Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar:

No. 223 and on the Secretary's Desk, PN443 and PN182.

Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, Executive Item No. 223 is the nomination of John Woodcock to be a District Judge for the District of Maine. I am very pleased to rise tonight to speak on his behalf. Maine's senior Senator, Olympia Snowe, and I are very proud to have recommended John for this prestigious position on the Federal bench.

I have known John Woodcock for many years. John, in fact, recruited me several years ago to serve as a trustee on the board of the Eastern Maine Medical Center, which he has chaired for 23 years. This is typical of John's service to his community. He has devoted countless hours volunteering his time and energy to his alma mater, Bowdoin College; Eastern Maine Charities; the Maine State Commission on Arts and Humanities; the Good Samaritan Agency; and the Bangor Children's Home, to name just a few.

The Woodcock family has a proud tradition of public service that spans generations. In fact, two of John's sons have served as members of my staff.

Jack currently serves on my Governmental Affairs Committee staff, while Patrick works as a college intern in my Bangor office. I once remarked to John--and repeated it at the Judiciary Committee hearing, which the Presiding Officer chaired that day--that his sons' hard work and professional demeanor were proof that the apple does not fall far from the tree. After the hearing, John wrote to me, in his typically gracious and unassuming and self-effacing way, and said in his mind the tree has always been his wife, Beverly.

Lest John's modesty hide his extensive accomplishments, let me take just a moment to share with my colleagues his qualifications to be a Federal judge.

John began practicing law nearly 30 years ago and has built a distinguished career as a litigator. He has served as an assistant district attorney for the State of Maine and has worked in private practice as an associate and as a partner of several law firms in the great State of Maine.

In 1991, he joined several colleagues to form the Bangor law firm of Weatherbee, Woodcock, Burlock & Woodcock.

During his career, John has served as lead counsel in 47 separate appeals to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court on issues ranging from trust law to criminal law.

John has also taken an active role in improving the standards of the legal profession, serving, for example, on the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's Advisory Committee on Professional Responsibility. As a member of this committee, John worked to draft a series of aspirational goals to help guide lawyers who elect to advertise with their professional obligations in this area.

Those of us who are familiar with John Woodcock's sterling character and stellar legal career were not surprised when the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously rated him as ``well qualified''--the highest possible rating. Indeed, it would be difficult for Senator Snowe and I to come up with another candidate better suited to serve as a Federal judge in the State of Maine.

The Senate Judiciary Committee also voted unanimously to approve his nomination on June 5.

Mr. President, John has the legal excellence, the temperament, and the integrity to serve on the Federal bench. I have every confidence he will faithfully follow the law as interpreted by higher courts and that he will bring justice to the parties before him.

I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support John Woodcock's nomination for a Federal district court judgeship, and I urge my colleagues, in voting this evening, to confirm this terrific individual.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that at 10 a.m. on Friday, June 13, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 218, the nomination of R. Hewitt Pate to be an Assistant Attorney General; provided further that the Senate immediately proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, and that following the vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act, to streamline and strengthen the way we help our States, communities, and first responders protect our homeland. I am pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues including Senators Carper, Rockefeller, Voinovich, Feingold, Sununu, Coleman, Pryor, Allard, and Akaka.

Last year, the Senate spent nearly three months on the Homeland Security Act, yet the law contains virtually no guidance on how the Department is to assist State and local governments with their homeland security needs. In fact, the 187-page Homeland Security Act mentions the issue of grants to first responders in but a single paragraph. As a result, the Department of Homeland Security currently allocates billions of dollars of grant funds according to formulas borrowed from the USA Patriot Act. The Homeland Security Act left the decisions on how Federal dollars should be spent or how much money should be allocated for another day. Today is that day.

Much of the burden for homeland security has fallen on the shoulders of State and local officials across America, especially our first responders--the firefighters, police officers and ambulance crews on the front lines. Over the past months, the Committee on Governmental Affairs has listened to them describe the challenges associated with constructing effective homeland security strategies. We have also listened to State and local officials as well as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. This series of three hearings looked at the issues from a variety of perspectives and helped shape the legislation we introduce today.

At our first hearing, we heard from first responders: our firefighters, law enforcement officials, and emergency medical technicians, who discussed the challenges they face protecting our communities.

Arlington Fire Chief Ed Plaugher, the incident commander at the Pentagon on September 11, told the Committee that he had received little homeland security funding since 9-11. Chief Paugher also underscored the gaps in the homeland security planning process. Many law enforcement officials shared Chief Plaughter's concerns. Portland, ME, Police Chief Mike Chitwood, for example, expressed his frustrations about the roadblocks to accessing Federal funding and the lack of coordination by Federal agencies with local jurisdictions.

Secretary Ridge testified at our second hearing. He discussed the ongoing challenges involved in providing Federal resources to States, communities and first responders. He also outlined ways we can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of homeland security grant programs to help first responders get the resources they need.

Secretary Ridge's comments underscored the need to improve the way the Department of Homeland Security's first responder grant programs are organized within the Department, and the way the Department distributes these grants.

The Committee's third hearing featured State and local officials who expressed their support for more flexibility, coordination, and simplification of Federal homeland security grant programs.

Maine's emergency manager, Art Cleaves, said the current maze of homeland security programs has caused so much paperwork that States may be forced to hire additional staff just to deal with a multiplicity of forms and planning documents.

Other witnesses, including Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, outlined the need for coordinating homeland security funding across the Federal Government. Their comments underscored how communities can access funding for interoperable communications equipment through six different Federal programs, including the FIRE Act, COPS, two Department of Health and Human Services' bio-terrorism grant programs, FEMA's Emergency Management Performance Account, and ODP's State homeland security grant program. Despite the unified goals of these grants--to purchase interoperable equipment--Federal agencies are under no requirement to coordinate their efforts.

While State and local officials agreed on the need to coordinate programs and make it easier to apply for grants, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and Governor Romney commented on the differences between States and localities regarding how best to allocate funds, through States or directly to the local level.

I am pleased that these hearings have helped to build a consensus on this issue. Yesterday, I received a letter from State and local organizations including the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Governors Association, which have come together in support of our approach, to provide funds through States, but to require that eighty percent be passed through to the local level.

Our legislation will provide a map that will better connect our front-line protectors with the funding they need. It will eliminate duplicative homeland security planning requirements; make it easier to apply for grants; coordinate the many grant programs that provide homeland security funds; and promote a community-based approach to homeland security funding. I would like to briefly describe the approach we have taken.

The first provision of our legislation would promote the same kind of coordination among Federal agencies that we require of our States and localities. It would require Federal agencies to build a clear, well- marked path that would lead our first responders to the funding that enables them to do what they do best: prepare for and respond to emergencies.

Second, the legislation would coordinate government-wide homeland security funding by promoting one-stop-shopping for homeland security funding opportunities. It would establish an information clearinghouse to assist first responders and State and local governments in accessing homeland security grant information and other resources within the new department. The clearinghouse would improve access to homeland security grant information, coordinate technical assistance for vulnerability and threat assessments, provide information regarding homeland security best practices, and compile information regarding homeland security equipment purchased with Federal funds.

The legislation also recognizes the importance of building on existing successful programs, such as the FIRE Act, which provides funding directly to fire departments for equipment and training on a competitive, peer reviewed basis. It would allow the FIRE Act to continue to be administered in its current form, but would coordinate its activities with other Federal programs. For example, it would make sure that two neighboring jurisdictions receiving funding from the FIRE Act are aware of industry standards regarding the interoperability of communications equipment.

The third provision of our legislation would strengthen the Office for Domestic Preparedness's State Homeland Security Grant Program by simplifying the grant process, promoting more local input in homeland security funding, and promoting more flexibility in the use of funds.

The lack of guidance in the Homeland Security Act has forced State and local governments and first responders to engage in a 12-step odyssey to obtain funding from ODP's State homeland security grant program. And this program is just one of several homeland security grant programs to which a State, locality, police, or fire department can apply.

The legislation distills the homeland security grant process from twelve steps to two. First, State and local governments and emergency responders will develop a three-year homeland security plan that outlines vulnerabilities and capabilities, and a process for allocating resources to meet State and local needs. This plan will also require the development of

measurable goals and objectives, such as increasing the number of local jurisdictions participating in local and statewide exercises. Second, States and communities will apply for funds based on this plan, which they can revise each year pending approval from the Secretary.

This legislation would ensure that local government officials and first responders have a louder voice in the homeland security planning process and can access homeland security dollars and equipment in an efficient manner. It would also require that eighty percent of these resources reach the local level within sixty days of the grant allocation.

When I met with the Maine fire chiefs, they expressed concerns about the lack of flexibility in homeland security funding, especially in the area of overtime costs for training. They told me that since homeland security funds cannot be used for most overtime costs, some of Maine's firefighters have been forced to turn down training opportunities at the National Fire Academy. Because there was no funding to pay the overtime costs for someone to fill in while the firefighter trained at the Academy, they had to forego this valuable training opportunity.

Our legislation would address their concerns by allowing funds to be used not only for planning, equipment, exercises, and training, but also for certain overtime costs associated with training activities.

Our legislation also recognizes that certain high threat areas have critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed immediately. This legislation will direct the Secretary to use ten percent of total funding for this program to address these critical vulnerabilities. While this provision provides flexibility, it requires that any direct funding be consistent with the State plan. Furthermore, this legislation formally authorizes the Emergency Management Preparedness Grant, which provides resources to the backbone of our emergency management structure, and ensures an adequate level of funding under this program.

While some States and communities face a more imminent threat, our Nation must provide for the safety of all of our citizens. This grant program maintains the current baseline level of homeland security assistance to each State. It then allocates the bulk of the funds not based solely on population, as is the case now, but on risk assessments undertaken for each State.

Right now, States and localities must complete numerous homeland security plans, each with its own set of questions and benchmarks. Terrorists will not be deterred by paperwork or by communities answering the same question six different ways.

That's why our legislation would streamline the planning process by requiring a single set of cooperatively developed performance standards to help States and localities evaluate homeland security plans.

When I met with officials of Maine's Emergency Management Agency, they told me that the rigid structure of many homeland security grant programs frustrates their efforts to help first responders secure communities across our State.

In past years, for example, the Office for Domestic Preparedness's homeland security grant program allocated the same percentage of each State's funds for training, equipment, exercises, and planning, thus leaving no room to accommodate different States' priorities. In allocating funds this way, the Federal Government effectively said that Maine must spend exactly the same portion of its homeland security dollars on training as Hawaii. Moreover, States cannot transfer surplus funds from one category to another to meet their needs.

As a result, Maine may be forced to return some of the Homeland Security funds allocated for exercises. This one size fits all formula used in past homeland security funding makes no sense. I believe all States and communities should have the flexibility to spend homeland security dollars where they are most needed. That is why this legislation would allow flexibility in homeland security funds that have already been appropriated but remain unspent.

The current homeland security grant structure is unacceptable. Secretary Ridge has done an admirable job distributing billions of dollars of homeland security funds based on borrowed authorities and with no real guidance. It is time to deal the Secretary a full hand of cards and give our States, localities, and first responders a straight path to homeland security programs, not a maze. We must topple the mountain of paperwork. We must help, not hinder, our front-line defenders.

I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation to build a stronger and better homeland security partnership in the months and years ahead.

Mr. President, I, too, am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Landrieu, Specter, Bingaman, and Alexander, in offering this amendment to reduce our consumption of oil by a million barrels a day by the year 2013. This is a very reasonable and achievable goal, and I congratulate the Senator from Louisiana for coming up with this initiative and reaching out to those of us who share her concern that our Nation is too dependent on foreign oil.

Increasing energy efficiency is the single most effective way to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Without a greater focus on energy- efficiency measures, the Energy legislation before us, which has many valuable provisions, will not be effective in reducing our dependence on foreign oil. As long as we continue to guzzle foreign oil, we will be at the mercy of those nations that control that oil. We are already nearly 60-percent reliant on foreign sources, and the Energy Information Administration projects that our dependence will increase to 70 percent by the year 2010 if we do not act. If we do not do more to improve the energy efficiency standards, America will only grow more dependent on foreign oil and the price of gas and home heating oil will only rise accordingly.

Our amendment would help to reduce oil consumption by a million barrels a day by the year 2013. It would do so by giving the President the flexibility to decide among any number of simple energy saving measures to achieve these savings. For example, simply weatherizing homes which use home heating oil could save 80,000 barrels of oil per day. Using energy-efficient engine oil could save another 100,000 barrels per day. Just keeping our tires on our automobiles properly inflated could save 200,000 barrels per day. In short, by taking a few easily adopted measures, we could reduce our consumption of oil by a million barrels a day.

We currently use about 19 million barrels a day. So this would make a real difference. It would result in a reduction of consumption of imported oil. Reducing our consumption by 1 million barrels per day will also help to keep energy prices down and will keep billions of American dollars at home where they belong. In fact, this proposal we have advanced could save American consumers upwards of $20 billion each year.

I call upon my colleagues to join us today in supporting our commonsense measure to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by reducing our consumption of oil by a million barrels a day. It is right for our environment. It is right for our economy. It is right for the American consumer.

I yield the floor.

amendment no. 865

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, the people of Maine have always been faithful stewards of their forest lands because we understand and appreciate its tremendous value to our economy and to our way of life.

From the vast tracts of undeveloped land in the north, to the small woodlots in the south, forest land has helped to shape the character and the heritage of my State.

While our commitment to stewardship has preserved the forests for generations, there is a new and troubling thereat to Maine's forest lands that requires a fresh approach. This threat is suburban sprawl. It has already consumed tens of thousands of acres of forest land in the southern part of my State. Sprawl occurs because the economic value of forests or crop land cannot compete with the value of developed land.

This problem is particularly acute in southern Maine where there has been more than a 100-percent increase in urbanized sprawl over the past two decades. This has resulted in the labeling of the greater Portland area as the ``sprawl capital of the Northeast.''

I am alarmed by the amount of working forest land and open space in southern and coastal Maine that has given way to strip malls and cul- de-sacs. Our State is working to respond to this challenge because once that land is paved over, it is gone forever. Those forest lands and those small woodlots are lost forever once that land is developed.

The people of Maine in response to this concern have approved a $50 million bond issue to preserve land through the Land for Maine's Future Board. They have also worked hard supporting local efforts to preserve open space. And they have contributed their time, their energy, and their money to the work done by our State's 88 land trusts.

The people of my State are dedicated to preserving our working forests and protecting our communities from sprawl. It is now time for the Federal

Government to lend a helping hand in support of those efforts.

Today, I am introducing the Suburban Community Forestry and Open Space Act. This legislation, which was drafted with the advice of landowners, conservation groups, and the Maine State Forester, establishes a $50 million grant program within the U.S. Forest Service to support locally driven projects that will preserve our working forests. Local governments and nonprofit organizations would compete for funds to purchase land outright or to buy conservation easements to keep the forest land threatened by development in their traditional use.

Projects funded under this legislation must be targeted at lands located in parts of the country that are threatened by sprawl. The legislation requires that Federal funds be matched dollar for dollar by State, local, or private resources so that it is a true partnership to preserve this open space and working forests.

This grant program would help to promote sustainable forestry as well as public access to our forest lands. My legislation protects the rights of property owners with the inclusion of a ``willing seller'' provision, which requires the consent of a landowner if a parcel of land is eligible to participate in the program.

The grant program would also allow nonprofits and municipalities, but not the Federal Government, to hold title to the land or the easements purchased under this program. The $50 million is a modest amount but it would help to achieve a number of stewardship objectives.

First, my legislation would help prevent forest fragmentation and preserve our working forests, helping to maintain the supply of timber that fuels Maine most significant industry.

Second, the resources made available by my legislation would be a valuable tool for communities that are struggling to manage growth and prevent sprawl. Currently, if a community trying to cope with the effects of sprawl turns to the Federal Government for help, they would find that no assistance is available.

The Forest Legacy Program, which has been critical in preserving undeveloped forest land in my State and many others, is really not suitable for the kinds of projects my bill envisions. My bill would change that by making the Federal Government an active partner in preserving forest lands and managing sprawl, while leaving the decisionmaking at the State and local level where it belongs.

Last year, this legislation was included in the forestry title of the Senate-approved version of the farm bill which passed this Senate by a vote of 58-40. Unfortunately, the forestry title was stripped out of the farm bill conference report, despite bipartisan support for provisions such as my legislation.

There is a great deal that needs to be done to protect our working forests for the next generation. I believe the legislation I am reintroducing today will help advance that goal. I am grateful for the support of many of the people and organizations that are leading the effort to support this legislation. By enacting the Suburban and Community Forestry and Open Space Act, Congress can provide a real boost to local conservation initiatives, help prevent sprawl, and help sustain the vitality of natural resource-based industries.

Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record several letters of support for my legislation. They are from the National Association of State Foresters, the New England Forestry Foundation, The Trust for Public Land, and the Pacific Forest Trust. I ask unanimous consent that those letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment offered today by Chairman Grassley, and to add my voice to those of my colleagues who have risen today in support of it. I have long been a supporter of the refundable child credit. I was a leading proponent of the increase in the child tax credit for low-income families that was enacted as part of the 2001 tax bill, and I strongly supported this provision when it was added to the Senate version of the Tax Act passed last month.

The economic growth package the President signed into law last week gives tax relief to all working Americans, including low-income families, many of whom will see a substantial reduction in their taxes. But some low-income families could not receive the benefit of the increased child tax credit that the package provides because the 10 percent earned-income threshold was not accelerated to 15 percent as the Senate version of the package provided. This amendment restores the acceleration of that threshold as this Chamber originally provided.

More than 119,000 Mainers will benefit from the increase in the child tax credit that we approved as part of economic growth package. The action we take today expands the reach of this assistance to thousands more hard-working Maine families. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was keenly aware that nearly 200,000 enlisted men and women could claim this credit for their children if we expanded the guidelines. Doing so sends exactly the right message of appreciation as many of them return home from fighting for the cause of freedom in Iraq.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the ``National Security Personnel System Act,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, the ``National Security Personnel System Act,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, a vote in favor of the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Daschle, would prevent timely enactment of H.J. Res. 51. Swift passage of a clean bill allows the measure to move as quickly as possible to the President for his signature. Any delay will lead to a default on the national debt and the inability of our government to meet its financial obligations, including its obligation to pay Social Security checks on time.

With the House adjourned for the Memorial Day recess, I am concerned that any further delay in enactment of the debt limit bill will cause Social Security beneficiaries to receive their monthly checks much later than scheduled. While I agree with Senator Daschle that the COLA should not be reduced, ironically, his amendment would immediately hurt those seniors for whom Social Security is a lifeline by delaying receipt of their checks. I would never vote to cut or tax Social Security benefits. With far too many seniors on limited budgets, I cannot support adoption of an amendment that could lead to a delay in the delivery of these vital benefits.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill which Senator Voinovich and I have submitted. Our amendment would, among other things, provide for the creation of a National Security Personnel System encompassing the Defense Department's 735,000 civilian employees.

In April, the Department delivered to Congress a proposal to grant the Secretary of Defense authority to dramatically restructure the Department's civilian personnel system. The proposal was designed to provide the Department with the flexibility and agility it needs so it can respond to sudden changes in our security environment. To accomplish this objective, the Department's proposal would give Secretary Rumsfeld not only the personnel flexibilities Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security, but also additional authority to unilaterally waive many personnel regulations.

Of primary importance to the Department of Defense were the following three personnel flexibilities: First, the authority to replace the current General Schedule, 12-grade pay system with a performance-based pay system in which workers would no longer be awarded an automatic, across-the-board pay increase; second, the authority to conduct on-the- spot hiring for hard-to-fill positions; and third, the authority to raise collective bargaining to the national level rather than negotiating with more than 1,000 local units.

Our proposal would grant the Secretary these authorities. It would provide the Secretary of Defense with the three pillars of his personnel proposal and thus would allow for a needed overhaul of an antiquated system. But we do not give the Secretary all he asked for; instead, we have attempted to strike the right balance between promoting a flexible system and protecting employee rights.

Over the past 3 weeks, Senator Voinovich and I have repeatedly reached out to a wide variety of interested parties in an attempt to put together a bipartisan proposal. As of today, I believe we have made a considerable amount of headway toward forging a consensus.

For example, in certain areas, such as employee appeals, I am not prepared to support granting the Secretary the authority to immediately do away with the Merit System Protection Board in order to create an internal appeals process. Instead, my amendment allows for a gradual transition from the MSPB to a new appeals process. During the transition, the Department will consult with MSPB while it develops and tests a new appeals process.

I am also not prepared to grant the Secretary the authority to waive the

collective bargaining rights of employees. Instead, my amendment places statutory deadlines of 180 days on the amount of time any one issue can be under consideration by one of the three components of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. This alone should make a significant difference in the timeliness of the bargaining process, and prevent the occasional case from dragging on for years.

The bottom line is, we believe that our amendment would give the Secretary the authorities he needs to manage and sustain a civilian workforce some 735,000 strong. Our amendment would grant the administration's request for a new pay system, on-the-spot hiring authority, and collective bargaining at the national level, not individually with 1300 local union affiliates. In addition, our amendment would enable the Secretary to offer separation pay incentives for employees nearing retirement; to contract with individuals for services performed outside the United States in support of the Defense Department; to offer special pay rates for highly qualified experts like scientists, engineers and medical personnel; and to help mobilized Federal civilian employees whose military pay is less than their Federal civilian pay.

The House Armed Services Committee has already included a personnel amendment in their own authorization bill. For that reason, I was dismayed to learn that our amendment was not deemed ``relevant'' to the underlying legislation, and therefore shall not be made part of the Senate's bill.

But I have worked hard to find a consensus approach, and I don't intend to stop until this goal has been achieved. I believe that the House approach can be improved upon. This is why, on Friday, I plan to re-introduce this legislation as a free-standing bill and to hold a hearing on it the first week of June. Quite simply, I believe civil service personnel reform of this magnitude is too important an issue for the Senate to remain silent.

I urge my colleagues to work with Senator Voinovich and me as we continue our efforts on this very important issue. In addition, I would like to thank Senators Warner and Levin for all the advice and input they have already provided. In addition to serving as ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin is a senior member of the Governmental Affair Committee, which I chair. As such, he brings expertise to the process from both perspectives. I hope that the bill I introduce on Friday will enjoy his support and that of the chairman.

Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Talent, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Snowe, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes we have been allocated be allocated among the three of us as follows: 3 minutes for the Senator from Maine, 3 minutes for the Senator from Missouri, 3 minutes for the Senator from Texas, and 1 final minute for the Senator from Maine.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, our amendment addresses an increasing practice in the Department of Defense to bundle contracts to award a larger contract. The problem with that is it disadvantages smaller companies that cannot bid on a giant contract but would be perfectly able to responsibly perform the work if the contract were broken up into smaller segments.

Contract bundling has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. In fact, it has reached record levels. Contract bundling is up by 19 percent since 1992, and the result of this is the shutout of many small firms from doing business with the Federal Government.

Our amendment would require that the Department of Defense perform rigorous analysis on bundled contracts in excess of $5 million. It would require that alternatives to bundling be considered and that a determination be made that the benefits of bundling the contracts substantially exceed the benefits of identified alternatives.

We have focused on DOD because the Small Business Administration indicates that ``bundling is rooted at the Department of Defense.''

The Collins-Talent-Hutchison-Snowe amendment is necessary because bundling has had an unfortunate effect on the U.S. Government contractor base. According to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Angela Styles:

This issue is a dramatically reduced contractor base, and

the mounting lost opportunity cost of choosing among fewer

firms with fewer ideas and innovations to deliver products

and services at lower prices.

She noted:

The negative effects of contract bundling over the past 10

years cannot be overestimated. . . . Not only are there fewer

small businesses receiving Federal contracts, but the Federal

Government is suffering from a smaller supplier base . . .

when small businesses are excluded from Federal opportunities

through contract bundling, our agencies, small businesses,

and taxpayers lose.

That is exactly the case. When contracts are bundled so that only a few large firms can bid on them, the United States does not get as good a deal. The United States Government is not taking advantage of the many innovative small firms that are capable of doing the work for the Federal Government if the contract was awarded in smaller amounts.

This is a matter of making sure we have a healthy industrial base, that we have as many firms competing as vigorously as possible to do work for the Federal Government, and of making sure our smaller companies have a fair shot at competing for Federal contracts. This amendment will make a real difference for our small businesses.

I yield to the Senator from Missouri.

I thank the Senator from Missouri for his hard work. He has been an advocate for attacking this problem for some time and it has been a pleasure to work with him.

One woman business owner really summed up what this is all about. She said, bundling is a shield that keeps large companies from having to compete with smaller firms.

Such a state of affairs is ultimately unhealthy for the Federal procurement system. We rely on a vigorous competition to keep prices low and to ensure we are purchasing high quality goods and services. This amendment is going to make a difference in our procurement system and a difference for small businesses. For that reason, it has been strongly endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses and the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

I end my remarks by thanking the distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking member for their cooperation and assistance. I ask for the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, our amendment addresses a practice known as ``contract bundling,'' which has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. An October 2002 report for the Small Business Administration that measured the trends and impact of bundling over the last decade concluded that: the number and size of bundled contracts issued by federal agencies has reached record levels; small businesses are receiving disproportionately small shares of the work on bundled contracts; although only 8.6 percent of contracts were bundled, bundled contracts accounted for 44.5 percent of the money spent through contracts from 1992-2001; large firms won 67 percent of all prime contract dollars and 75 percent of bundled contract dollars; and small firms won only 18 percent of prime contract dollars and 13 percent of bundled contract dollars.

Moreover, the problem is getting worse. In 2001, 29,000 contracts were bundled government-wide, up eight percent from 2000 and 19 percent since 1992.

Our amendment would require that DOD perform rigorous analysis on bundled contracts in excess of $5 million. It would require that alternatives be considered and that a determination be made that the benefits of bundling ``substantially exceed'' the benefits of the identified alternatives. Savings in administrative or personnel costs alone would not constitute a sufficient justification for consolidation ``unless the total amount of the cost savings is found to be substantial in relation to the total cost of the procurement.''

Our amendment focuses on DOD where, the SBA report notes, ``Bundling is rooted.'' Although bundling rates occur at levels as high or higher at the General Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, and Treasury, ``the high level of spending by the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Office of the Defense Secretary focus attention on defense contracts as the primary source of bundling.''

This amendment is about more than just allowing small businesses to compete for contracts on a level playing field; it is about preserving our government's contractor base.

According to Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Angela Styles the issue is a dramatically reduced contractor base, which has created a lost opportunity cost caused by choosing among fewer firms with fewer ideas and innovations to deliver products and services at lower prices.

Further, she notes that when small businesses are excluded from federal opportunities through contract bundling everyone, including our agencies, small businesses, and the taxpayers lose.

Our amendment sets in place a higher level of scrutiny than exists under current law and will be a good start in beginning to reverse a problem that has been building up over the last decade. For that reason, small business advocates such as the National Federation of Independent Business and the National Black Chamber of Commerce support it.

This amendment will make a real difference for small business. One small business owner wrote to me in support of my amendment because, she said, bundling had made contracts of the size they could hope to obtain disappear. She had, she wrote, been knocking on the doors at the Department of Defense for years, without any success due to bundling.

Another small business owner wrote to me that bundling had essentially created a monopoly in his line of business. Even small businesses that have a federal preference in contracting under various programs have seen the beneficial effects of the preferences all but wiped out due to bundling. One woman business owner pointed out in a letter to me what bundling truly is: a shield that keeps large companies from having to compete with smaller firms.

Such a state of affairs is ultimately unhealthy for a federal procurement system that relies primarily upon vigorous competition to keep prices low and the quality of goods and services high.

I am pleased that our amendment has received the support of the distinguished chairman and ranking member, and that it will become part of the defense bill the Senate passes today or tomorrow.

Mr. President, my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, and I have offered this amendment that will pull back the curtain on government contracts to rebuild post-war Iraq, one of the most ambitious reconstruction projects since World War II.

The government already has awarded numerous contracts towards this purpose. These contracts provide for an enormous scope of goods and services ranging from capital construction to the administration of key air and sea port facilities to the rebuilding of Iraq's education and health systems. One contract even provides for such fundamentals as teaching local leaders about the basics of the democratic process.

In all, billions of Federal taxpayer dollars are being spent. It is Congress's job to ensure that they are spent wisely and fairly.

Our amendment would ensure that the basic facts regarding these and other contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq are publicly available. For those contracts that have been awarded outside of the usual process of full and open competition, our amendment would require that, within 30 days of entering the contract, the contract's price, the scope of the work to be performed, the contractors asked to bid, and the criteria by which they were chosen must be made known, through publication in the Federal Register.

In addition, the agency head also would need to make publicly available the justification for awarding the contract on a basis less than the full and open competition standard.

These provisions have become necessary because of the way in which Federal agencies contracting for goods and services in Iraq have been awarding these contracts.

Not a single Iraq reconstruction contract has been awarded on the basis of ``full and open competition'' embodied in the 1984 Competition in Contracting Act, whereby interested parties are notified and given a chance to bid. The rationale for this standard was not only to provide basic fairness for all potential bidders, but also to reassure the public that their tax dollars were being spent wisely and in the public interest.

Instead, these contracts have either been awarded on the basis of limited competition, where the bidders are handpicked, or, in some cases, without any competition at all.

The agencies involved generally have singled out a small number of bidders based on the agency's preconceived notions about the bidders' ability to perform the contract. Such a process, we are told, was necessitated by the short time frame in which the contracts had to be planned and awarded.

Such a process, however, necessarily raises questions regarding fundamental fairness and impartiality and whether tax money is being spent in a responsible manner. Because we don't have all of the facts regarding these contracts, speculation has arisen over their content, their price tags, and the basis of their awards.

For example, I was distressed to learn that a sole source contract entered into by the United States Army Corps of Engineers called for much more work to be performed than was initially indicated. This is because the Corps only released the information that it deemed relevant. Under our amendment, the public will be able to judge for itself whether the government was justified in awarding a contract bundle on less than full competition. The public deserves no less.

At the same time, we have included in our amendment provisions to ensure that classified material remains safe and is provided only to congressional committees with oversight authority.

It is my hope that the publication of the key information in these contracts will serve some of the same goals as the Competition in Contracting Act, such as reassuring the public that reconstruction in Iraq is being done in a fair manner and in furtherance of the public interest.

Alternatively, keeping these justifications secret defeats the legal safeguards that protect full and open competition. Further, it breeds what may be unjustified fear that the contracting process is being run for the benefit of a select few rather than the Iraqi people.

Ensuring that this information is available to the public will help maintain confidence that our work in rebuilding Iraq is being undertaken in a manner best calculated to advance the well-being of the Iraqi people, and will help dispel criticisms that the process by which these contracts are being awarded is unfair or unjustified.

I want to thank the distinguished chair and ranking member of the ASC

for working with Senator Wyden and me on this amendment, which I understand will be made part of the manager's package.

I was trying to defer to my more senior colleague but, of course, I would be delighted to have the opportunity to proceed.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, who, as always, is extremely gracious, and the Senator from Michigan, for allowing me to proceed, and the chairman of our distinguished committee.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member for their extraordinary efforts in producing this bill. The mark-up of this legislation was conducted in a true spirit of cooperation. While certain portions of this bill engendered spirited debate, the points of controversy are relatively few. It is tribute to both Senator Warner and Senator Levin that we completed our mark-up in a remarkably short period of time.

This legislation includes authorization for the vital resources that the young men and women in our military require in defending our Nation. With terrorist attacks continuing across the globe, and our troops helping the Iraqi people to rebuild their country, this legislation will ensure that our military has the tools necessary to fight, and ultimately win, the war against terrorism.

Since joining the Armed Services Committee, I have been a member of the Personnel Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over military pay, housing, and health care. In recent years, we have made tremendous progress in improving the quality of life not just for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, but also for their families. That is important. The old saying goes: we recruit the soldier but we retain the family. When our troops deploy, it's important that they have the peace of mind that comes from the knowledge that their families have good housing, quality health care, and a support network to help address any problems.

I am proud that the legislation before us builds on the efforts that we have made in previous years to ensure that our troops are the best paid, best housed, and best equipped in the world. It includes a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed personnel, and incorporates a targeted pay raise ranging from 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent for mid-career service members. We want to make an extra effort to retain their expertise. It also authorizes a significant increase in the rate of family separation allowance, from $100 per month to $250 per month.

There are two provisions affecting pay and benefits that I believe are particularly important. Last month, along with the majority leader and a number of my colleagues, I traveled to South Korea to meet with our troops at Osan Air Force Base and in the Demilitarized Zone. I was privileged to speak with two of my constituents, SS Jennifer Meuth of Thomaston and MS Jay Mason of China. As I always do when I meet with our troops, I asked if there was anything that the Congress could do to support them. Without hesitation, both of them asked me to support the establishment of Assignment

Pay for troops stationed in Korea. Our troops endure many hardships as part of their service in Korea. Most are separated from their families, the housing is often substandard, and they live under the constant threat of North Korean aggression.

I am proud to say that the legislation before us mandates the payment of $100 per month in assignment incentive pay to the brave men and women serving our Nation in Korea. It is a tribute to the leadership of Senator Saxby Chambliss and Senator Ben Nelson, who lead the Personnel Subcommittee. Most of all, I want to thank Sergeants Meuth and Mason for bringing this important issue to my attention.

The second provision that I want to highlight is a bill that I introduced this year calling for an increase in what is called the military death gratuity. Currently, when a servicemember is killed while on active duty, his or her family receives a payment of $6,000, usually within days after the death. While other long-term financial assistance is provided to support the family, this payment helps the survivors cover any short term expenses.

The bill I introduced earlier this year, S. 704, would increase this amount to $12,000 and make it retroactive to September 11, 2001. So the families of those troops killed in Afghanistan will receive this additional benefit. The last time the Congress raised the death gratuity was during that last gulf war over a decade ago. Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Senate moved very quickly earlier this year to pass my legislation as a free-standing bill. The House, however, has not yet acted upon it. I am grateful to the Chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator Chambliss, for incorporating this increase in the death gratuity in the Defense Authorization bill.

I would also like to express my congratulations to Senator Talent, the new Chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee. The shipbuilding portion of this year's Defense Authorization represents a significant turning point. In previous years, the budget for ship construction proposed by the Department of Defense has been inadequate to sustain a large enough fleet to meet our Nation's requirements. The legislation before us today recognizes the challenge, and provides critically needed increases in shipbuilding funds.

It authorizes the construction of seven new ships, including three DDG-51 destroyers. I am pleased to report that two of those destroyers will be built at the world famous Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. Certainly, it will take more than 1 year's progress to address years of funding shortfalls. But this bill surely represents significant progress.

The committee also recognized the importance of modernizing the DDG- 51 destroyers currently in the fleet. At my request, $20 million has been allocated for a DDG-51 modernization program. This funding will be used to examine ways to improve the effectiveness of these ships, while at the same time reducing their manpower requirements. That in turn will lead to lifetime savings for these ships. It will allow the Bath Iron Works to explore initiatives aimed at ensuring that these destroyers continue to be the backbone of our surface combatant fleet.

The seapower portion of the bill also includes $248 million for the refueling and overhaul of the USS Jacksonville, a nuclear submarine that had been scheduled to be decommissioned by the Navy. If this were allowed to occur, the problem is that our submarine force would fall below the levels recommended by the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. Today, the requirements for submarines is increasing, especially given the growing role that they play in intelligence gathering. This refueling, which will take place at the Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, will add years of useful life to the Jacksonville. It is good news for the Navy, and it is good news for the skilled workers at the shipyard.

Without question, some aspects of the bill reported from the Armed Services Committee are somewhat controversial, and I expect that they will be debated fully here on the Senate floor. But the overwhelming majority of this bill is the product of bipartisan consensus. There is an agreement that we should spare no resources in ensuring that the brave young men and women who proudly wear the uniform have the highest quality training available, the most advanced equipment in the world, and receive the best benefits we can offer. I am proud to say this bill accomplishes those goals.

Again, I express my appreciation to our chairman and our ranking member for their hard work and for their dedicated leadership. I am very proud to serve with them.

Madam President, if I could respond to the inquiry of the distinguished chairman of the committee, during the past several weeks, since the Secretary sent his plan to the Hill, my staff, in close cooperation with other staff members on the Committee on Governmental Affairs, including Senator Levin's committee staff and others, have been working to see if we could reach consensus on a proposal. Frankly, I believe the Secretary's initial proposal goes too far. It is overreaching.

But there are certain authorities that would be extremely helpful to the Secretary as he attempts to make sure we can reward civilian employees with higher pay and streamline the personnel process. We came up with a proposal. We are still assessing the import that the proposal might have. In addition, there may be some procedural barriers in our ability to bring forward the amendments. So we are continuing to work closely to see if we can come up with a consensus. I hope to have an answer shortly for the chairman.

I do. The Senator from Virginia has put it very well, and I am eager to craft legislation--and believe we have done so--that would give the Secretary the flexibility he needs for the Department to have an efficient,

effective, and fair personnel system for the civilian employees. I note, however, that the Department has some 700,000 civilian employees. So we need to make sure we are doing this in an appropriate manner. Some of the provisions submitted by the Secretary go far beyond the authority that we gave to the new Secretary of Homeland Security.

So we are looking at it, and we have come up with draft legislation language that we are sharing and have been sharing with the staff of the Senator from Virginia and with other interested parties. My hope-- it may be a vague hope--is that we could have a consensus document that would provide bipartisan support and the support of some of the employee organizations. I don't know whether that is going to be the case. But that certainly is my hope.

If I might make one other point, I simply point out the obvious to all of us--that this legislation is the train moving through at this point in time. The probability of its passage by the Chamber is quite high. These provisions, as the Senator says, are of great concern to those groups, whether they are union or other groups, that act on behalf of the very courageous and wonderful cadre of civilians without which we couldn't have a defense.

The likelihood of a separate bill moving forward at a later point in this session has a question mark, which is obvious to my colleague from Maine and my colleague from Michigan. To the extent we can reach some consensus and attach it to this bill is the extent to which maybe we can make some progress at this point in a timely likelihood of making progress at this point in time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I could respond to the Senator from Virginia, the chairman of the committee, we have been working for many weeks. We do have a draft. We have had come forth from the other side of the aisle some additional suggestions we are looking at and eager to incorporate. I personally think it would be good to add something to this bill because I think it would be good for the Senate to go on record with its own version which differs from what was done in the House.

So I think it strengthens the position of the Senate in conference for us to put forth our own proposal since, as the Senator points out, this issue is going to arise in conference given the House provisions. So it is not as if it is going to be left to another day. We have legislative language drafted. We have been meeting extensively during the last few weeks. On Friday we received some additional suggestions which we are looking at right now. I cannot predict for certain--I realize time is short--whether there will be bipartisan support for the final version, but there will be a version I am happy with. I do not know if that will be sufficient, however.

I thank the chairman. And again I thank the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, this bipartisan amendment would provide $20 billion in much needed fiscal aid to the States. Forty-nine States are struggling with budget deficits. This won't relieve them of the obligation to make painful budget choices, but it will recognize the difficult financial strains under which they are operating.

Half of the money would go for an increase in the FMAP rate under Medicaid. The other half would be used for a flexible grant program that would be allocated between the States and localities.

I yield the remainder of my time in favor of the amendment to the Senator from Nevada, if he wishes to speak.

I would like to engage the distinguished chairmen of the Senate Budget and Finance Committees in a colloquy on the Budget Committee chairman's dividends amendment. As my colleagues are aware, no provision of the economic growth package is more important to me than my amendment providing $20 billion in short-term fiscal relief to States and localities. If we are to kick-start our economy through Federal tax relief, we must help our States avoid raising taxes and slashing spending. And in the process of passing this bill, the last thing we can afford is to exacerbate the States' fiscal woes.

I am therefore concerned that the language of the Budget Committee chairman's dividends amendment does not adequately protect States from revenue loss. As you know, I cannot vote for a dividends amendment that would lessen the benefits of my fiscal relief provision without an assurance that it would be fixed in conference. I therefore seek the assurances of the distinguished Budget and Finance Committee chairmen that they will do all they can in conference to protect States from revenue loss associated with any dividends provisions in the final bill.

I thank my distinguished colleagues, both for their assurances and for their leadership in putting together a growth package that can stimulate the economy and create new jobs.