[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 8, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9050-S9058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 1372. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to specify the purposes for which funds provided under subpart
1 of part A of title I may be used; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill with
Senator Ensign to ensure that Title I funds are directed towards
instructional services to teach low-income students.
Title I provides assistance to virtually every school district in the
country to serve children attending schools with high concentrations of
low-income students, from preschool through high school.
It has been the ``anchor'' of Federal assistance to schools, since
its origin in 1965. And while it has always been Congresses intent for
Title I funds to be used for instruction and instructional services,
the Federal Government has never provided a clear definition of what
instructional services should entail.
This lack of Federal guidance has become especially clear now, as
States scramble to comply with the new and expanded Title I
accountability standards established in ``No Child Left Behind.''
While State Administrators of Title I are directed by law to meet
these specific requirements, they have been given little guidance as to
how to ensure that they are in compliance with the law.
I believe that the Federal Government is responsible for making this
process as clear to States, as possible. In my own view, as it relates
to Title I, we haven't lived up to our end of the bargain.
During consideration of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I worked hard to
get my bill defining appropriate Title I uses included in the Senate
version of the bill.
Unfortunately, during conference consideration, my bill was stripped
out and in its place language directing the General Accounting Office,
GAO, to report on how States use their Title I funds was inserted.
In April, GAO released the report that Congress directed them to
submit on Title I Administrative Expenditures.
What GAO found is that while districts spent a relatively small
amount--no more than 13 percent--of Title I funds on administration
that ``because there is no common definition on what constitutes
administrative, or indirect, expenditures'' the accounting office
couldn't precisely measure how much of their Title I funds were used
for administration.
Because Title I funds are not defined consistently throughout the
States, the accounting office created their own definition by compiling
aspects of State priorities to complete the report.
You see, the very reason I worked to define how Title I funds should
be used--to create consistency and distribution priority nationwide--
became the definitive aspect preventing GAO from effectively drawing
conclusions in their report.
My bill takes some strong steps by balancing the needs for States to
retain Title I flexibility and providing them with the guidance needed
to administer the program uniformly throughout the country.
My bill does two things: It defines Title I direct and indirect
instructional services and sets a standard for the amount of Title I
funds that can be used to achieve the academic and administrative
objectives of this program.
It ensures that the majority of Title I funds are used to improve
academic achievement by stipulating that ``a local educational agency
may not use more than 10 percent of [Title I] funds received. . . . for
indirect instructional services .''
By limiting the amount of funds that schools can spend on
administrative or indirect services, school districts are restricted
from shuffling the majority of Title I to pay for non-academic
services, but it also gives the districts flexibility to use the
remaining funds for the indirect costs of administering Title I
distribution.
[[Page S9051]]
The second component of my bill defines direct and indirect services
so that all States apply the same standards for Title I use nationwide.
Examples of permissible Direct Services are: Employing teachers and
other instructional personnel (including employee benefits);
intervening and taking corrective actions to improve student
achievement; extending academic instruction beyond the normal school
day and year, including summer school; providing instructional services
to pre-kindergarten children for the transition to kindergarten;
purchasing instructional resources such as books, materials, computers,
and other instructional equipment and wiring to support instructional
equipment; professional development; developing and administering
curriculum, educational materials and assessments; transporting
students to assist them in improving academic achievement.
Examples of indirect services limited to no more than 10 percent of
Title I expenditures are: business services relating to administering
the program; purchasing or providing facilities maintenance,
janitorial, gardening, or landscaping services or the payment of
utility costs; and paying for travel to and attendance at conferences
or meetings, except for travel and attendance necessary for
professional development.
Current law on Title I is much too vague.
It says, ``A State or local educational agency shall use funds
received under this part only to supplement the amount of funds that
would, in the absence of such Federal funds, be made available from
non-Federal sources for the education of pupils participating in
programs assisted under this part, and not to supplant such funds.''
Basically, it says that Title I funds are to be used for the
``education of pupils.'' That is just too nebulous.
The U.S. Department of Education has given States a guidance document
that explains how Title I funds can be used.
Under this guidance document, only two uses are specifically
prohibited: 1. Construction or acquisition of real property; and 2.
payment to parents to attend a meeting or training session or to
reimburse a parent for salary lost due to attendance at ``parental
involvement'' meeting.
I believe we should give the Department, States and districts clearer
guidance in law.
My reasons for introducing this bill are two-fold: First, I believe
that States must use their limited Federal dollars for the fundamental
purpose of providing academic instruction to help students learn.
Secondly, I believe that it is nearly impossible to do so without
providing a clear definition of what is considered an instructional
service.
I am not suggesting that it is the fault of the school districts for
not focusing their Title I funds on academic instruction. They are
simply exercising the flexibility that Congress has given them.
What I am saying is that if Congress also intended for those funds to
educate our neediest children, Federal guidance must be given to ensure
that it happens.
It is my view that Title I cannot do everything. Federal funding
accounts for a small percentage of total funding for elementary and
secondary education and Title I is even a smaller percentage of total
support for public schools.
That is why I am trying to better focus Title I funds on academic
instruction, teaching the fundamentals and helping disadvantaged
children achieve success.
Schools must focus their general education budget to pay for expenses
that fall outside of the realm of direct educational services and
retain the majority of Federal funds to improve academic achievement
for poor children.
It is time to better direct Title I funds to the true goal of
education: to help students learn. This is one step toward that goal.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1372
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 ``Title I Integrity Act of
2003''.
SEC. 2. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.
Subpart 1 of part A of title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1120C. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES.
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, a local educational agency shall use funds received
under this subpart only for direct instructional services and
indirect instructional services.
``(2) Limitation on indirect instructional services.--A
local educational agency may not use more than 10 percent of
funds received under this subpart for indirect instructional
services.
``(b) Instructional Services.--
``(1) Direct instructional services.--In this section, the
term `direct instructional services' means--
``(A) the implementation of instructional interventions and
corrective actions to improve student achievement;
``(B) the extension of academic instruction beyond the
normal school day and year, including during summer school;
``(C) the employment of teachers and other instructional
personnel, including providing teachers and instructional
personnel with employee benefits;
``(D) the provision of instructional services to
prekindergarten children to prepare such children for the
transition to kindergarten;
``(E) the purchase of instructional resources, such as
books, materials, computers, other instructional equipment,
and wiring to support instructional equipment;
``(F) the development and administration of curricula,
educational materials, and assessments;
``(G) the transportation of students to assist the students
in improving academic achievement;
``(H) the employment of title I coordinators, including
providing title I coordinators with employee benefits; and
``(I) the provision of professional development for
teachers and other instructional personnel.
``(2) Indirect instructional services.--In this section,
the term `indirect instructional services' includes--
``(A) the purchase or provision of facilities maintenance,
gardening, landscaping, or janitorial services, or the
payment of utility costs;
``(B) the payment of travel and attendance costs at
conferences or other meetings;
``(C) the payment of legal services;
``(D) the payment of business services, including payroll,
purchasing, accounting, and data processing costs; and
``(E) any other services determined appropriate by the
Secretary that indirectly improve student achievement.''.
______
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1375. A bill to provide for the reauthorization of programs
administered by the Small Business Administration, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Small business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small
Business Administration 50th Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003,''
a bill to reauthorize the U.S. Small Business Administration, SBA, and
its programs for the next three years. While reauthorization
legislation is a significant event, this year it is particularly
auspicious since we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
agency--a full half century of helping to create, assist, and guide
small businesses.
As the Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship,
I began developing this legislation just after assuming the leadership
of the Committee in January. The bill I introduce today is the product
of considerable effort and vetting, and I am very pleased to be joined
by the Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Kerry, in this process.
Through his contributions and those of other Members of my Committee,
this is truly bipartisan bill.
Over the past several months, we have held a series of hearings and
roundtables to examine virtually every aspect of the SBA and the wide
array of programs and services it provides to the country's small
enterprises. As we started that process, we looked back on the SBA's
history to learn from its past in order to set a path for its future.
More than 50 years ago, congressional efforts began to focus on the
specific needs of small businesses--to create a ``level playing
field''--and to develop Federal small business assistance programs. One
of the objectives was to
[[Page S9052]]
ensure that small businesses could develop management and marketing
skills to compete with big business for their share of government
contracts.
In May of 1953, the Small Business Act was introduced, and it became
law on July 30 of that year with President Eisenhower's signature.
Since 1953, Congress and the various administrations have responded to
the needs of small businesses by creating a fair but competitive
environment for those who choose entrepreneurship. The SBA has evolved
from a direct lender and provider of management assistance to a
nationwide delivery system of resources offering a complete menu of
small business tools, professional counseling assistance, business
education and training programs, Federal procurement opportunities, and
loan guaranty programs.
Today, the agency faces enormous challenges. Each year, there are 3
to 4 million new businesses start-ups--one in 25 adult Americans is
taking steps to start a business. One quarter of existing small
business owners intend to form another business. And, small businesses
account for approximately two-thirds of the net new jobs in our
country. So while the SBA has had a tremendous impact on the success of
small businesses over the past 50 years, it is critical that we ensure
the agency is well positioned to produce even better results in the
next 50 years.
My goal in developing this bill has been to ascertain what works
among SBA programs, why it works, and apply that approach to other
programs so there is more consistent success within the SBA portfolio
of products and services. In the end, I hope this bill will lead to a
renewed SBA, rededicated to improving the environment or leveling the
playing field for small business ownership in America.
While the particulars of this bill are extensive, I want to highlight
three of its most critical, key areas--
In terms of financing programs for small businesses, during this
reauthorization process, I have focused extensively on improving the
credit and venture capital resources that the SBA provides for small
enterprises. These programs--including the 7(a), 504, and Microloan
programs as well as the SBIC, New Markets Venture Capital, and Surety
Bond programs provide vital capital for America's small businesses. In
addition, looking just at the lending programs, they alone are
responsible for helping small businesses create and retain more than
1.3 million jobs in just the past 3 years!
That is why I held two Committee roundtables on these financing
programs so I could hear firsthand from small business, lenders, and
the SBA about ways these programs can increase access to capital for
small businesses. To start, we are proposing to continue the growth of
the financing programs through reasonable increases in their
authorization levels. The bill also increases the amount that small
businesses can borrow subject to the SBA's guarantee, so that the SBA's
loan sizes will keep pace with what it actually costs to start and
operate a small business in today's economy. And we make improvements
to the SBA's loan programs that will benefit fast-growing contributors
and vital elements of our economy including women-owned and veteran-
owned businesses and small business exporters.
Moreover, the bill addresses access to capital by helping SBA's
lending partners. A new initiative that holds great promise will allow
for the pooling of small business loans not guaranteed by the SBA. This
pilot program was recommended by participants at our roundtable on
April 30, 2003, and has been under consideration by the SBA. By pooling
these non-guaranteed loans together and offering them as securities on
the secondary market with a partial SBA guarantee on the pool, banks
will be able to free-up capital for additional small business lending.
As a result, they will be able to provide even greater resources for
small businesses struggling to secure the necessary capital to start
up, operate, and grow.
Similarly, the new National Preferred Lenders Pilot Program will
allow qualified SBA lenders to be licensed on a nationwide basis.
Currently, Preferred Lenders must qualify in every region where they do
business, which is both cumbersome and costly. This initiative will
streamline that process for the premier lenders who qualify for a
nationwide license and enable them to provide capital more efficiently
and effectively to small businesses across the nation.
In addition, the bill includes a proposal by Senator Kerry to permit
non-profit child-care centers to qualify for 504 loans. I believe the
growing need for child care in this country warrants testing this idea
as a pilot program, even as I continue to have reservations about this
initiative's effect on the availability of loans under the 504 program
for other for-profit borrowers and the expansion of this loan program
to non-profit entities. Accordingly, we have limited the loan volume
under the pilot to 7 percent of the overall 504 loans to ensure that
this initiative does not bar qualifying for-profit businesses from
obtaining necessary financing.
Finally in the area of financing programs, we have also focused on
improving the SBA's procedures for overseeing lenders participating in
the credit programs. By improving this oversight, we can protect
against improper lending practices, produce a more consistent system
for lenders, and provide taxpayers with better protection of their tax
dollars.
In the area of entrepreneurial development, we set out to ensure that
the SBA's programs continue to provide the products and services
essential to small businesses, which in turn create a return on our
investment in these programs through successful business ownership and
job creation. Recognizing the tremendous accomplishments by women
entrepreneurs, I introduced the Women's Small Business Improvement Act
of 2003 (S. 1154) earlier this year to improve the SBA's Office of
Women's Business Ownership, the Women's Business Centers Program, the
National Women's Business Council, and the Interagency Committee on
Women's Business Enterprise. I have incorporated those provisions into
the bill before us in order to provide a universal approach to all of
SBA's sponsored programs and services for women.
A cornerstone of this effort involves making the Women's Business
Center Program a permanent program that will offer opportunities for
new centers and renewal grants for existing centers on a competitive
basis. By replacing the pilot Sustainability Program, which expires at
the end of the current fiscal year, with a fair and balanced grant
program, the bill will correct the funding constraints that have
plagued the program in 2003. The bill will also provide for the
creation of new centers and the continuation of current operating
centers through renewal grants. This structure will reward successful
centers with continuation funding and weed out failing centers to make
room for new ones with greater potential for serving the needs of
women-owned businesses.
The National Women's Business Council will also be given greater
control of its mission, and I am proposing the full funding of $1
million for each Fiscal Year for this program. The Interagency
Committee on Women's Business Enterprise will be reenergized by
providing interim leadership and a shared focus with the National
Women's Business Council, the Women's Business Centers, and the Office
of Women's Business Ownership. These programs hold great potential for
women-owned businesses, but they must be coordinated so that their
limited resources are dedicated to a focused goal.
In addition, the SBA's entrepreneurial development partners--the
Small Business Development Centers and the Service Corps of Retired
Executives--continue to provide quality training and free counseling
through almost 2,000 locations and are limited only by funding and
their geographic locations. Therefore, in addition to minor technical
changes in these programs, I propose that we increase the authorization
level for these programs to support the increased demand for their
services.
And we have included the Native American Small Business Development
Program in the bill. This initiative will provide entrepreneurial
assistance to Tribal Governments and Colleges, Small Business
Development Centers in Native American communities, and small
businesses located on or near Tribal Lands. Complementing the SBA's
Office of Native American Affairs, this initiative will strengthen the
[[Page S9053]]
SBA's efforts to help Native Americans start, operate and grow small
businesses.
Finally, one of the most serious problems facing small business is
their inability to participate fully in Federal contracts, on either a
prime or subcontract basis. In the last 10 years, contract bundling has
forced more than 50 percent of small businesses out of the Federal
marketplace. Steps clearly must be taken to ensure that small
businesses have the opportunity to compete for the business of the
nation's largest consumer--the Federal government.
President Bush recognizes the inequity that contract bundling
represents. He also understands the damage it does to both small
businesses and the Federal procurement process by denying the
government the benefits of more robust competition, small business
efficiencies, and small business innovations. He has spoken out against
this practice, and I applaud his commitment to addressing this problem.
To achieve that objective, the SBA reauthorization bill addresses the
practice of Federal contract bundling by limiting its use and giving
small businesses access to Federal contracts and a fair opportunity to
compete for them. By requiring studies to be done for all
consolidations worth more than $5 million for the Department of Defense
and $2 million for all other agencies, the bill also holds agencies to
a higher level of accountability than exists under current law.
Those who support the practice of bundling allege that denying small
businesses access to prime contracts can be offset by ensuring that
such firms receive more subcontracts from the large firms that are
awarded prime contracts. However, small businesses continue to
experience difficulties at the subcontract level as well. This bill
contains strong language that strengthens oversight and enforcement of
small business subcontracting plans to ensure small business
subcontractors are not neglected.
Furthermore, we have included provisions to encourage contracting
opportunities for women-owned businesses--one of the fastest growing
segments of the small business sector of our economy. Despite their
success, women-owned small businesses have testified before the Small
Business Committee about how difficult it is to do business with the
Federal Government. Three years ago Congress created a Procurement
Program for Women-Owned Small Business Concerns. That legislation
required the promulgation of regulations to help implement new small
business procurement set-asides for women-owned businesses.
The legislation, however, conditioned the regulations by first
requiring a study to be conducted to justify the disparate treatment of
women in various procurement instances. At the Small Business
Committee's roundtable on April 9, 2003, women-owned small businesses
expressed their frustration that it has taken so long to conduct the
study and implement the program. This bill directs the GAO to complete
that study by December 31, 2003 to ensure that the women's procurement
program is finally implemented.
Finally, the bill contains improvements to the HUBZone program, which
are intended, in part, to address the serious consequences that
military base closings pose for our local communities. Closing a
military base adversely affects the towns and communities surrounding
the installation due to loss of tax revenue, defense income, base
transition costs and clean-up costs.
Successful recovery from a base closing has been tied to public and
private reinvestment in these communities. While Congress has taken
action in the past to ease the transition for individuals and spur
reinvestment, this bill supports faster redevelopment by expanding the
HUBZone Program to include communities affected by base closures. It
provides an incentive, through Federal government contracts, for small
businesses to operate in these communities and to provide employment to
these military and civilian personnel.
This year's SBA reauthorization bill paves the way to a stronger SBA
able to meet the needs and concerns of the country's entrepreneurs. The
future of our country is inextricably tied to the future of small
business--and by enhancing the conditions that support small business,
we will ensure a more prosperous future for all. I urge all my
colleagues to support this important legislation on behalf of the
nation's small businesses and entrepreneurs.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, as Ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I join the
Committee's Chair, Senator Olympia Snowe in introducing a three-year
reauthorization bill for the Small Business Administration's programs.
These programs help small businesses, often called the engine of the
American economy, with access to capital, business advice and training
and Federal procurement opportunities. But before I speak more
specifically about the provisions of the bill, I would like to thank
Chair Snowe for working hand-in-hand with me on this, my third,
reauthorization of the Small Business Administration. Having worked
closely on two previous reauthorizations, and as a member of the Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Committee for over 18 years, I can tell
you that the SBA reauthorization process takes diligence and a strong
attention to detail. I want to commend Senator Snowe for taking the
initiative to draft legislation that makes such important and necessary
changes to the SBA during this reauthorization process and for showing
great leadership in her first seven months as Chair of the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Our bill will strengthen the SBA and dramatically improve the
agency's ability to deliver services to small businesses in every
state. It is based on a sound Committee record. In addition to holding
two hearings and three roundtables to specifically address SBA's
programs and related reauthorization issues, our Committee met and
spoke with numerous constituents, program directors and small business
advocates. It is through this correspondence, research and input that
our Committee has been able to prepare a comprehensive piece of
legislation that will likely serve the Small Business Administration
and the entire small-business community well past even the next
reauthorization period.
Over the past three years, as Chairman and Ranking Member of this
Committee, I have seen this administration reduce government funding
and transfer that money to the wealthy with tax cut after tax cut,
resulting in a significant loss of revenue for essential programs aimed
at fostering small businesses and the economic activity they bring
about. While many of us like to note that small businesses are the
engine of economic growth and should be bolstered by our government,
this administration has given small businesses more words than action.
The need for small business programs--for access to capital, for
training and counseling, for assistance in gaining access to the
Federal marketplace--runs counter cyclical to the economy. When the
economy is slumping, as it now is, small businesses and entrepreneurs
need the SBA even more. Our Committee has heard from the small-business
community that demand for training and assistance and access to capital
is up, yet this administration has proposed freezing funding for
virtually all SBA programs for six years. Their proposal includes no
adjustment for inflation or demand, despite SBA's own numbers that show
demand is up for its programs.
It is carrying out our legislative and oversight responsibilities
that Chair Snowe and I raised a number of concerns regarding the SBA's
reauthorization proposal and the overall management and direction of
many of the agency's programs through hearings, and roundtables and in
letters and phone calls to the administration. And after hearing from
the community and working with small business experts in the field,
Senator Snowe and I came to the conclusion that many of the proposals
put forth by the Small Business Administration would not help the
agency's programs but ultimately hinder them.
This administration and small businesses across this Nation will
find, however, that our prescription for small businesses in a flailing
economy
[[Page S9054]]
is quite different. Our reauthorization legislation embraces the
programs that have worked for years, redirects those that have
struggled and sets the SBA and up for continued success.
Although banks have plenty of cash to lend, small businesses are
still having a problem getting access to credit. For the past few years
as the economy has fizzled, the Federal Reserve has reported that banks
have cut back on lending to small businesses, making it harder and more
expensive to get loans. And who has been there to pick up the slack?
The Small Business Administration and its lending partners.
Lending is up in SBA's largest lending program for working capital.
Lending is up in SBA's microloan program, which serves those with the
least access to capital through the private sector. And SBA's venture
capital programs account for a significant role--more than 50 percent--
in this country's investment in our fastest-growing small businesses.
Last year these loans pumped about $20 billion into the economy,
leveraged millions more from the private sector, fed the local tax base
as the Federal government cut back, and created at least 400,000 jobs.
As the Committee reviewed SBA's programs for reauthorization, these
facts figured largely into establishing the program levels. I thank our
Chair, Senator Snowe, for working with me to set the levels for SBA's
lending and venture capital programs at increasing levels for the next
three years. I am particularly pleased with the increased funding
levels for the microloan programs.
I disagree with the administration's proposals over the past few
years to cut back its investment in microloans and training assistance
to micro-entrepreneurs. And I disagree with the Adminstration's
contention that these borrowers are being served through the 7(a) loan
program. The small borrower in the microloan program is different than
the small borrower being served through the 7(a) loan program. Both are
important, but they are different, and one is not a substitute for the
other.
And who are these borrowers being served through the microloan
program? Thirty percent are African American. Eleven percent are
Hispanic. Thirty-seven percent are women. And anywhere from 30 to 40
percent go to small businesses in rural areas. Banks turn these
borrowers away, and yet the administration proposed cutting the
microloan program by 36 percent in its most recent budget. SBA needs to
fully fund these programs and put more resources into the office that
manages the program. Four people is not enough to manage 1,400 loans
and 180 grants.
Aside from setting the levels for each small business financial
assistance program, we made important program changes and started new
initiatives. In the 7(a) loan program, SBA's largest loan program,
which provides working capital to small businesses with long terms of
up to 25 years, we made permanent the reduction in the fees borrowers
and lenders pay. We are testing a proposal that allows the most
proficient 7(a) lenders in good standing to lend in every state.
Lenders have complained that applying for lending autonomy in each of
the 70 district office and branches is administratively burdensome,
both for them and for the Agency staff, and that some district offices
have taken advantage of the power to approve or disapprove lenders when
they apply for this special lending status.
I want to make clear while I want to avoid unnecessary paperwork and
eliminate reported abuses, I do not want the lenders to take this as
authority to quit working with the district directors. It is important
to have a local connection and for the SBA and the lenders to work
together to maximize service to the small businesses. For this purpose
I have included a provision which directs the SBA to consider the
recommendations and comments of any district directors and regional
administrators when reviewing a lender for national lending authority.
To increase the value of 7(a) loans sold in the secondary market, the
Committee has included a provision to allow SBA to pool and sell the
guaranteed portion of loans with varied rates. Currently SBA has the
authority to only sell those loans with identical rates. This should
create efficiencies in market and bring down borrowing costs for the
small business borrower. At Senator Snowe's request, in order to reach
more under-served small businesses, we have enhanced the Low-Doc
program, allowing lenders to use the simplified application form for
loans up to $250,000 from $100,000, making it the same as the SBA
Express program. We have also expanded the incentives for lenders to
provide financing to export small businesses, and proposed letting 7(a)
borrowers use a simplified size standard when determining if an
applicant is a small business.
To improve the 504 loan program, which makes long-term loans of up to
20 years to small, growing businesses to buy equipment and buildings,
we have also raised the debenture size to keep pace with the rising
cost of commercial real estate and equipment. We have brought the job
requirement standard up from $35,000 to $50,000 after ten or twelve
years. We have directed SBA to simplify the application and
documentation process of applying for and closing 504 loans, long a
goal of this Committee and made a priority based on the testimony of
one of our witnesses during the reauthorization process. We have
created two alternatives for 504 lenders to use when establishing a
loan loss reserve to cover potential losses.
I am particularly pleased that we have included S. 822, the Child
Care Lending Pilot Act in the reauthorization bill. It allows small,
non-profit childcare businesses access to 504 loans. I thank Senator
Snowe and my colleagues for agreeing to try this for three years,
similar to what we have done with the microloan program. And I thank
the trade association of 504 lenders, the National Association of
Certified Development Companies, and other 504 lenders for their
endorsement of an input on the pilot.
The more research I've done, the more I've come to realize how
vitally important it is that we give non-profit day care providers the
same opportunities as for-profits to expand their businesses. Non-
profit day care centers are often the only child care suppliers
available in needy areas, from the most urban to the most rural. Giving
these businesses access to 504 loans for three years will allow us to
gauge whether this valuable loan program is the best way to aid these
valuable providers of care to our Nation's children. I have taken note
of states like Oregon, where 79 percent of day care providers are non-
profit, Michigan, where that number jumps to 86 percent, Iowa with 77
percent, my own State of Massachusetts with 90 percent, Ohio with 62
percent, and the list goes on and on. I've learned that in State after
State families are waiting for affordable day care; from more than one
thousand families on the waiting list in Nevada and Maine to more than
thirty thousand on the list in Texas. These parents are waiting for
quality day care they can afford, and making available affordable loans
to all licensed child care providers may increase access to care and
cut down those waiting lists.
I understand the concerns of those who are concerned about the
precedent of SBA lending to non-profits. And I agree it should not be
expanded to all industries. However, this is a very unique industry
that in many States is delivered mostly through non-profits, and the
only way to penetrate the market is to reach both for-profit and non-
profit. Further, non-profits are usually the providers that care for
the neediest kids. I have added provisions to ensure the underwriting
standards are just as tough, if not more so, as those applied to for-
profit centers. The loans must be personally guaranteed, the collateral
must be owned outright by the child care provider, and it must be able
to make its loan payments and cover normal operating expenses from the
revenue generated from its clients. With these protections, the loans
to non-profits should perform just as well as those made to for-
profits, and if there is a problem, the loans should be collateralized
sufficiently to cover the losses.
The bill defines a small, non-profit child care business to mean an
entity organized as a 501(c)(3), but not just any organization. It must
be a licensed child care provider; it must meet the size standard for a
small business; and it must provide care to infants, toddlers and pre-
kindergarten and older children after school. At Senator Snowe's
request, the pilot is limited to
[[Page S9055]]
7 percent allowed for pilots under SBA's 7(a) guaranteed business loan
program. I feel that the agreed upon cap should allow for sufficient
lending under the pilot to adequately test whether lending to non-
profit childcare providers is effective in increasing access to
affordable childcare, and whether it protects the general 504 program,
which is vital to the financing of small businesses in this country.
The bill also includes a comprehensive study by the GAO to track and
monitor the impact of this program both on the industry and the
program. Last, I want to remind my colleagues that the 504 program is
funded entirely through fees and does not require appropriations.
Also included in this bill is S. 318, the Small Business Drought
Relief Act. This simply reinforces in legislation something which SBA
should already be doing. You see, the SBA doesn't treat all drought
victims the same. The Agency only helps those small businesses whose
income is tied to farming and agriculture. However, farmers and
ranchers are not the only small business owners whose livelihoods are
at risk when drought hits their communities. The impact can be just as
devastating to the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and
tackle shops. Sadly, at present these small businesses cannot get help
through the SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers
hate about government--bureaucracy.
The SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its
lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a
disaster by definition. However, contrary to the Agency's position that
drought is not a disaster, as of July 16, 2002, the day this
legislation was introduced last year, the SBA had in effect drought
disaster declarations in 36 states. That number had grown to 48 the
beginning of this year, demonstrating that problem had gotten worse and
even more small businesses were in need.
As I have said time and again, the SBA has the authority to help all
small businesses hurt by drought in declared disaster areas, but the
Agency won't do it. For years the Agency has been applying the law
unfairly, helping some and not others, and it is out of compliance with
the law. The Small Business Drought Relief Act of 2003 would force SBA
to comply with existing law, restoring fairness to an unfair system,
and get help to small business drought victims that need it. I thank
Senator Bond for working with me on this when he was the Ranking Member
of the Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, and I thank
Senator Snowe and her staff for all their help and support. While we
might have had a lot of rain recently in the Northeast, there are areas
like Lake Mead in Arizona where it is so dry that the water level is
down and small businesses are losing business and making expensive
changes to extend docks to reach the water.
In this bill are also provisions to shore up SBA's venture capital
programs--the Small Business Investment Company Debenture and
Participating Securities programs, and the New Markets Venture Capital
Program. We have balanced investment incentives with soundness issues
and allowed small businesses to receive more SBIC financing than
currently permissible if they also have a 504 or 7(a) loan. We have
improved the arrangement for distributing payments from successful
SBICs so that SBA and the investors are treated more fairly and the
taxpayers has more protection for realizing repayment on the
investments. We have put in place conforming amendments to make the New
Markets Venture Capital program work with the New Markets Tax Credit,
as Congress intended. We have clarified that new markets venture
capital companies have two years to raise their matching capital, as
Congress intended. The Committee has been troubled by the Agency's
interpretation of the NMVC statute which they viewed as permitting SBA
to choose how much time it can give conditionally approved NMVCs to
raise the private-sector matching money. The chosen time frames were
unreasonable and not what Congress intended.
We have also included many measures to strengthen SBA's oversight of
lenders, responding to findings by the General Accounting Office and
the Office of Inspector General. And we have reauthorized and clarified
the law for surety bond guarantees to help small businesses get
government contracts.
While no one would deny the importance access to capital plays in the
success of small businesses, as SBA Administration Hector Barreto and
past SBA Administrators have acknowledged time and again, debt is not
always the answer. In the SBA's FY 2004 budget request, there is
reference to information from the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and
Dun & Bradstreet that indicates ``80 percent of new businesses
discontinue operation within five years because of lack of `knowledge'
of key business skills.'' Despite the recognized importance of such
assistance, the SBA's funding request for FY 2004 and its legislative
proposal to implement that request would freeze funding levels for
virtually all Agency programs, without even accounting for inflation,
for a six-year period. If enacted, that would severely hamstring this
nation's small businesses and their ability to effectively compete and
prosper in the national economy.
Cuts to or inadequate funding of the SBA's entrepreneurial
development programs are often attributed to vague and unfounded claims
of duplication. Such claims mistake a common mission of training and
counseling for duplication, ignoring the reality that small businesses
vary greatly, are often at very different stages of development, and
have many different needs. Just as it would be ineffective to only have
one type of loan or venture capital financing structure for the 25
million small businesses in this country, it would be futile to water
down specialized management and training programs to impose a one-size-
fits-all approach.
I want to commend Chair Snowe for giving women entrepreneurs such a
prominent place in the reauthoziation process. Rarely do women
entrepreneurs get the recognition and attention they deserve for their
contributions to our economy: 18 million Americans would be without
jobs today if it weren't for these entrepreneurs who had the courage
and the vision to strike out of their own. During my tenure as a
member, Chair, and lead Democrat of the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, I have worked to increase and improve
the opportunities for enterprising entrepreneurial women in a variety
of ways, leading to greater earning power, financial independence and
asset accumulation--and I am glad that Senator Snowe is joining me in
this endeavor.
As Chair Snowe expressed when she introduced the Women's Small
Business Programs Improvement Act--and when Senator Snowe and I passed
the Women's Business Center's Preservation Act--protecting the
extremely effective and well-established Women's Business Center
network was a high priority in this reauthorization. For that reason,
we make permanent the Women's Business Center Sustainability Pilot
Program by creating three-year ``renewal'' grants for those centers
with sustainability grants and four-year ``initial'' grants for new
centers; increase the program's authorization levels; and direct the
Office of Women's Business Ownership, OWBO, to make all Women's
Business Center grants at $150K and to consult with the associations of
Women's Business Centers when making improvements to the program. Other
changes to the Women's Business Center Program include streamlining the
data collection and the grant application and selection criteria,
protecting the privacy of Women's Business Council, WBC, clients, and
providing for a smooth transition from sustainability to the newly
established WBC program. Our legislation will not only secure the
future of the Women's Business Center Program, but it will connect all
SBA-related women's initiatives with a unified mission, similar
guidance and training. These changes were coupled with minor, yet
significant, changes to the National Women's Business Council, NWBC,
and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise. Senator
Snowe and I included provisions to give the NWBC cosponsorship
authority, to allow more flexibility in the way the Council uses funds,
and to direct the Council to serve as a clearinghouse for historical
data. Each of these things will enable the Council to become a better
resource for the Administration, Congress and the entire small-business
[[Page S9056]]
community. To bolster the representation of women business owners in
the federal government, our bill re-establishes the Interagency
Committee on Women's Business Enterprise, directs the Deputy
Administrator of the SBA to serve as acting chairperson of the
Interagency Committee until a chairperson is appointed, establishes a
Policy Advisory Group to assist the Committee's chairperson in
developing policies and programs under this Act and creates three
subcommittees similar to those created under the National Women
Business Council.
This bill also supports and protects the Small Business Development
Center network, which has served 9 million small-business owners since
its inception more than 20 years ago. It should also be noted that in
2001, SBDCs helped small businesses create or retain over 80,000 jobs,
generate $3.9 billion in sales and obtain $2.7 billion in financing.
For every dollar spent on an SBDC, $2.09 in tax revenue was returned to
the Federal Government. Numbers aside, the nationwide network of SBDCs
provide important counseling services to small-business owners that are
unable to afford private consulting, many of whom are women and
minority clients. The SBDC program has grown to serve 1.25 million
small-business owners and entrepreneurs each year, and there are nearly
1,000 centers serving every State in Nation.
While this bill rejects the potentially detrimental changes proposed
by the SBA to the SBDC network, it does address concerns expressed by
the centers and small businesses. Included in our bill are increased
authorization levels to keep up with increased demand and a provision
to protect the privacy of the program's clients and a provision to help
SBDCs that have been adversely affected by poor economic conditions or
government downsizing.
Also, included in the entrepreneurial development section of our bill
is a provision to increase to $7 million annually the authorization
level for the Service Corps of Retired Executives, SCORE, which has
nearly 11,000 volunteers, and a technical change to allow SCORE to keep
its modest staff of fourteen employees.
I want to thank Senator Snowe for working with me to include, as
introduced, the Native American Small Business Development Act, which I
reintroduced earlier this year together with Senator Johnson and
Senator Smith to address the SBA's growing lack of commitment to the
Native American community. According to a report released by the U.S.
Census Bureau, the ``three year average poverty rate for American
Indians and Alaska Natives [from 1998-2000] was 25.9 percent; higher
than for any other race groups.'' With an unemployment rate well above
the national average and household income at just three-quarters of the
national average, Native American communities need a commitment from
the Federal government that we will help them, particularly during
these difficult economic times. To reaffirm this commitment, the
Johnson-Kerry-Smith bill provides Native Americans the resources they
need to take advantage of the opportunities of entrepreneurship.
The Native American Small Business Development Act, as included in
our reauthorization bill, will ensure that the SBA's programs to assist
Native American communities cannot be dissolved by making the SBA's
Office of Native American Affairs, ONAA, and its Assistant
Administrator permanent. Our legislation would also create a statutory
grant program, known as the Native American Development grant program,
to assist Native Americans. It would also establish two pilot programs
to try new means of assisting Native American communities and require
Native American communities to be consulted regarding the future of SBA
programs designed to assist them. In short, this legislation will
ensure that our Native American communities receive the adequate
assistance they need to help start and grow small businesses.
To address the growing business development needs of veterans,
Senator Snowe and I reauthorized the Advisory Committee on Veterans
Affairs, expanded veterans outreach grants from just service-disable
veterans, to veterans, reservists and service-disable veterans.
Further, we increase the funding for the Office of Veterans Business
Development to enable that office to better deal with the demand by
veterans for outreach and development services.
We continue to receive reports of the detrimental effects of the
Administration's policy of reduced staffing and resources for essential
programs aimed at allowing small businesses to thrive. Week after week,
the Federal Times reports on the decline in contracts being allocated
to small businesses, small businesses losing ground in the federal
marketplace, and most recently, on the awarding of more big contracts
with less oversight from Federal agencies. With agencies awarding
larger, more complex and more costly contracts with less staff
performing oversight, this nation's small businesses and its tax payers
are the ones shouldering the burden when small business goals continue
to be unmet. In addition to helping small businesses obtain access to
procurement opportunities, these goals are meant to help the government
benefit from the cost-savings and innovations small business
contractors can often provide.
Significant improvements to the on-going problem of contract
bundling, also called contract consolidation, are included in this
bill. The first provision creates a two-tiered approach to preventing
unnecessary contract consolidation. Civilian agencies will be required
to meet specific standards if they attempt to consolidate contracts
above $2 million and additional requirements for those contracts above
$5 million. The Department of Defense is required to meet two types of
similar requirements for contracts above $5 million and $7 million. The
bill also eliminates the use of the term ``contract bundling'' and
expands the definition of ``contract consolidation,'' closing a
loophole that has been widely used and has detrimentally affected small
businesses.
The second provision increases in the number of Procurement Center
Representatives (PCRs) stationed throughout the country. These
representatives advocate on behalf of small businesses in cases
directly affecting contracting, such as the bundling or consolidation
of contracts. In the bill, we have increased the number of PCRs to
ensure that every state and every major procurement center is allocated
at least one PCR. Meanwhile, we have also ensured that these PCRs are
not burdened with responsibilities that were previously the duties of
Breakout PCRs and Commercial Marketing Representatives. These two
improvements will dramatically increase the efficacy and efficiency of
all three positions and allow proper review of the approximately 40
percent of Federal contracts, nearly $90 billion, that are currently
not being reviewed by PCRs. This should increase small business's
access to Federal contract opportunities.
The bill would also create a reporting requirement for the
BusinessLINC program, which has been showing promise in creating real
teaming opportunities for small businesses in the private sector.
Although the Administration recommended elimination of the program, the
reports this Committee received regarding the overwhelming success of
the existing nine programs made it clear that the SBA did not have
sufficient information about BusinessLINC to make an informed decision
on its effectiveness. The Committee's bill would ensure that the SBA
offers the proper level of oversight and would foster the continued
success of the program. I would like to thank Senator Snowe for working
with me to find a compromise to preserve this successful program.
At each of this Committee's three Roundtables on Reauthorization and
the hearing on contract bundling, the small business community
reiterated the need for accountability for small business contracting
at the agency level. I applaud Senator Snowe on her efforts to ensure
that Federal agencies be held accountable for fully utilizing small
businesses and to allow a greater amount of Congressional oversight of
the implementation of agency procurement strategies. Provisions within
this bill will ensure that the heads of Federal agencies identify a
specific portion of their budget request that will be awarded to small
businesses in their strategic plan and their annual budget
[[Page S9057]]
submission to Congress; will hold senior executives and senior program
managers accountable in their annual performance evaluations for small
business utilization in Federal contract awards.
In addition to increasing opportunities for prime contracts, this
bill addresses another serious problem: small businesses have been
severely hamstrung by dishonest practices by some businesses that have
prime contracts with the Federal Government and receive preference over
other prime contractors due to their superior subcontracting plans.
Senator Snowe and I have worked closely to address the concerns of
small businesses regarding delays in payment, false reporting and the
use of ``bait and switch'' tactics by prime contractors.
This bill holds prime contractors responsible for the validity of
subcontracting data, requiring the CEO to certify to the accuracy of
the subcontracting report under penalty of law. It also expands the
penalties for falsifying data included in subcontracting reports to
match the $500,000 penalty for businesses that falsify their status as
a small and disadvantaged business. If one intentionally falsifies data
as a part of a subcontracting report to a Federal agency, he is
defrauding the United States government and will be punished to the
full extent of the law. I commend Senator Snowe for her diligence in
creating these strict penalties and her efforts to create a bipartisan
response to protect small businesses.
I want to thank Chairwoman Snowe and her able staff for all of their
hard work over the past several months. I also want to express my
gratitude to all members of the Committee and urge them and my other
Senate colleagues to support the Small Business Administration 50th
Anniversary Reauthorization Act of 2003.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 1376. A bill to include the Department of Energy and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission as employers for the purposes of whistleblower
protection; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
providing greater protection for workers dealing with nuclear materials
and nuclear power. I am pleased to introduce this legislation today
with my colleague from Nevada, Senator Ensign.
Several weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee on problems facing the Yucca Mountain project.
I was extremely disappointed that two of the witnesses--both current
employees of the Department of Energy and one of its contractors--
failed to testify at the hearing.
It was clear to me that these people failed to appear before the
committee because they were concerned that their appearance could have
negative repercussions on their jobs. That is completely unacceptable.
So today, Senator Ensign and I are introducing legislation to expand
the whistleblower protections. The bill we are introducing does two
things.
First, the bill would expand whistleblower protection to all
Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission employees and
their contractors' and subcontractors' employees.
Second, the bill would provide a process for whistleblowers to
utilize Federal courts if their cases are not addressed quickly by the
Department of Labor.
Our Democracy depends on the ability of citizens and their elected
representatives to make informed decisions. That means we need to know
the truth about the issues.
These changes are simple fixes that help ensure that Federal
employees and other people working for the Federal Government never
have to fear they will lose their jobs for simply telling the truth.
I hope the Senate will act quickly on this important legislation.
______
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 1378. A bill to transfer to the Secretary of the Interior
authority to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, thirteen years ago the Corps of Engineers
was given 6 months to revise the Missouri River Master Manual. The
Master Manual provides a framework for managing the flows on the
Missouri River.
But here we are, thirteen years later, and nothing has happened. So
today I am introducing legislation to take management away from the
Corps of Engineers and give it to the Bureau of Reclamation.
In my judgment, the Corps has failed miserably in its efforts to
revise the Master Manual. In the interim, the Corps has managed the
River in a way that benefits the downstream States at the expense of
the upstream States, despite the fact that the upstream States generate
ten times more economic activity from recreational use than the
downstream states generate from barge traffic.
And this mismanagement has cost North Dakota a lot. Enough is enough.
It's time to take this responsibility away from the Corps and give it
to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau manages other rivers, like the
Colorado River, so let's give them a chance to manage the Missouri and
to revise the Master Manual. Perhaps this will give the upstream States
a chance to be treated fairly for a change.
I have written a letter to the head of the Corps of Engineers,
General Robert Flowers, expressing my concern about this issue and I
ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, July 1, 2003.
LTG Robert B. Flowers,
Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington,
DC.
Dear General Flowers: More than a decade ago, the Corps of
Engineers was tasked with revising the Missouri River Master
Manual, which governs the management of the Missouri River.
As you well know, I have been very frustrated with the long
history of missed deadlines and continual delays. It
certainly appears that the Corps has no intention of moving
forward with a new Master Manual any time in the near future.
In addition, as I have learned more about the unfairness of
the current management plan, I am concerned that the Corps is
either unwilling or unable to implement equitable management
of the River.
Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota has suffered lake level
decreases of over 16 feet. This has had a devastating effect
on the recreational uses of the lake. It is unacceptable for
the Corps to continue to shortchange the upstream states by
sending water downstream for a barge industry that generates
less than a tenth of the economic activity as the upstream
recreational interests. Fort Peck in Montana has seen lake
level declines of 21.2 feet and Lake Oahe in South Dakota has
suffered lake level reductions of more than 22 feet.
And the downstream lakes? These lakes have seen virtually
no change in their lake levels. Harry S. Truman Lake in
Missouri has lost less than half a foot of elevation. Lake
Rathbun in Iowa is down just 2.4 feet.
This is truly a case of double jeopardy for the upstream
states. The water from their lakes gets drained off for a
nearly non-existent barge industry at a time when the
downstream states are not asked to make any contributions
from their own lakes. The table below shows the inequity of
this situation.
DOWNSTREAM LAKES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in
Lake elevation
(feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry S Truman Lake (MO).................................... -0.4
Stockton Lake (MO).......................................... -4.8
Pomme De Terre (MO)......................................... -1.9
Lake Rathbun (IA)........................................... -2.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM LAKES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in
Lake elevation
(feet)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Peck (MT).............................................. -21.2
Lake Sakakawea (ND)......................................... -16.2
Lake Oahe (SD).............................................. -22.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Corps has developed a deplorable track record of
managing the Missouri River to the detriment of the upstream
states and the millions of people who live in that region.
This is just the latest in the Corps' string of poor
decisions.
It is clear the Corps is simply incapable to managing the
Missouri River in a fair and equitable fashion.
For this reason, I plan to introduce legislation when the
Congress returns from its July work period, that would
transfer authority for the revision of the Master Manual and
the responsibility for the management of the dams along the
Missouri River, to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Corps has
failed in its mission to manage the River in an effective way
and has neglected to revise the Master Manual despite 13
years of work on the project. My patience has run out, and I
believe it is time to make a dramatic change in the
stewardship of and the responsibility
[[Page S9058]]
for the River so that the upstream states can have some hope
of fairness and equity.
Sincerely,
Byron L. Dorgan,
U.S. Senator.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1378
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MISSOURI RIVER MASTER WATER CONTROL MANUAL.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the original study for the revision of the operating
plan under the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual was
begun in November 1989 and was scheduled to be completed 6
months later;
(2) the Corps of Engineers has missed that deadline by more
than 13 years and has consistently missed every other
deadline set in the interim;
(3) the Corps of Engineers is unable or unwilling to move
the process forward to revise the Manual, despite legal
requirements, direction from Congress, scientific evidence,
and various lawsuits from affected parties;
(4) in report number RCED-92-4 in January 1992, the
Comptroller General of the United States concluded that there
is no statutory or regulatory basis for any contention by the
Corps of Engineers that the Corps is bound to give higher
priority to navigation interests than to recreation interests
affected by the operation of dams on the Missouri River;
(5) the Missouri River yields more than 10 times the
economic benefit for recreation and tourism in upstream
States than it does for shipping interests in the downstream
States; and
(6) it appears that the Corps of Engineers is unable to
provide the leadership necessary to finalize revisions to the
Manual.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Secretary of the army.--The term ``Secretary of the
Army'' means the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers.
(2) Secretary of the interior.--The term ``Secretary of the
Interior'' means the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Commissioner of Reclamation.
(3) Manual.--The term ``Manual'' means the Missouri River
Master Water Control Manual.
(c) Transfer of Authority.--There is transferred from the
Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the Interior all
authority of the Secretary of the Army to--
(1) revise the Manual; and
(2) operate the dams the operation of which is governed by
the Manual.
(d) Completion of Current Revision.--The Secretary of the
Interior shall, to the maximum extent practicable, complete
the revision of the Manual begun by the Secretary of the Army
before the date of enactment of this Act not later than the
date set for completion by the Secretary of the Army.
(e) Management of Water Resource Projects.--After the
Secretary of the Interior revises the Manual, the Secretary
of the Interior shall manage water resource projects formerly
operated by the Corps of Engineers in accordance with the
revised Manual.
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED & PROPOSED
SA 1135. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 925, to authorize
appropriations for the Department of State and international
broadcasting activities for fiscal year 2004 and for the
Peace Corps for fiscal years 2004 through 2007, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________