[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.
____________________