and this could be their next big step.
I ask unanimous consent the full context of the O'Callaghan editorial be printed in the Record.
How much of my 25 minutes remains?
I repeat, anyone who supports the amendment of my friends, the distinguished Senator from Ohio and the two Senators from Wyoming, is voting to allow privatization of our national treasures to continue. Muddle it up--and that is what this amendment does--muddle it all you want, that is what it is. Some people think you can privatize everything. You cannot do that. You cannot do that. There are certain things that should be off limits. Our national treasures should be one of them.
I repeat for the third time, anyone who votes for the amendment of my friends from Ohio and Wyoming is voting to privatize. Say it however you want, but Udall and Babbitt, former Secretaries of the Interior, recognize what is taking place. We have been told by my friends that there is no such privatization plan underway. If that is true, I point out there should be no objection to my amendment.
Why study a plan, a privatization plan that will never be put into effect? My amendment puts a hold on the administration's privatization plans for this coming fiscal year.
I am getting more concerned each day. This Constitution I carry around with me sets forth the separation of powers doctrine, executive branch of government, legislative branch of government, judicial branch of government, separate but equal. One is not superior to the other. I see more and more coming from this administration that the Congress is not relevant.
If the President of the United States and his people want to study the privatization of our national treasures, let them come to Congress and get the money to do it. What are they doing? They are scavenging the money from present programs. I listed today a number not being done because they were using this money for studies.
We have already learned from the Park Service director who works under George Bush that the current plan will reduce service to the public, negatively impact the diversity of the Park Service workforce, and will not save resources. This is something that should
be under the prerogative of the legislative branch.
Let us provide money if it is such a good idea. Do not just steal it from other programs within the agencies. That is what they are doing. Therefore, we cannot do things to remove asbestos, to repair sewer systems, to take care of water systems, and to provide renovation in the parks.
President Bush said when he took office that he wanted to reduce the backlog of renovation, repair, and maintenance that needed to be done in our parks. Well, that was doublespeak, I guess. That is ``1984'' revisited--Orwell's book--because, in fact, it has gone up. The backlog has gone up from 4.9 billion to 6.1 billion. Let's do it the right way. Let's protect our constitutional prerogatives.
In 2002 and 2003 the agencies under the jurisdiction of this bill reprogrammed funds to study privatization. I repeat what the House committee report on the Interior bill noted: The massive privatization initiative appears to be ``on such a fast track that the Congress and the public are neither able to participate nor understand the costs and implications of the decisions being made'' by the administration. The committee's required programming guidelines are not being followed by the administration.
That is report language from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Shouldn't we go along with them? The answer is yes. This was in the Republican committee report. That is why, in part, the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee prohibited the expenditure of funds for more studies in 2004. That is precisely what my amendment does. We agree with the House.
Others have argued privatization will save money. The General Accounting Office estimated this may or may not be true. Studies of outsourcing at the Department of Defense, by contrast, where outsourcing is common, have been unable to demonstrate a single penny of cost saving. What we do know is that private companies will take care of our parks under their agenda.
We should be very proud that since World War II veterans get a preference. If you served in the military, you apply for a job, you take a test, and we give you a few extra bonus points because you served our country. The private sector will not have to do that. They do not have to follow the same rules and regulations we have dealing with hiring the handicapped. They have all kinds of ways to cut corners in the private sector. It is not going to save money.
What I believe, and lots of other people believe, is private companies will not take care of our parks and forests and other public lands with the same motivation the people who are now working there do. This has nothing to do with labor unions. I know there is a letter circulating saying this is an effort by the minority to protect labor unions. As I said earlier today, I read into the Record different entities which support this amendment: the Wilderness Society, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Parks Conservation Association, the American Federation of Government Employees. There is one union and three public service groups. This has nothing to do with unions. It has everything to do with protecting our national treasures.
I talked about one contractor who wasted $21,000 on a workable design to build courtesy docks on a lake in a park. Of course, the Park Service employees would have known that in a second. I talked about garbage collection. When the garbage was collected by Federal employees, it cost $150,000. Now it is done in the private sector, and it costs over $500,000.
I talked about public employees at Shenandoah National Park who rescued a lost boy. An official at Glacier National Park, who contracted out their janitorial services, said: ``We didn't really save anything from a dollars and cents perspective. The costs came in the above and beyond things the Park Service janitors regularly did that were outside their regular job descriptions.''
Privatization does not always work. It has not worked in Nevada at our two military bases. Privatization can affect the experience visitors have at our parks, as the Director of the Park Service has said. And I quoted that on two separate occasions just in the last few minutes.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Although my friend from Ohio and the two Senators from Wyoming have said privatization saves money for maintenance projects at our parks, in every instance that has proven to be false. These agencies have reprogrammed millions of dollars in 2002 and 2003 from maintenance projects to perform these unauthorized maintenance studies. These funds were diverted from maintenance projects in our parks.
I personally think privatization is a bad idea, but my amendment does not stop current studies. It prevents new ones from starting until Congress has more information about the administration's initiative and the effects it is having on our national parks and forests. They have already wasted all that money studying what goes on. Why don't they issue a report on that and stop, have a slowdown, a pause, a timeout on going forward with more study? That is what I have asked for in my amendment.
Mr. President, I am happy to yield to my friend, the manager of this bill.
Mr. President, I want the Record to reflect--I have been somewhat impersonal, and I do not want to do that--the Park Service Director now is a woman by the name of Fran Mainella. I want the Record to reflect she is the one who has indicated the current plan would reduce services to the public, negatively impact the diversity of the Park Service workforce, and will not save resources.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my friend, Senator Thomas, from Wyoming. He has always been so cordial and polite to me, as I am sure he is to everyone. He is a real advocate. My point is, he is absolutely wrong on this issue. His argument makes our point. He says: We are not privatizing. But that is what they are doing. They are studying all these different programs, and the purpose is to privatize.
The FAIR legislation: Of course, I understand what that bill was, but it also took into consideration that the money was to be appropriated to do the studies, not to be scavenged from other operations.
I read only one editorial from the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, but there are others. Here is one from the Los Angeles Times: ``Keep Pros Who Love Parks.''
The first paragraph reads:
In a memo to her bosses at the Department of the Interior,
National Park Service Director Fran Mainella said the
administrative costs of a plan to contract out some Park
Service jobs to private companies could seriously cut the
already rock-bottom level of visitor services and seasonal
operations. Unfortunately, that would only be one piece of
the damage.
They go on to say that this is a wrongheaded idea and bad for our national treasures:
The nation's most important natural and historic sites
deserve to be protected by workers with expertise, experience
and dedication to the parks. They are there now, and in the
proud green uniform of the National Park Service.
I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.
A small newspaper, smaller than the Las Vegas Sun, one from Missoula--of course, Missoula, MT--also talks about how wrong it is. They are so specific, and they know because they live in Glacier National Park. They say outsourcing simply is not good.
There are editorials from all over the country that talk about how bad an idea this is. Remember, anyone voting for the amendment offered by my friend from Ohio, Senator Voinovich, is voting to outsource, to privatize our national treasures. You can say: I really didn't mean to do that; all I did was want studies to be completed.
That isn't what we have here. We have agreed that they can complete the studies they have already engaged in, even though they stole the money from other things that needed to be done within the entities. But to vote for the Voinovich amendment is to vote for privatization. To vote for the Reid amendment is to vote for a time-out, a pause.
Amendment No. 1740
I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
Madam President, anyone who supports this amendment is supporting contracting out. All you have to do is read their amendment and that is what it says. They say the President will issue reports. He has not done that. That is the only thing it does. It allows contracting out to go forward without authorization of Congress and without any appropriation for the studies to be taken. Remember what they are doing now is scavenging the money from other work that needs to be done within the various public land entities. It is unfair. It is wrong. Anyone who supports the Voinovich amendment supports contracting out, without question. I urge a ``nay'' vote.
I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``no.''
Mr. President, everyone should understand that what has just taken place is to allow privatization to continue in our public land agencies. Clearly, that is what happened. I hope the Members of this body will approve the Reid amendment and allow this matter to go to conference. It appears this last vote was a cover-your-rear-end vote. So we probably will lose on this amendment. I think it is a shame.
I read into the Record how people who work at the agencies feel, editorial comments from all over the country, and comments from private people who know how important the parks are. Veterans preference would not be there; disabilities act would not apply. There are so many things that are unfair to the dedicated people working for our public land agencies.
I hope there will be a ``yea'' vote for this amendment.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``Yea.''
Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Energy and Water Development Committee and a member of the Interior Committee, I rise to express my support for the Zero Energy Buildings program. As a result of the administration's reorganization of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, this program was shifted from the solar technologies account to the buildings account. Yet, the administration requested $4 million to fund this program from the Energy and Water Bill--a position that both the House and Senate subcommittees did not support.
This awkward funding situation, if not fixed, will cause us to lose momentum on this important program. Solar initiatives are generally funded from the Energy and Water development bill. Building initiatives are generally funded from Interior. It is my intention to work to restore funding for this program in a manner acceptable to both subcommittees.
ZEB boasts some major achievements given its relative youth. The United States Department of Energy, teaming with homebuilders, energy efficiency professionals, and the renewables industry--primarily the solar industry--are responsible for the creation of the next generation of homes. These homes are more energy efficient than ever and self- generate to the point where their progeny are expected to reach net zero energy consumption. We need these homes to proliferate so that we can enjoy increased national security through a reduction in imported fuels; a cleaner environment; a more reliable grid; and as important as any element, cheaper and more predictable energy costs for American homeowners and small businesses.
Several of the largest homebuilders in the United States now participate in this program, including: Pulte Homes, Centex Homes, Shea Homes, Pardee/Weyerhauser, Morrison Homes, and Mercedes Homes. Many of these have sent letters of support for the program, and it is my understanding that about one dozen additional homebuilders are planning to join with DOE on this program.
The Solar Decathlon held on the Mall in Washington, DC last year, which attracted over 100,000 visitors, featured Zero Energy Homes constructed by university teams from across the United States.
I am proud to say that a Zero Energy Home is now under construction in Las Vegas and will serve as the ``show home'' for next year's International Builders Show hosted by NAHB, which is expected to be attended by more than 90,000 building industry representatives.
In a strong endorsement letter of the program, Michael Luzier, president of the NAHB Research Center, states:
I urge you to find funds within DOE's budget so the Zero
Energy Home program continuity will not be lost. To lose the
momentum toward energy independence that this program has
created within the home building industry would be a shame. I
fear that without funding in FY '04, we will lose the
interest of builders we have been working with and the
progress in home energy efficiency we all support.
For all of the above reasons, I request the chairman's assistance in working with the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee to find funding for this program in a way that compliments and does not harm other worthy efforts.