[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3955-S3963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 2462. A bill to amend section 16131 of title 10, United States 
Code, to increase rates of educational assistance under the program of 
educational assistance for members of the Selected Reserve to make such 
rates commensurate with scheduled increases in rates for basic 
educational assistance under section 3015 of title 38, United States 
Code, the Montgomery GI Bill; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to be introducing the 
Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation 
will provide our National Guard and Reserve personnel with expanded 
educational opportunities at a reasonable cost. Endorsed by the 52-
member Partnership for Veterans Education, the bill provides assistance 
and equity that is logical, fair, and worthy of a Nation that values 
both higher education and those who defend the freedoms that we all 
enjoy. Under the total force concept of our military services, a large 
number of Selected Reserve personnel are now on active duty to support 
the war on terrorism at home and abroad.
  The original G.I. bill, known as the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, 
was enacted in 1944. That bill provided a $500 annual education stipend 
as well as a $50 subsistence allowance. As a result of this initiative, 
7.8 million World War II veterans were able to take advantage of post-
service education and training opportunities, including more than 2.2 
million veterans who went on to college. My own father was among those 
veterans who volunteered for the war, fought bravely, and then returned 
to college with assistance from the G.I. bill.
  Since that time, various incarnations of the G.I. bill have continued 
to assist millions of veterans in taking advantage of educational 
opportunities they put on hold in order to serve their country. New 
laws were enacted to provide educational assistance to those who served 
in Korea and Vietnam, as well as to those who served during the period 
in-between. Since the adoption of the total force concept and the 
change to an all-volunteer service, additional adjustments to these 
programs were made, leading up to the enactment of the Montgomery G.I. 
bill in 1985. It is a two-part program, one for active duty personnel 
and veterans and another for members of the Selected Reserve.
  The value of the educational benefit assistance provided by the 
Montgomery G.I. bill, however, has eroded over time due to inflation 
and the escalating cost of higher education, making it harder for 
service members and veterans to achieve their educational goals. Last 
year, military recruiters indicated to me that the program's benefits 
no longer were as strong an incentive to join the military; nor did 
they serve as a retention toll valuable enough to persuade men and 
women to stay in the military, either on active duty or in the Selected 
Reserve. Perhaps most important, the program has been losing its value 
as an instrument to help our National Guard and Reserve personnel to 
maximize their productivity and contributions to their families and 
the coummunities of which they are a part by furthering their education 
and training.

  In fact, in constant dollars, with one exception, the current G.I. 
bill up until January of this year provided the lowest level of 
assistance ever to those who served in the defense of our country. The 
basic benefit program of the Vietnam Era G.I. bill provided $493 per 
month in 1981 to a veteran with a spouse and two children. Twenty years 
later, a veteran in identical circumstances received only $43 more, a 
mere 8 percent increase over a time period when inflation had nearly 
doubled, and a dollar bought only half of what it once purchased.
  During the first session of the 107th Congress, we were successful in 
addressing some of these problems. Public Law 107-103 greatly improved 
educational assistance benefits available under the part of the 
Montgomery GI bill for service members and veterans, Chapter 30. This 
part of the G.I. bill now provides nine monthly $800 stipends per year 
for four years. The total benefit is $28,800. On October 1, 2002, the 
monthly amount will increase to $900, producing a new total benefit of 
$32,400 for the four academic years, a considerable improvement that 
Senator Johnson and I worked hard to accomplish.
  Now is the time to bring educational assistance program for members 
of the Selected Reserve, Chapter 1606, in line with Chapter 30. Current 
full-time assistance for the Selected Reserve is $272 per month for a 
total benefit of $9,792, only 34 percent of the monthly amount 
currently received under the Chapter 30 program. The bill that we are 
introducing today would raise the monthly amount of assistance for our 
Selected Reserve to $428, for a new total benefit of $15,408 and be 
comparable to the increases that have and will occur in the Chapter 30 
program. The increase would be effective October 1, 2002.
  The legislation that we are proposing would fulfill the promise made 
to our Nation's service members, help with recruiting and retention of 
men and women in our military, strengthen the State and national 
economies, and partially reflect the current costs of higher education. 
Now is the time to enact these modest improvements to the benefit 
program of the Montgomery G.I. bill for members of our National Guard 
and Reserve forces.
  I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the 
Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2002.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S3956]]


                                      Reserve Officers Association


                                         of the United States,

                                      Washington, DC, May 6, 2002.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins, I write today on behalf of the nearly 
     80,000 members of the Reserve Officers Association of the 
     United States. I understand that you intend to introduce the 
     Selected Reserve Educational Assistance Act of 2002, 
     legislation that would not only increase educational payments 
     to members of the Selected Reserve, but would also tie 
     proportional increases in the Reserve GI Bill (Chapter 1606) 
     to increases in the active duty (Chapter 30) provisions of 
     the bill.
       ROA believes that these changes are both appropriate and 
     timely in as much as they recognize the increased 
     contributions and responsibilities of the Reserve components 
     within the Total Force. Since Operation Desert Shield/Desert 
     Storm, Reserve component support of contingency operations 
     has increased twelve hundred percent, to the point that it 
     now averages nearly 13,000,000 mandays per year. That figure 
     does not include the nearly 85,000 Reservists currently on 
     active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. 
     Moreover, there is no indication that this tempo of 
     operations is likely to decrease anytime soon.
       Your bill is a landmark in the realm of Reserve education 
     benefits in as much as it contains provisions for automatic 
     increases in payments that keep pace with inflation and with 
     Active component usage. This is a great improvement to a very 
     significant recruiting and retention program, and will 
     doubtless, make it all the more popular and valuable to the 
     military and to the nation as a whole in the years to come.
       Again, let me thank you for support of the Reserve 
     components of our Armed Forces and their people. If we here 
     at ROA can be of any assistance on this matter, please do not 
     hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jayson L. Speigel,
                                               Executive Director.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 2463. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to restrict 
bundling of Department of Defense contract requirements that 
unreasonably disadvantages small businesses, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am pleased to be introducing the 
Small Business Contracts Opportunity Act of 2002. This legislation 
would help expand opportunities for small businesses to bid on 
government contracts, thus allowing them to sell more products and 
services to Federal agencies. The bill would prohibit the consolidation 
of contract requirements in excess of $5 million absent a written 
determination that the benefits of consolidation substantially exceed 
the benefits of alternative contracting approaches that would involve a 
lesser degree of consolidation.
  The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, P.L. 105-135, 
requires Federal agencies to conduct market research to assess the 
potential impact of ``bundled contracts,'' and to proceed with such 
contracts only if the benefits of bundling substantially exceed the 
benefits of proceeding with separate contracts. Unfortunately, the 
reality is that the Department of Defense, and other Federal agencies, 
have narrowly interpreted these provisions of the Small Business 
Reauthorization Act. The result is that too many Federal contracts are 
so large that they are out of reach for small businesses. Yet, small 
businesses could perform the work if the contract requirements were 
divided into separate contracts rather than consolidated.
  For the past several years, the evidence that contract bundling is 
hurting small businesses has been growing. For example, on November 16, 
``Eagle Eye'' publishing released its second study on bundling since 
1997, which found that the Defense Department is the biggest culprit of 
bundling, accounting for 82 percent of all bundled dollars. The study 
report goes on to say, that large businesses are the main beneficiaries 
of bundling, and highlights that large firms win 74 percent of all 
bundled dollars and 67 percent of all prime contract dollars. With the 
average bundling contract worth $8 million, it is no wonder small 
businesses receive only 9 percent of all bundled contract dollars. 
Eagle Eye found that the average bundled contract was 11 times larger 
than the average unbundled contract.
  Also, according to the Eagle Eye study, major DoD bureaus remain the 
largest proponents of bundling. Army's 1999 bundled total was up to 22 
percent since 1992 to $15.8 billion, while Navy increased only by 2 
percent, but still managed to bundle $22 billion worth of contracts. 
Air Force bundled $18.8 billion, but offered some good news because its 
total is down 24 percent since 1992.
  The legislation that I am proposing would require the Department of 
Defense to prove the cost benefit of consolidating a contract in excess 
of $5 million. Now is the time to enact this modest provision to ensure 
that our small businesses have the opportunities that they deserve to 
provide goods and services for the Department of Defense.
  I urge all Members of the Senate to join me in support of the 
Contract Consolidation Act of 2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 2465. A bill to extend and strengthen procedures to maintain 
fiscal accountability and responsibility; to the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to 
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be 
discharged.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, to introduce a common-sense budget 
process bill, the Budget Enforcement Act of 2002.
  In the 1990s, we took fiscally responsible actions that led to 
balancing the budget in 1999 and 2000 without using Social Security. 
But last year, the government returned to the bad habit of using the 
Social Security surplus to fund other government activities. We need to 
put an end to that practice.
  The Government will not have these Social Security surpluses to use 
forever. In the next decade, the Baby Boom generation will begin to 
retire in large numbers. Starting in 2016, Social Security will start 
redeeming the bonds that it holds, and the non-Social Security 
government will have to start paying for those bonds from non-Social 
Security surpluses. The bottom line is that starting in 2016, the 
government will have to show restraint in the non-Social Security 
budget so that we can pay the Social Security benefits that Americans 
have earned.
  That's why we cannot continue to enact either tax cuts or spending 
measures that push the government further into deficit. Before we enter 
into new obligations, we need to make sure that we have the resources 
to meet our Nation's commitment to our seniors under Social Security.
  We need to return to the priority of protecting the Social Security 
Trust Funds. We should, as President Bush said in a March 2001 radio 
address, ``keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government 
from raiding the Social Security surplus.''
  And to get the Government out of the business of using Social 
Security surpluses to fund other government spending, we need to 
strengthen our budget process. That is what the bill that Senator Gregg 
and I are proposing would do.
  The history of budget process changes teaches that realistic budget 
enforcement mechanisms work. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, 
enacted with bipartisan support, with a Democratic Congress and a 
Republican President, deserves much credit for helping to keep the 
Government on that path to reduce and eventually eliminate the deficit.
  A central feature of the 1990 act was the creation of caps on 
appropriated spending. In recent years, Congress has blown through 
those caps, when those caps were at unrealistic levels, and when the 
Government was running surpluses. But in most years of their history, 
appropriations caps helped to constrain the politically understandable 
appetite to spend without limit.
  Congress has repeatedly endorsed the idea of spending caps. Congress 
renewed and extended the caps in the budget process laws of 1993 and 
1997. And 6 of the last 8 budget resolutions have set enforceable 
spending caps. If budget numbers are to have any meaning, if they are 
not to be just wishes and prayers, then we need to have enforcement.
  Our bill would reinstate and extend the caps on discretionary 
spending, and would do so at a realistic baseline. It would simply set 
those levels at those in the budget resolution reported by the Budget 
Committee on March 22.

[[Page S3957]]

And our bill maintains, without change, the separate subcaps created in 
the Violent Crime Act of 1994 and the Transportation Equity Act of 
1998.
  Like the 1990 budget law that it extends, our bill would apply budget 
enforcement to entitlements and taxes. It would extend the pay-as-you-
go enforcement mechanism. All parts of the budget would thus be treated 
fairly.
  Our bill would also improve the points of order that enforce the caps 
and pay-as-you-go enforcement. It would allow Senators to raise a point 
of order against specific provisions that cause the caps or pay-as-you-
go discipline to be violated. This part of the bill will work very much 
like the important Byrd Rule that governs the reconciliation process, 
which is of course named after the distinguished senior Senator from 
West Virginia.
  Under our bill, if a piece of legislation violates the caps or pay-
as-you-go discipline, any Senator could raise a point of order and 
force a vote on any individual provision that contributes to the budget 
violation. If the point of order is not waived, then the provision 
would be stricken from the legislation.
  The bill would also shut back-door ways around the caps and pay-as-
you-go enforcement, by requiring 60 votes to change the caps, alter the 
balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard, or direct scorekeeping.
  Our bill would limit the exceptions to the point of order against 
emergency designations in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, so 
that all emergencies would be treated alike. Our bill would thus treat 
emergencies as they were treated in the text of that budget resolution 
when the Senate passed it on April 7, 2000, rather than in the watered-
down form it had when it came back from conference with the House of 
Representatives.
  And finally, our bill would extend for 5 years the requirement for 60 
votes to waive existing points of order that enforce the Congressional 
Budget Act. The 60-vote requirement that gives these points of order 
teeth expires on September 30 this year under current law.
  This is sensible budget process reform, in keeping with the best, 
most effective budget process enforcement that we have enacted in the 
past. It would make a significant contribution toward ending the 
practice of using the Social Security surplus to fund other government 
activities. And that is something that we simply must do, for our 
seniors, and for those in coming generations who will otherwise be 
stuck with the bill. I urge my colleagues to join us to cosponsor our 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Gregg-Feingold Budget Enforcement Act of 2002

       Appropriations Caps--The bill would reinstate and extend 
     for 5 years the caps on discretionary spending, keyed to the 
     levels in the budget resolution reported by the Budget 
     Committee. Points of order and the threat of across-the-board 
     cuts would continue to provide enforcement.
       Pay-as-You-Go for Entitlements and Taxes--The bill would 
     reinstate and extend the pay-as-you-go discipline that 
     controls entitlement spending and tax law changes. Points of 
     order and the threat of across-the-board cuts would continue 
     to provide enforcement.
       Point of Order Against Specific Provisions that Violate the 
     Caps or Pay-as-You Go--If legislation violated the caps or 
     pay-as-you-go enforcement, the bill would allow any Senator 
     to raise a point of order against (and thus force a vote on) 
     any individual provision that contributed to the budget 
     violation. If the Senate did not waive the point of order, 
     then the provision would be stricken from the legislation. 
     This point of order would work just like the Byrd Rule 
     against extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation.
       Guarding Against Budget Evasions--The bill would shut back-
     door ways around the caps and pay-as-you-go enforcement, by 
     requiring 60 votes to change the discretionary caps, alter 
     the balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard, or direct 
     scorekeeping.
       Limit Emergency Exceptions--The bill would limit the 
     exceptions to the point of order against emergency 
     designations in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, so 
     that all emergencies would be treated alike.
       Extending Existing Points of Order--The bill would extend 
     for 5 years the requirement for 60 votes to waive existing 
     points of order that enforce the Congressional Budget Act. 
     The 60-vote requirement that gives these points of order 
     teeth expires on September 30 this year under current law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Carnahan, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 2466. A bill to modify the contract consolidation requirements in 
the Small Business Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased today to be introducing 
legislation, the Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard Act, 
designed to protect the interests of small businesses in the Federal 
marketplace.
  As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy 
promoting the interests of small businesses in the Federal marketplace. 
The legislation being introducing today marks a critical step forward 
in this process.
  It is no secret that the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship places a great deal of importance on moving 
legislation forward in a bipartisan manner, the members of my Committee 
understand we represent the interests of all of our Nation's small 
businesses, the most important and dynamic segment of our economy. And 
nowhere is the bipartisan consensus stronger than in the area of 
Federal procurement and ensuring that our Nation's small businesses 
receive their fair share of procurement opportunities. I am pleased to 
once again be introducing bipartisan legislation with the Committee's 
ranking member, Senator Kit Bond. Regardless of who has chaired the 
Committee during our tenure together, we have both worked hard to 
improve small business Federal procurement opportunities.
  I am also pleased to be joined by Senator Jean Carnahan, a member of 
the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and the Senate 
Armed Services Committee and Senator Susan Collins, also a member of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee. While small business participation 
in procurement activities is important throughout the Federal 
Government, nowhere is it more important than at the Department of 
Defense, which is responsible for over 63 percent of the goods and 
services purchased by the Federal government. The support of Senator 
Carnahan and Senator Collins will help ensure the success of this 
legislation.
  The legislation we are introducing today has one ultimate purpose, to 
prevent Federal agencies from circumventing small business protections 
with regard to the practice known as contract bundling. Few issues have 
so strongly galvanized the small businesses contracting community as 
the practice of contract bundling, which occurs when procurement 
contracts are combined to form large contracts, often spread over large 
geographic areas, resulting in minimal or no small business 
participation.
  Many supporters of the practice of contract bundling point to its 
cost savings. They claim it saves the taxpayer money to lump contracts 
together. Unfortunately, there is little evidence supporting this 
claim, and too many contracts are bundled without the required economic 
research designed to determine if a bundled contract will actually 
result in a cost savings.
  The Small Business Administration's, SBA, Office of Advocacy, an 
independent body within the SBA, estimated that for every increase of 
100 bundled contracts, there was a decrease of over 106 individual 
contracts issued to small firms. Additionally, for every $100 awarded 
on a bundled contract, there was a decrease of $33 to small business. 
The Office of Advocacy arrived at these conclusions using a 
conservative definition of what constitutes a bundled contract. 
Therefore, the negative impact on small businesses from contract 
bundling is likely more severe.

  While seemingly an efficient and cost effective means for Federal 
agencies to conduct business, bundled contracts, are anti-competitive. 
When a Federal agency bundles contracts, it limits small businesses' 
ability to bid for the new bundled contract, thus limiting competition. 
Small businesses are consistently touted as more innovative, providing 
better and cheaper services then their larger counterparts. But when 
forced to bid for mega-contracts, at times across large geographic 
areas, few, if any, small businesses can be expected to compete. By 
driving small

[[Page S3958]]

business from the Federal marketplace, contract bundling will actually 
drive up the costs of goods and services purchased by the Federal 
Government because competition will be limited and our economy will be 
deprived of possible innovations brought about by small businesses.
  Although there is current law in place intended to require Federal 
agencies to conduct market research before bundling a contract, 
loopholes in the current definition of a bundled contract allow them to 
often skirt these safeguards.
  Our legislation changes the name ``bundled contract'' to consolidated 
contract, strengthens the definition of a consolidated contract, and 
closes the loopholes in the existing definition to prevent Federal 
agencies from circumventing statutory safeguards intended to ensure 
that separate contracts are consolidated for economic reasons, not 
administrative expediency.
  The new definition relies on a simple premise: if you combine 
contracts, be it new contracts, existing contracts or a combination 
thereof, you are consolidating them and would need to take the 
necessary steps to ensure it is justified economically before 
proceeding.
  Our legislation also alters the current Small Business Act 
requirements regarding procurement strategies when a contract is 
consolidated to include a threshold level for triggering the economic 
research requirements.
  Previously, any consolidated contract would trigger the economic 
research requirements, something considered onerous by many Federal 
agencies and often cited as the reason for circumventing the law. The 
new procurement strategies section of the Small Business Act would 
require a statement of benefits and a justification for any 
consolidated contract over $2 million and a more extensive analysis, 
corresponding to current requirements for any consolidated contract, 
for consolidations over $5 million.
  In order to move forward with a consolidated contract over $2 
million, the agency must put forth the benefits anticipated from the 
contract, identify alternatives that would involve a lesser degree of 
consolidation and include a specific determination that the 
consolidation is necessary and justified. The determination that a 
consolidation is necessary and justified may be determined simply 
through administrative and personnel savings, but their must be actual 
savings.
  In order to move forward with a consolidated contract over $5 
million, an agency must, in addition to the above: conduct current 
market research to demonstrate that the consolidation will result in 
costs savings, quality improvements, reduction in acquisition times, or 
better terms and conditions; include an assessment as to the specific 
impediments to small business participation resulting from the 
consolidation; and specify actions designed to maximize small business 
participation as subcontractors and suppliers for the consolidated 
contract. The determination that a consolidation is necessary and 
justified may not be determined through administrative and personnel 
savings alone unless those savings will be substantial for these larger 
contracts.
  By establishing this dual threshold system, we have placed the 
emphasis for the economic research on contracts more likely to preclude 
small business participation, while not ceding smaller contracts to the 
whims of a Federal agency. This change, coupled with a clear definition 
of a consolidated contract should be enough to garner compliance. 
However, if Federal agencies continue to consolidate contracts when 
there is no justification, fail to conduct the required economic 
research, or fail to provide procurement opportunities to small 
businesses, I would see little choice but to support legislative 
changes requiring punitive measures for these Federal agencies. This is 
a step I have been reluctant to take in the past. However, I am 
optimistic that such a step will not be necessary and that the fair and 
reasonable system established under this legislation will be effective.
  I would once again like to thank my fellow sponsors, Senators Bond, 
Carnahan, and Collins for their support on this issue. I hope all of my 
colleagues will join us in supporting this bill. I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2466

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Federal 
     Contractor Safeguard Act''.

     SEC. 2. CONTRACT CONSOLIDATION.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 3(o) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 632(o)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(o) Definitions.--In this Act the following definitions 
     shall apply:
       ``(1) Consolidated contract; consolidation.--The term 
     `consolidated contract' or `consolidation' means a multiple 
     award contract or a contract for goods or services with a 
     Federal agency that--
       ``(A) combines discrete procurement requirements from not 
     less than 2 existing contracts;
       ``(B) adds new, discrete procurement requirements to an 
     existing contract; or
       ``(C) includes 2 or more discrete procurement requirements.
       ``(2) Multiple award contract.--The term `multiple award 
     contract' means--
       ``(A) a contract that is entered into by the Administrator 
     of General Services under the multiple award schedule program 
     referred to in section 2302(2)(C) of title 10, United States 
     Code;
       ``(B) a multiple award task order contract or delivery 
     order contract that is entered into under the authority of 
     sections 2304a through 2304d of title 10, United States Code, 
     or sections 303H through 303K of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253h through 
     253k); and
       ``(C) any other indefinite delivery or indefinite quantity 
     contract that is entered into by the head of a Federal agency 
     with 2 or more sources pursuant to the same solicitation.''.
       (b) Procurement Strategies.--Section 15(e) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(e)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Procurement Strategies; Contract Consolidation.--
       ``(1) In general.--To the maximum extent practicable, 
     procurement strategies used by the various agencies having 
     contracting authority shall facilitate the maximum 
     participation of small business concerns as--
       ``(A) prime contractors;
       ``(B) subcontractors; and
       ``(C) suppliers.
       ``(2) Procurement strategy requirements when the value of a 
     consolidated contract is greater than $2,000,000.--
       ``(A) In general.--An agency official may not execute a 
     procurement strategy that includes a consolidated contract 
     valued at more than $2,000,000 unless the proposed 
     procurement strategy--
       ``(i) specifically identifies the benefits anticipated from 
     consolidation;
       ``(ii) identifies any alternative contracting approaches 
     that would involve a lesser degree of contract consolidation; 
     and
       ``(iii) includes a specific determination that the proposed 
     consolidation is necessary and the anticipated benefits of 
     such consolidation justify its use.
       ``(B) Necessary and justified.--The head of an agency may 
     determine that a procurement strategy under subparagraph 
     (A)(iii) is necessary and justified if the monetary benefits 
     of the procurement strategy, including administrative and 
     personnel costs, substantially exceed the monetary benefits 
     of each of the possible alternative contracting approaches 
     identified under subparagraph (A)(ii).
       ``(C) Additional requirements when the value of a 
     consolidated contract is greater than $5,000,000.--In 
     addition to meeting the requirements under paragraph (A), a 
     procurement strategy that includes a consolidated contract 
     valued at more than $5,000,000--
       ``(i) shall be supported by current market research that 
     demonstrates that the consolidated contract will result in--

       ``(I) cost savings;
       ``(II) quality improvements;
       ``(III) reduction in acquisition cycle times; or
       ``(IV) better terms and conditions;

       ``(ii) shall include an assessment of the specific 
     impediments to participation by small business concerns as 
     prime contractors that result from contract consolidation;
       ``(iii) shall specify actions designed to maximize small 
     business participation as subcontractors, including 
     suppliers, at various tiers under the consolidated contract; 
     and
       ``(iv) shall not be justified under paragraph (A)(iii) by 
     savings in administrative or personnel costs, unless the 
     total amount of the cost savings is expected to be 
     substantial in relation to the total cost of the procurement.
       ``(3) Contract teaming.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the head of an agency solicits offers 
     for a consolidated contract, a small business concern may 
     submit an offer that provides for the use of a particular 
     team of subcontractors for the performance of the contract 
     (referred to in this paragraph as `teaming').
       ``(B) Evaluation of offer.--The head of the agency shall 
     evaluate an offer submitted

[[Page S3959]]

     by a small business concern under subparagraph (A) in the 
     same manner as other offers, with due consideration to the 
     capabilities of all of the proposed subcontractors.
       ``(C) No effect on status as a small business concern.--If 
     a small business concern engages in teaming under 
     subparagraph (A), its status as a small business concern 
     shall not be affected for any other purpose.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Conforming amendment to the small business 
     reauthorization act of 1997.--Section 414 of the Small 
     Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 (41 U.S.C. 405 note) is 
     repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendments to the small business act.--The 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 2(j)--
       (i) by striking the subsection heading and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(j) Contract Consolidation.--''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``bundling of contract 
     requirements'' and inserting ``contract consolidation'';
       (B) in section 8(d)(4)(G), by striking ``a bundled 
     contract'' and inserting ``a consolidated contract'';
       (C) in section 15(a)--
       (i) by striking ``bundling of contract requirements'' and 
     inserting ``contract consolidation''; and
       (ii) by striking ``the bundled contract'' and inserting 
     ``the consolidated contract''; and
       (D) in section 15(k)(5)--
       (i) by striking ``significant bundling of contract 
     requirements'' and inserting ``consolidated contracts valued 
     at more than $2,000,000''; and
       (ii) by striking ``bundled contract'' and inserting 
     ``consolidated contract''.

  Mr. BOND. Madam President, today I join the Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, in introducing this important legislation on 
an issue of vital concern to small businesses. This bill, a truly 
bipartisan effort, represents one of the best opportunities in a long 
time to remove the current logjam on controlling contract bundling.
  We often say around here that, in some cases, all that is necessary 
to help small business is for government policy to stop visiting harm 
upon them. Contract bundling is one of those harmful policies. It 
eliminates small businesses from competing for contracts to sell the 
government some of the $200 billion in goods and services it buys every 
year.
  The Small Business Act says that small firms shall have the maximum 
practicable opportunity to compete for Federal contracts. This is good 
for small business, good for the purchasing agencies, and good for the 
taxpayer who pays the bills.
  Small business benefits from having access to a stable revenue stream 
while they get up-and-running. The Small Business Act recognizes how 
government contracting can contribute to business development and 
economic renewal. For example, my HUBZone program provides contracting 
incentives for small firms to locate in blighted neighborhoods, helping 
them win Federal contracts and stabilize their revenues while they 
develop a nongovernmental customer base.
  Federal agencies also benefit from small firms in Federal 
procurement. Many of the most innovative solutions to our problems, 
such as new technologies in defense readiness, come from small firms. 
Large business can be just as bureaucratic as the worst Federal 
agencies.
  Complex chains of command, the need to consult with the corporate 
headquarters, and repetitive sign-offs on a new idea that have to be 
cleared with Accounting, Marketing, and Human Resources can stifle 
innovation and creativity. The absence of all these structures can make 
small business able to ``turn on a dime,'' deliver new innovative 
products at lower cost, and clobber their big competitors. Agencies 
trying to carry out their governmental functions can take advantage of 
these innovations and deliver better quality services to our 
constituents.
  Finally, the taxpayer wins when small business competes for 
contracts. The more competition, the lower the prices and the higher 
the quality.
  But contract bundling gets in the way of all those benefits. To 
simplify the contracting process, agencies will take a bunch of small 
contracts and roll them into one massive contract. The result is a 
contract that a small business could not perform, due to its complexity 
or its obligation to do work in widely disparate geographic locations. 
A small business owner says, ``I could not perform the contract, even 
if I won it. So I won't even bid.'' When that happens, we all lose.
  During my tenure as Chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, 
we took a stab at trying to control bundling. At that time, no 
statutory definition of bundling existed. It was like the Supreme Court 
trying to deal with pornography, we know it when we see it. In the 
Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997, I pushed for a specific 
definition of bundling and created an administrative process to review 
instances of bundling. Agencies were supposed to make a determination 
whether a proposed bundle was ``necessary and justified.''
  Since that time, we have seen agencies poke holes in that definition. 
For example, they say that a proposed contract represents a new 
requirement. Since it is new, it was never issued previously as 
separate smaller contracts, so it isn't bundling, they say. Now they 
don't have to do the ``necessary and justified'' determination.
  Or, they will point to another phrase in the current definition of 
bundling. Currently, a bundle involves consolidating contracts in a way 
that makes small business participation unlikely. If they structure a 
tiny piece of the contract so that a small business somewhere, someday 
might be able to win that piece, the rest of the massive contract isn't 
technically bundling. Therefore, the agency doesn't have to do the 
determination.
  This bill will close those kinds of loopholes. It builds upon some 
very positive language introduced in last year's Defense Authorization 
bill when the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, proposed a draft during 
markup in the Senate Armed Services Committee. The Senator from 
Michigan noticed that it doesn't make sense for Federal agencies to 
avoid the ``necessary and justified'' determination. The goal of that 
process is to ask, does a proposed bundle make sense? Is it good value 
to the taxpayer and to the agency? Does it help or harm the vendor base 
that would be available to the agency in the future?

  My colleague from Michigan decided it was time to make Defense 
agencies complete these bundling studies, to make sure we weren't doing 
harm to our defense readiness through these acquisition policies. I 
think we need to do the studies to make sure the Small Business Act is 
not cast aside and ignored. Suddenly, after a long impasse on this 
issue, the Senators from Michigan and Massachusetts and I found we had 
common ground on this issue.
  Unfortunately, we were unable to get these positive provisions 
included in last year's Defense bill. That's why we are trying again. 
The Bush Administration sought to have a single governmentwide policy 
apply to all Federal agencies, not just the Defense establishment. This 
is a sound approach, but it would have required making changes to the 
governmentwide bundling policy in the Small Business Act. We were ready 
to agree to such a change, but our counterparts in the other body 
objected, citing jurisdictional claims about using an Armed Services 
bill to make changes in Small Business Committee jurisdiction.
  The bill we offer today should overcome these problems. It would make 
a uniform governmentwide policy, through the Small Business Act. It is 
a stand-alone bill. It builds upon an approach suggested by the Armed 
Services Committee as a reasonable one.
  I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his work on this issue and 
I am pleased to have been at the table with him in crafting this 
proposal. I look forward to its enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 2467. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to modify 
the computation of eligibility for certain Federal Pell Grants, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2468. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1986 to 
provide for strategic sectoral skills gap assessments, strategic skills 
gap action plans, and strategic training capacity enhancement seed 
grants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. CANTWELL:
  S. 2469. A bill to amend section 171(b)(1)(D) the Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998 to provide for training service and delivery 
innovation grants; to

[[Page S3960]]

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor today to address a 
topic that I believe is key to the future competitiveness of our 
Nation, and that is the training of our workforce.
  These have been tough times for the economy of my State, and 
certainly the economy of the Nation at large. The most recent 
employment data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have 
offered little comfort in Washington, which along with the other 
Pacific Northwest States of Oregon and Alaska, continue to have among 
the highest unemployment rates in the Nation.
  This body moved quickly to provide immediate relief to the workers 
most impacted by the devastating economic impacts of the September 11th 
incidents, and I am proud that this Senate under the leadership of our 
Majority Leader was able to deliver some temporary assistance to 
workers who have exhausted unemployment benefits.
  Nonetheless, our efforts should not stop with an unemployment 
insurance extension. We must continue pursuing long-term strategies for 
a sustained recovery. The fundamental strength of our economy lies in 
the working men and women of this Nation whose innovation and hard work 
propelled the massive economic expansion of the past decade.
  The edge that will keep our workers ahead in this changing global 
economy is their skills. Our economy is global, linked by international 
markets and communications networks. The sustained success of U.S. 
companies depends on adaptability and innovation to survive, which 
means that workers themselves need to remain flexible and continually 
update job skills.
  Even in this time of relatively high unemployment, businesses 
throughout the country are having hard times finding skilled workers. 
Last year, for example, 46 percent of American businesses had trouble 
finding qualified workers. Next year, 29 percent of American businesses 
expect that they will continue to have trouble hiring qualified 
workers, even in this slugish economy.
  At the same time, over 3 million workers are laid off each year, but 
well under 500,000 receive any sort of training in response to meet the 
skills demands of those hiring businesses.
  But meeting those skills demands, and bridging the skills gaps that 
persist between will not widely occur without a strong financial 
commitment to ensuring access to skills training programs, and ongoing 
efforts to maximize the effectiveness of those funds that we already 
invest.
  The decision we make today to invest in our workers will pay off many 
times over in the form of a stronger economy, healthier communities, 
and improved quality of life.
  But the persistent truth is that we are delivering a trickle of 
funding while faced with a tidal wave of need.
  During the Easter recess, I traveled across my State, from Olympia to 
Kelso, Vancouver to Bellingham, the Tri-cites to Mt. Vernon, and 
received a great deal of feedback from Washingtonians who are seeking 
training, are providing it, or are serving as employers who need to 
hire skilled workers. And I heard similar concerns repeated in each of 
these areas: first, as our economy continues to change, the demand for 
new skills has grown; second, that the State has experienced an 
enormous increase in demand for skills training by individual workers, 
a trend that appears to be widespread throughout the Nation; but third, 
that far too many of those workers seeking to access training cannot 
get the training they need due to limited availability of slots at 
training institutions and the limited availability of tuition 
assistance.
  Last month my office released an informal study of this apparent 
shortfall in the capacity of training systems in my state to meet 
emerging demand, and the results of that study were staggering to me. 
Tens of thousands of workers who want to upgrade their skills have only 
a limited ability to do so because of budgetary limitations that 
prevent institutions from adequately adding capacity to deliver 
training, and because only limited numbers of training vouchers are 
available through the federal job training system.
  I might add that our governor has truly been a leader in expanding 
access to training. In response to the recent wave of layoffs in our 
State, he managed to add more than 1,300 additional adult worker-
training slots to the state's community and technical college system. 
Even in the face of our state's terrible revenue crunch, Governor Locke 
has made that commitment, and he deserves tremendous credit for it.
  But it is clear that states need additional help from the Federal 
Government. Workforce investment must be a national priority.
  As my colleagues know, the programs authorized by the Workforce 
Investment Act are only in their second year of implementation. 
Although we still have several job-training programs offered through 
the Federal Government, the WIA system is clearly the centerpiece. It 
is the only Federal system designed to meet a broad range of worker 
needs, and it emerged from years of bipartisan work by Congress to 
consolidate at least 17 Federal programs into one system for delivering 
employment and training services.
  Continuing our financial commitment to WIA programs at this critical 
stage in their development is essential to effective implementation of 
these system-wide reforms.
  Senators Kennedy, DeWine, Wellstone, and our other colleagues took an 
enouous step in passing WIA in 1998. And despite bumps in the road, the 
system is already showing great promise. Nonetheless, as we move toward 
reauthorization of WIA and TANF, there are a number of issues that many 
of us will want to address in seeking to take the system to the next 
level.
  We must, first and foremost, put an even higher priority on training. 
In developing human capital that maximizes the power of our economic 
engine, we must not get caught in the short-sighted quicksand of a 
work-first mentality. We will do ourselves a grave disservice if we 
simply force more people without the skills to obtain and hold a job in 
this dynamic economy, to work faster, in whatever job is available, 
often low paying jobs, rather than getting them the tools that they 
need to truly be self-sufficient.
  Second, we must further enhance the seamlessness of our training 
systems. As GAO has documented in recent months, we still have partners 
in the WIA system that do not fully participate, and we still have 
numerous Federal training programs operating independently of one 
another, often duplicating effort and resources. We need to keep our 
eye on ball in this case, that the goal is to provide the highest 
possible service at the lowest unit cost on behalf of the customers of 
the system, its employment and training recipients, and we need to 
maximize the return on our Federal investment.
  Third, in meeting these objectives, we need to maintain the 
flexibility of the systems while encouraging the types of activities 
and use of funds that will help us match skilled workers with available 
jobs. We need to take a serious look at whether the systems effectively 
balance the need for accountability with the flexibility for local 
boards in the use of federal dollars that is will allow them to most 
effectively target resources at the problems that most plague their 
communities.
  Finally, in the short term, we must tailor all of our Federal 
training systems and programs to ensure the greatest possible access 
for workers who want to obtain training. That means that it is 
incumbent on us to keep the door open as wide as possible for adult 
students to access programs like Pell. And we must try to utilize the 
most current and powerful technologies to enhance the delivery of 
training.
  Today, I am introducing three bills that are designed to build upon 
the existing workforce structure to expand access to training and 
improve its effectiveness.
  The first piece of legislation would change the Pell Grant program to 
make certain that student financial aid is available to recently laid 
off workers.
  A standard practice in the determination of Pell Grant eligibility 
for student aid is to base grant awards upon the applicant's income 
during the previous year. The use of tax forms for this purpose, in 
many cases, is the appropriate and easiest administrative method of 
obtaining a clear and official

[[Page S3961]]

statement of need. But as a result, many recently laid-off workers are 
often not eligible for critical financial assistance at a time when the 
worker's family is experiencing a dramatic decrease in income.
  The legislation would explicitly provide the authority for 
educational institutions, after taking sufficient precautions to 
prevent fraud, to consider current-year income levels for applicants 
seeking training through Pell-eligible programs. It does this in a very 
narrow way, by ensuring that institutions in states with high 
unemployment rates consider current year financial circumstances rather 
than previous year, income.
  The second bill also addresses issues of access and delivery of 
training. While many distance-learning technologies have been developed 
in recent years, those technologies have not necessarily reached many 
of those most in need of training. Many workers in need of training may 
not be aware of opportunities available online to engage in distance-
learning training coursework and may not have sufficient access to 
technologies that provide the means to access such distance-learning 
technologies.
  It may not be enough to create a distance-learning curriculum and 
passively provide it through an educational institution website. 
Rather, comprehensive solutions need to be developed that integrate 
curriculum innovations, technological access, and the promotion and 
linkage of workers in need of training with such opportunities. 
Additionally, sources of funding to obtain online coursework may not be 
available to many workers seeking to engage in such training.
  The third bill that I am introducing is designed to help WIA Boards 
access more, high-quality information to better understand regional 
labor market dynamics and improve system performance with goal of 
identifying emerging sectors and targeting employment and training 
resources appropriately.
  While workforce areas may be conducting research now on the 
employment landscape in those areas and states, those assessments and 
statistical labor market data collected by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics is not be sufficient to provide a level of detail for 
identifying actual job opportunities in regional labor markets and 
matching available workers to those business demands. As a result, 
local systems may not have the information needed to most efficiently 
target the use of available resources and training providers may not 
always build curricula and programs that most effectively address local 
workforce needs.
  This legislation is designed to make resources available to maximize 
employment and training resources toward meeting emerging area skills 
needs. I want to make clear that this is not intended to simply 
reinvent the wheel for areas that are already developing sectoral 
approaches within existing workforce development systems. But it should 
in fact, allow those areas to take the next step by providing funds to 
enhance the capacity of systems to meet area employer needs.
  This is a first step on a long journey as we work to improve Federal 
job training systems, and it is in no way independent of the need for 
additional resources to grow those systems.
  Each of these bills is an important component of that broader 
strategy and I look forward to working with my colleagues as we begin 
to look at the reauthorization of TANF, of WIA, and of the Higher 
Education Act this year and next.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CARNAHAN:
  S. 2470. A bill to encourage and facilitate the security of nuclear 
materials and facilities worldwide, to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Madam President, the disintegration of the Soviet 
Union more than a decade ago resulted in economic and political chaos.
  The Soviet Union possessed more than 10,000 nuclear weapons, and 
dozens of nuclear weapons production facilities sprawled across 11 time 
zones. As a result of the economic collapse, funding fell short for 
security at nuclear weapons storage and production facilities. This 
left dangerous amounts of deadly weapons and materials vulnerable to 
theft.
  Since 1991, there have been countless documented cases of individuals 
stealing plutonium and uranium from the former Soviet Union. So far, we 
believe no ``nuclear smuggler'' has taken enough material to make a 
nuclear device. The real problem is the uncertainty of the unknown.
  Since the end of the Cold War, we have done a great deal to curb the 
threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. The United States has 
taken the lead in the international community to help Russia secure its 
nuclear weapons and material. The Department of Defense's Cooperative 
Threat Reduction Program and the sister programs at the Department of 
Energy are truly ``defense by other means.'' The Defense Department's 
program is more commonly known as the Nunn-Lugar program, in 
recognition of its creators, my colleague from Indiana, Dick Lugar, and 
former Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia. Because of these two men, we face 
less of a threat from the Soviet Union's nuclear legacy than we would 
have otherwise.
  The Department of Defense has focused on destroying nuclear weapons 
and improving security over weapons in transit and storage. The 
Department of Energy has focused its own threat reduction efforts on 
locking up uranium and plutonium that could be used in a nuclear weapon 
and helping develop peaceful, commercial job opportunities for weapons 
scientists. The investments made in these programs to secure Soviet 
nuclear weapons and materials have truly been in our national interest.
  However, as far-reaching as these programs have been, they were not 
designed to address some of the terrorist threats we now face. In 
particular, there are three gaps in our nuclear threat reduction 
policies that need to be dealt with.
  First, these programs do not apply to countries outside of the former 
Soviet Union. Second, these programs do not address the threat of 
radiological materials. Third, these programs do not deal with 
preventing terrorist sabotage of nuclear power plants.
  Expanding our threat reduction programs globally is an important 
priority. So far, most of our efforts have focused on the dangerous 
situation in the former Soviet Union. This makes sense, since most of 
the under-secured nuclear weapons useable material is located in that 
part of the world.
  However, we need to pay more attention to the smaller amounts of 
weapons material in other parts of the world that are not under tight 
enough lock and key. This means building up security at every type of 
nuclear facility worldwide, including nuclear power plants, processing 
facilities, storage sites and other related buildings.
  We also need to start focusing on radiological materials.
  And by radiological materials, I am referring to highly radioactive 
substances other than weapons-useable uranium or plutonium. A ``dirty 
bomb'' combines radioactive material that could be found at nuclear 
power plants, medical facilities or other industrial sites with 
explosives. This weapon would not be as immediately destructive as a 
nuclear bomb. But it would cause significant physical, environmental, 
economic, and psychological damage to our citizens, and to our national 
security.
  Indeed, intelligence reports indicate that Osama bin Ladin has been 
actively pursuing the materials to develop a ``dirty bomb.'' In fact, 
he called the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction a ``religious 
duty.'' In addition, there have been reports of meetings between 
Pakistani nuclear weapons scientists and al-Qaeda operatives and 
between Iraqi officials and al-Qaeda representatives. We will never 
know what went on at these meetings. But we must take every step 
possible to thwart their evil plans.
  Finally, we will contribute to our national security by improving 
nuclear power plant security outside the United States. The Department 
of Energy has been working for years to improve the safety of Soviet-
designed nuclear power plants in the former Soviet Union and Eastern 
Europe. This is to prevent the possible repeat of the Chernobyl 
disaster.
  However, to date, protecting these plants from terrorist sabotage has 
never been addressed. Before the tragedies of September 11, we never 
thought such an attack was realistic. Now that our reality has changed, 
we are providing greater security to protect our

[[Page S3962]]

power plants here at home. These efforts will serve as good models to 
upgrade the security at nuclear plants in Russia and elsewhere.
  Today I am introducing a bill that would help bolster our national 
security by improving the security of all nuclear and radiological 
material worldwide. My bill addresses each of the three gaps in our 
current efforts that I have just identified.
  First, it calls on the Department of Energy in cooperation with the 
Departments of State and Defense to develop a program that would 
encourage all countries to adhere to the highest security standards for 
their nuclear material wherever it is used or stored;
  Second, it requires the Department of Energy to establish a 
systematic approach for securing radiological materials other than 
uranium and plutonium outside the United States; and
  Third, it directs the Department of Energy, in consultation with the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, to develop plans for preventing terrorist attacks on nuclear 
power plants outside the United States.
  This bill is a cost-effective and short-term way to counter current 
threats to our national security and it promotes world cooperation in 
securing nuclear materials. Already, this bill has gained the 
endorsement of several world leaders in the field of nuclear non-
proliferation, including: Dr William Potter, Director of the Monterey 
Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies; Dr. Graham Allison, 
former Assistant Secretary of Defense; and Rose Gottemoeller, former 
Deputy UnderSecretary at the Department of Energy.
  At this time I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from 
each of these individuals and organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                              Center for Nonproliferation Studies,
                                     Monterey, CA, April 29, 2002.
     Senator Jean Carnahan,
     Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Carnahan: As the director of the Monterey 
     Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies, I have long 
     been involved in research and training activities designed to 
     combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I have 
     focused especially on proliferation risks associated with the 
     former Soviet Union and have sought to enhance the safety and 
     security of fissile material and nuclear facilities in that 
     region. As you are well aware, this task has acquired even 
     greater urgency in the aftermath of September 11, as has the 
     need to consolidate and secure the smaller amounts of fissile 
     material that are inadequately safeguarded in other parts of 
     the world.
       Although the highest priority should be given to 
     consolidating, securing, and reducing the global stocks of 
     fissile material--the stuff of nuclear weapons--it also is 
     important for more attention and resources to be devoted to 
     countering nuclear threats posed by the sabotage of nuclear 
     power plants, research reactors, and spent fuel storage 
     sites, and the risks associated with so-called ``dirty 
     bombs'' or radiological dispersal devices, which could be 
     made by matching conventional explosives with radioactive 
     source material. These dangers, while global in nature, are 
     especially acute in Russia due to the amount of nuclear 
     material present, the absence of adequate safeguards, and the 
     vulnerability of many nuclear facilities to sabotage and/or 
     terrorist attack. Although experts at Russian nuclear 
     facilities have highlighted these vulnerabilities for a long 
     time, their remediation has not typically been a high 
     priority for U.S. nonproliferation assistance.
       In light of these serious nuclear dangers, I strongly 
     support your efforts to develop new legislation to counter 
     nuclear terrorism and to improve the security of fissile and 
     radiological material and nuclear facilities both in Russia 
     and worldwide. In this regard, there are many useful lessons 
     to be learned from the decade of U.S.-Russian collaboration 
     in cooperative threat reduction, a topic many of my staff and 
     I have analyzed carefully. Please feel free to contact me if 
     you would like more detailed information on our prior work or 
     if I can be of any assistance to you as you pursue your 
     exceptionally timely and important legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                            William C. Potter,

                                        Director, CNS and CRES and
     Institute Professor.
                                  ____



                                           Harvard University,

                                     Cambridge MA, April 30, 2002.
     Senator Jean Carnahan,
     Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Carnahan: I am writing to support your draft 
     legislation focused on addressing the threat of nuclear 
     terrorism. As a member of the Baker-Cutler panel and a 
     longtime Russia watcher, I have seen with my own eyes 
     security systems for potential bomb material that would make 
     it an easy task for terrorists to steal. As a former Senator, 
     now Ambassador Howard Baker has testified to his colleagues 
     on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ``I don't mean to 
     be unduly philosophical or psychological about it, but it 
     really boggles my mind that there could be 40,000 nuclear 
     weapons, or maybe 80,000 in the former Soviet Union, poorly 
     controlled and poorly stored, and that the world isn't in a 
     near-state of hysteria about the danger.'' And the problem is 
     not limited to Russia: around the world, there are dozens of 
     facilities with enough highly enriched uranium or a bomb--
     some of them civilian research facilities with a single night 
     watchman and a chain link fence providing the only security.
       In the aftermath of September 11, with Osama bin Laden 
     declaring that acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a 
     ``religious duty,'' allowing such conditions to continue 
     would pose an unacceptable threat to the security of the 
     United States and the world. If a nuclear weapon were to fall 
     in the hands of those who organized the September 11 attacks, 
     there would be no threats and no negotiations. Tens of 
     thousands of innocent victims would die in a flash; if the 
     bomb were in lower Manhattan, it would destroy everything up 
     to Grammercy Park.
       That terrible vision must guide our efforts now, and our 
     sense or urgency. We must be asking ourselves: ``on the day 
     after a U.S. city is destroyed in a nuclear blast, what would 
     we wish we had done to prevent it?'' And then we must take 
     those actions now, a quickly as we practically can.
       What is needed is a fast-paced, focused effort to eliminate 
     stockpiles of potential bomb material wherever they are no 
     longer needed, while instilling rapid security upgrades 
     wherever these materials will remain. The goal should be to 
     attain a stringent, global standard for security for all 
     stockpiles of nuclear weapons and materials--for if these 
     cannot be stolen, then terrorists cannot get the means for a 
     nuclear attack. At the same time, we must be doing more to 
     guard against potential Chernobyls caused by terrorist 
     attacks on nuclear facilities or terrorist acquisition and 
     use of radiological material for a ``dirty bomb.''
       Thus the objectives outlined in your legislation are 
     precisely what is needed. Should this legislation become law, 
     the security of the United States would be measurably 
     improved, and our children and grandchildren will thank you. 
     I commend you for your leadership in this crucial endeavor. 
     Let me know if I can be of any assistance in pushing it 
     through.
           Sincerely,
                                                Graham T. Allison,
        Douglas Dillon Professor of International Affairs, Former 
     Assistant Secretary of Defense.
                                  ____

                                            Carnegie Endowment for


                                          International Peace,

                                   Washington, DC, April 12, 2002.
     Senator Jean Carnahan,
     Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Carnahan: Please allow me to introduce myself. 
     My name is Rose Gottemoeller, and I am a Senior Associate at 
     the Carnegie Endowment. I have previously served in senior 
     positions both in and out of the U.S. government, most 
     recently (until October 2000) as Deputy Undersecretary of 
     Energy for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and Assistant 
     Secretary of Energy for Nonproliferation and National 
     Security. From 1994 to 1997, I was Deputy Director of the 
     International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 
     after serving in 1993 and 1994 as the White House National 
     Security Council Director responsible for denuclearization of 
     Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Prior to that time, I was at 
     the RAND Corporation as a senior researcher on issues related 
     to Soviet defense and arms control policy.
       Based on my long experience working on nuclear security 
     issues, I strongly believe that more needs to be done, both 
     in the former Soviet Union and throughout the rest of the 
     world, to ensure a safe and secure future for all Americans. 
     For the better part of the last ten years, the United States 
     has borne the brunt of helping Russia and its neighbors 
     improve security of its civilian and military facilities that 
     house weapons-useable fissile material. As you know, the 
     United States has contributed millions of dollars to secure 
     the Soviet nuclear legacy, but not out of altruism: it is 
     clearly in our national interest to do so.
       While I strongly believe that the support of the U.S. must 
     continue, I now also emphasize that the only way to develop a 
     comprehensive effort to address poorly secured nuclear 
     materials in other parts of the world is for our friends and 
     allies to shoulder some of the burden. The security of 
     nuclear material is in every country's best interest, and 
     every country should be an active participant.
       Thus far, most cooperative efforts to improve the physical 
     protection of nuclear materials have taken place in the 
     former Soviet Union. This is logical, given that most 
     weapons-usable fissile material is located in that region of 
     the world, and much of it has been adequately protected since 
     the break-up of the USSR.
       However, particularly since September 11th, I believe that 
     we all need to pay more attention to the smaller caches of 
     fissile material that exist in other parts of the world. Many 
     of them are not protected to a level commensurate with 
     international standards.

[[Page S3963]]

       It is important to note that while terrorists might have 
     aspirations of developing advanced weapons of mass 
     destruction, it is more likely that a terrorist organization 
     would be able to develop a Radiological Dispersal Device 
     (RDD). This weapon of mass disruption could be created with 
     conventional explosives and some spent fuel or other 
     radiological source material. To the best of my knowledge, 
     there are no nonproliferation efforts for radiological 
     materials. This needs to change. One approach would be to 
     improve the physical protection of such materials, although 
     this task would be so enormous and expensive on a world-wide 
     basis that I believe careful priorities need to be set for 
     such projects. It would also be important to consider 
     emergency response and public information efforts, so that 
     local governments and citizens will have the tools at hand to 
     respond to such an attack.
       The security of nuclear power plants has also come under 
     scrutiny lately. The DOE has been working for years to 
     improve the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear power plants, 
     with significant successes. However, to date, protecting 
     these plants from terrorist sabotage has been less of a 
     priority, and thus has not received attention or funding. 
     This, too, must change.
       The DOE could very easily and usefully take the lessons it 
     has learned from its experience during the last decade of 
     cooperation with Russia and apply them to these new and 
     evolving threats to our national security.
       Therefore, I strongly support your endeavors, and am 
     thankful for your vision in developing new legislation to 
     address these issues. In the absence of a determined program 
     of action, we have every reason to anticipate acts of nuclear 
     terrorism against American targets before this decade is out.
       Please feel free to contact me if I can provide you any 
     further information or clarification. Again, thank you for 
     your commitment to this important issue.
           Sincerely yours,
                                             Rose E. Gottemoeller,
     Senior Associate.
                                  ____

                                          Russian American Nuclear


                                    Security Advisory Council,

                                      Washington, DC, May 1, 2002.
     Hon. Jean Carnahan,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Carnahan: On behalf of the Russian-American 
     Nuclear Security Advisory Council (RANSAC), I want to thank 
     you for sponsoring legislation in support of expanded and 
     improved international efforts to control nuclear and 
     radiological materials. Few objectives are more central to 
     ensuring international security than keeping these and other 
     weapon of mass destruction materials out of hostile hands.
       Since its inception, RANSAC and its members have been very 
     active in promoting efforts to improve nuclear controls in 
     Russia and the former Soviet Union. But we also believe that 
     it is essential to engage the rest of the international 
     community in this effort.
       Since last September there has been some forward progress 
     in programs working to reduce the global nuclear materials 
     threat, but the pace of these efforts remains drastically out 
     of synch with the magnitude of the risks. And, the 
     international community must devote more time, attention, and 
     resources--both in the former Soviet Union and the rest of 
     the world--to diminish these obvious nuclear dangers. I 
     applaud and support the goals of your legislation as a 
     practical step toward accelerating and expanding these 
     efforts.
       Thank you for your leadership on this critical issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                Kenneth N. Luongo,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____


                   Nuclear Threat Reduction Campaign


     statement from the nuclear threat reduction campaign, on the 
        introduction of the global nuclear security act of 2002

       Since 1993, the International Atomic Energy Agency has 
     documented almost 400 cases of trafficking in nuclear and 
     other radioactive materials. Of those, 18 involved small 
     volumes of weapons-grade plutonium or highly enriched 
     uranium, and most of those cases originated in the former 
     Soviet Union. Recent revelations from American intelligence 
     officials indicate that Osama Bin Laden and his al Qaeda 
     network have been trying to acquire radiological material to 
     build a co-called ``dirty'' bomb for use against American 
     targets.
       At present, there are no cooperative programs to secure 
     radiological materials in Russia or elsewhere. The Nuclear 
     Threat Reduction Campaign (NTRC) applauds Senator Jean 
     Carnahan (D-MO) for taking important measures to address this 
     serious threat by introducing the Global Nuclear Security 
     Act, 2002. In the wake of the tragic events of September 
     11th, Senator Carnahan's bill will begin the difficult, but 
     necessary, process of securing radiological materials from 
     potential terrorist theft, tighten international nuclear 
     safety standards, and develop plans for mitigating the threat 
     of terrorist attacks on nuclear power plants outside of the 
     United States.
       This bill supports the President's pledge that, ``Our 
     highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons 
     of mass destruction.'' The Global Nuclear Security Act, 2002 
     is an immediate and cost-effective mechanism to counter 
     current threats to our national security.
       (The NTRC has put forth a five-part agenda encouraging 
     Congress and the Bush Administration to: work toward a 
     comprehensive inventory of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade 
     materials; pass the Debt-Reduction-for-Non-Proliferation Act; 
     sign a legally-binding agreement to reduce stockpiles of 
     strategic weapons held by the United States and Russia; 
     strengthen joint U.S.-Russia threat reduction and non-
     proliferation programs; and expand existing programs to 
     mitigate the threat of bioterrorism. The NTRC is a project of 
     the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and The Justice 
     Project.)

  Mrs. CARNAHAN. In January of this year, I traveled, with eight of my 
colleagues, to meet with the leaders of Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, 
and several countries of the former Soviet Union.
  We were impressed with their level of commitment to the war against 
terrorism, and to making the world safe from weapons of mass 
destruction. We are all in this struggle against terrorism together. 
The only way to lock up all nuclear and radiological material is for 
friends and allies to work together and share the burden. We will spend 
several billions of dollars this year to improve our homeland security, 
and rightly so. But we also must recognize that we are only as safe as 
the weakest link in the chain-link fence guarding some nuclear material 
in far away country.
  I fully support President Bush's call to action, when he said late 
last year, with Russian President Putin by his side, that ``Our highest 
priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass 
destruction.''
  I hope my colleagues will join me as well in supporting this effort.

                          ____________________