[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 96 (Thursday, June 24, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5440-S5447]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms.
Collins, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Reed, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Begich):
S. 3528. A bill to promote coastal jobs creation, promote sustainable
fisheries and fishing communities, revitalize waterfronts, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coastal Jobs
Creation Act of 2010. This bill would establish a grant program within
the Department of Commerce to enhance employment opportunities for
coastal communities by increasing support for cooperative research
programs, revitalization of coastal infrastructure, and stewardship of
coastal and marine resources. As Ranking Member of the Senate
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, and as
a Senator from a State which relies heavily on its coastal region as an
economic driver, I am acutely aware of the hardships that have been
visited on these areas in recent years.
I particularly want to thank my lead cosponsor on this key piece of
legislation, Senator Lautenberg. Clearly, his home State of New Jersey
shares many of the same issues we face in Maine when it comes to
ensuring the vitality of our historic fishing and coastal industries,
and I greatly appreciate his support of this initiative. I also want to
thank the bill's additional cosponsors, Senators Whitehouse, Collins,
Shaheen, Boxer, Kerry, and Cantwell, for their vital contributions.
As our Nation struggles to recover from the ongoing recession, it is
critical that we do all we can to create employment opportunities. I
have said it before, and I will say it again: the jobless recovery that
our Nation is currently experiencing is not a true economic recovery.
While the most recent unemployment figures may have shown a decline
from 9.9 to 9.7 percent--of course, welcome news--the private sector is
not creating jobs. Indeed, there were 411,000 temporary Census
employees hired in May, as opposed to the 41,000 new jobs in the
private sector. This does not bode well for our future
[[Page S5441]]
economic health, and does not instill confidence in our fragile
economy.
Ultimately, what affects our coastal economy drives our Nation's
economy. More than 75 percent of growth in this country from 1997 to
2007, whether measured in population, jobs, or GDP, occurred in coastal
States, and more than half of U.S. citizens live in coastal
communities. As the Nation's economy has struggled through the ongoing
recession, maritime industries have experienced more than their share
of hardship. This has been compounded in the fishing industry by
regulatory changes mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act which we reauthorized in 2006. The law
now requires strict, science-based annual catch limits to be imposed in
all fisheries by 2011. While we expect these changes will ultimately be
beneficial to the health of the fish stocks, they have dire economic
implications today.
On April 18, 2010, Bumble Bee Foods shuttered the last sardine
cannery in the United States, which had been located in Prospect
Harbor, Maine. This closure can be attributed to a single cause: the
National Marine Fisheries Service's decision to slash the catch limit
for herring by 38 percent for 2010, meaning there were not enough fish
available to supply the plant. Scientists did not recommend this
reduction because herring is overfished--it is not--but rather because
they did not have the data to provide sufficient confidence in the
stock assessment. In addition to impacts on the herring and lobster
fisheries, this lack of data has directly resulted in a century-old
fish processing plant closing its doors, costing an economically
depressed community 130 jobs and spelling the end of an entire industry
in the United States. If the law's new mandates are to be effective,
they will require an infusion of better scientific data. The grant
program authorized in this legislation will lead to more cooperative
research to improve fishery-dependent data and increase employment
opportunities for fishermen by involving them in the research process.
An additional concern this bill would help alleviate is the rapid
decline in availability of working waterfront property. As Americans
move to the coast in greater numbers, the demand for waterfront
property increases, boosting prices and raising the tax burdens on
waterfront property owners. According to a report by Maine Sea Grant
and the Island Institute, a non-profit advocacy group, of the more than
5,300 miles of Maine's coastline, just 20 miles remain in use as
working waterfront property--less than half of one percent of the
potential area. This bill would authorize grants to recapitalize
working waterfront property to stem the loss of this vital
infrastructure without which our coastal industries will simply vanish.
If enacted, this critical legislation would greatly enhance the
health and vitality of our Nation's coastal communities, and help put
our Nation on a path to a true economic recovery, driven by small
businesses and private sector job creation. Once again, I thank Senator
Lautenberg, and all of my cosponsors again for their efforts in
developing this vital legislation.
______
By Mrs. HAGAN:
S. 3529. A bill to require that certain Federal job training and
career education programs give priority to programs that provide an
industry-recognized and nationally portable credential; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce an
important piece of legislation to spur job growth across America. The
American Manufacturing Efficiency and Retraining Investment
Collaboration Achievement Works Act also known as the AMERICA Works Act
is part of the solution to the Nation's unemployment problem.
With the national unemployment rate at 9.7 percent, and at 10.8
percent in my home state of North Carolina, we need to do everything we
can to reinvigorate the American workforce.
The United States needs a strong technical workforce. Our country is
facing a widening skills gap between older workers with advanced
technical skills who will be retiring in the next few years, and the
younger workers who have not yet received adequate training to replace
them. The benefits of industry-recognized credentials are widely known,
but too often those credentials do not count toward educational
requirements, do not match the needs of local employers, or require too
much time to earn just one credential. Ultimately, the system ends up
breaking down, to the detriment of instructors, employers, and
employees.
The AMERICA Works Act would give priority to Federal job training
programs that provide an industry-recognized and nationally-portable
credential. The legislation encourages national industries to come
together and agree upon common standards, defining the skill sets
needed in employees. Once industries have agreed upon standards, they
can work with educational institutions to turn the standards into
workable curriculums with tiered or stackable credentials. Ultimately,
local workforce boards can help workers seeking training and employment
opportunity by directing them toward job training programs that have
priority under existing Federal programs.
The AMERICA Works Act would require certain Federal job training and
career development education programs to give priority to programs that
provide an industry-recognized and nationally-portable credential. This
credentialing system starts out with basic competencies that prepare
individuals for the workplace. Once basic competencies are completed,
individuals can work toward high performance technical competencies and
then progress further to highly skilled technical and management
competencies. The credentialing levels are stackable, allowing workers
flexibility along their career tracks. Stackable credentials provide
straight forward paths, with clear entry and exit points, for workers
to advance their careers and attain high quality jobs.
In North Carolina, we have an advanced manufacturing skills program
at Forsyth Technical Community College in Winston-Salem. Forsyth
Technical Community College is participating in the National
Association of Manufacturers Endorsed Skills Certification System,
which offers credit programs toward nationally-recognized, stackable
credentials. Currently, they have 207 students enrolled in their
programs. Forsyth Technical has already collaborated with State and
local businesses to begin the process of incorporating their
credentials into job descriptions. They believe that introducing
graduates with skill certifications into the local workforce will help
improve the hiring process, and these nationally-recognized credentials
will increase employment opportunities.
The AMERICA Works Act will benefit business. When businesses clearly
identify skills they need in their employees, educational institutions
can tailor programs to teach those skills and workers will be better
suited to meet their needs--starting on day one.
This legislation will benefit workers. Stackable credentials benefit
workers by offering several on-ramps and off-ramps to a two-year
technical degree: workers in training can exit the system having earned
a basic, industry-recognized credential that qualifies them for
employment, but without having completed the full two-year technical
degree, and they can easily re-enter the system later to move up within
their field and work toward the more advanced degree.
The AMERICA Works Act will benefit educational programs. Local
educational institutes want to provide their students with the most
useful skills possible. Open lines of communication between businesses,
workforce boards and workers will better enable them to do just that.
This legislation will benefit local economies. Local workforce boards
will have the chance to determine which skills training programs are
most valuable for their region, today and into the future. Local areas
with well-trained workforces can more effectively lure new businesses.
While this bill mentions manufacturing, it would benefit any industry
that meets the criteria established in the legislation.
I want to do everything I can to create jobs and make sure our
workers have the skills needed to help our businesses grow and thrive.
By incentivizing companies to work with educational institutes and
develop industry-recognized, nationally-portable,
[[Page S5442]]
and stackable credentialing curricula, we can ensure that we have the
best businesses, with the best workers, trained at the best institutes.
I urge my other colleagues to join me in supporting this important
bill to enhance employment opportunity for hardworking Americans.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 3534. A bill to establish a Native American entrepreneurial
development program in the Small Business Administration; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as Chair of the Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to introduce the Native
American Small Business Assistance and Entrepreneurial Growth Act of
2010. This vital and timely legislation codifies and builds upon the
Small Business Administration's, SBA, existing efforts through the
Office of Native American Affairs, which is responsible for overseeing
and implementing programs that are specifically tailored to meet the
needs of the Native American community. By strengthening and improving
these programs, the SBA will be able to reach even more Native
Americans, helping them to achieve their dream of starting or growing
their own small businesses and spurring vital and necessary growth
within tribal communities.
According to the most recent report released by the U.S. Census
bureau, the ``three year average poverty rate for American Indians and
Alaska Natives was 25.9 percent higher than for any other race
groups.'' Additionally, research shows that entrepreneurial development
is playing a significant role in promoting healthy tribal economies,
and fostering much needed economic growth in various industries. Data
from the 2000 U.S. Census shows that since 1997, the number of Native
American-owned businesses has risen by 84 percent to 197,300, and that
their gross incomes have increased by 179 percent to $34.5 billion.
However, in the face of historically high unemployment and tight
credit, particularly for Native Americans, starting a business has
never been more difficult. During the 111th Congress, the Committee has
heard from industry experts, organizational leaders and entrepreneurs
working in or on behalf of Native American communities. From them, we
know that, despite the growth we are seeing in Native American-owned
businesses, more resources are needed to provide additional technical
assistance and business development opportunities so as to ensure the
economic sustainability and growth within tribal communities. According
to the Aspen Institute, ``training and technical assistance are
arguably the most important components of microenterprise development
services in the United States, particularly when those services are
aimed at low-income clients.'' Additionally, according to the
Corporation for Enterprise Development, this is particularly true for
Native American entrepreneurs operating in environments that have not
traditionally been geared towards private enterprise. For these
reasons, it is critical that we do more to provide necessary resources
for Native American entrepreneurial development programs that are
working to address critical sustainability issues in tribal
communities.
That is why today I am introducing the Native American Small Business
Assistance and Entrepreneurial Growth Act of 2010. Since its
establishment, SBA's Office of Native American Affairs worked to
promote and support Native American entrepreneurs and to encourage
important entrepreneurial activity in Native American communities. This
legislation will further enhance and improve the existing programs
within the Office of Native American Affairs, as well as create a new
program that provides financial assistance to eligible entities to
create Native American business centers which will conduct projects to
provide culturally tailored business development training and related
services to Native Americans and Native American small business
concerns.
In introducing this important piece of legislation today, I would
note that many of the provisions in this bill were included in S. 1229,
the Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2009, which I introduced earlier
this Congress and which passed out of Committee with unanimous and bi-
partisan support in June of 2009. It is also the basis for many of the
SBA related provisions included in the Native American Employment Act
of 2010 that Senator Dorgan, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs introduced earlier this month. Given the importance of
this legislation to hundreds of thousands of Native American-owned
businesses, and the potential we have before us to strengthen one of
America's greatest emerging markets, I have decided to re-introduce
these provisions as a stand-alone bill. I look forward to working with
my colleagues in the Senate to bring this legislation to the
President's desk in the coming months.
In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Dorgan for his continued
leadership on behalf of existing and future Native American small
business owners, and especially for his cosponsorship of this important
legislation. Chairman Dorgan has been a tireless advocate for Native
American communities across the country and in his home state of North
Dakota, and I am pleased to have his support on this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3534
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 ``Native American Small
Business Assistance and Entrepreneurial Growth Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 4(b)(1) (15 U.S.C. 633(b)(1))--
(A) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``five Associate
Administrators'' and inserting ``6 Associate
Administrators''; and
(B) by inserting after the fifth sentence the following:
``1 Associate Administrator shall be the Associate
Administrator of the Office of Native American Affairs
established by section 44.'';
(2) by redesignating section 44 as section 45; and
(3) by inserting after section 43 (15 U.S.C. 657o) the
following:
``SEC. 44. NATIVE AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM.
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Associate administrator.--The term `Associate
Administrator' means the Associate Administrator of the
Office of Native American Affairs established under
subsection (b).
``(2) Center; native american business center.--The terms
`center' and `Native American business center' mean a center
established under subsection (c).
``(3) Eligible applicant.--The term `eligible applicant'
means--
``(A) a tribal college;
``(B) a private, nonprofit organization--
``(i) that provides business and financial or procurement
technical assistance to 1 or more Native American
communities; and
``(ii) that is dedicated to assisting one or more Native
American communities; or
``(C) a small business development center, women's business
center, or other private organization participating in a
joint project.
``(4) Joint project.--The term `joint project' means a
project that--
``(A) combines the resources and expertise of 2 or more
distinct entities at a physical location dedicated to
assisting the Native American community; and
``(B) submits to the Administration a joint application
that contains--
``(i) a certification that each participant of the
project--
``(I) is an eligible applicant;
``(II) employs an executive director or program manager to
manage the center; and
``(ii) information demonstrating a record of commitment to
providing assistance to Native Americans and;
``(iii) information demonstrating that the participants in
the joint project have the ability and resources to meet the
needs, including the cultural needs, of the Native Americans
to be served by the project.
``(5) Native american small business concern.--The term
`Native American small business concern' means a small
business concern that is at least 51 percent owned and
controlled by --
``(A) an Indian tribe or a Native Hawaiian Organization, as
the terms are described in paragraphs (13) and (15) of
section 8(a), respectively; or
``(B) 1 or more individuals members of an Indian tribe or
Native Hawaiian Organization.
``(6) Native american small business development program.--
The term `Native American small business development program'
means the program established under subsection (c).
[[Page S5443]]
``(7) Small business concern.--The term `small business
concern' has the same meaning as in section 3.
``(8) Small business development center.--The term `small
business development center' means a small business
development center described in section 21.
``(9) Tribal college.--The term `tribal college' has the
meaning given the term `tribally controlled college or
university' in section 2(a) of the Tribally Controlled
Community College Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801(a)).
``(10) Tribal land.--The term `tribal land' has the meaning
given the term `reservation' in section 3 of the Indian
Financing Act ( 25 U.S.C. 1452).
``(b) Office of Native American Affairs.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established within the
Administration the Office of Native American Affairs, which,
under the direction of the Associate Administrator, shall
implement the programs of the Administration for the
development of business enterprises by Native Americans.
``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Office of Native
American Affairs is to help Native American small business
concerns--
``(A) to start, operate, and increase the business of small
business concerns;
``(B) to develop management and technical skills;
``(C) to seek Federal procurement opportunities;
``(D) to increase employment opportunities for Native
Americans through the establishment and expansion of small
business concerns; and
``(E) to increase the access of Native Americans to capital
markets.
``(3) Associate administrator.--
``(A) Appointment.--The Administrator shall appoint a
qualified individual to serve as Associate Administrator of
the Office of Native American Affairs in accordance with this
paragraph.
``(B) Qualifications.--The Associate Administrator
appointed under subparagraph (A) shall have--
``(i) knowledge of Native American culture; and
``(ii) experience providing culturally tailored small
business development assistance to Native Americans.
``(C) Employment status.--The Administrator shall establish
the position of Associate Administrator, who shall--
``(i) be an appointee in the Senior Executive Service (as
defined in section 3132(a) of title 5, United States Code);
and
``(ii) shall report to and be responsible directly to the
Administrator.
``(D) Responsibilities and duties.--The Associate
Administrator shall--
``(i) administer and manage the Native American small
business development program;
``(ii) formulate, execute, and promote the policies and
programs of the Administration that provide assistance to
small business concerns owned and controlled by Native
Americans;
``(iii) act as an ombudsman for full consideration of
Native Americans in all programs of the Administration;
``(iv) recommend the annual administrative and program
budgets for the Office of Native American Affairs;
``(v) consult with Native American business centers in
carrying out the Native American small business development
program;
``(vi) recommend appropriate funding levels;
``(vii) review the annual budgets submitted by each
applicant for the Native American small business development
program;
``(viii) select applicants to participate in the Native
American small business development program;
``(ix) implement this section; and
``(x) maintain a clearinghouse for the dissemination and
exchange of information between all Administration-sponsored
business centers.
``(E) Consultation requirements.--In carrying out the
responsibilities and duties described in this paragraph, the
Associate Administrator shall confer with and seek the advice
of--
``(i) officials of the Administration working in areas
served by Native American business centers; and
``(ii) eligible applicants.
``(c) Native American Small Business Development Program.--
``(1) Financial assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The Administration, acting through the
Associate Administrator, shall provide financial assistance
to eligible applicants to establish Native American business
centers in accordance with this section.
``(B) Use of funds.--The financial and resource assistance
provided under this subsection shall be used to establish a
Native American business center to overcome obstacles
impeding the establishment, development, and expansion of
small business concerns, in accordance with this section.
``(2) 5-year projects.--
``(A) In general.--Each Native American business center
that receives assistance under paragraph (1)(A) shall conduct
a 5-year project that offers culturally tailored business
development assistance in the form of--
``(i) financial education, including training and
counseling in--
``(I) applying for and securing business credit and
investment capital;
``(II) preparing and presenting financial statements; and
``(III) managing cash flow and other financial operations
of a business concern;
``(ii) management education, including training and
counseling in planning, organizing, staffing, directing, and
controlling each major activity and function of a small
business concern; and
``(iii) marketing education, including training and
counseling in--
``(I) identifying and segmenting domestic and international
market opportunities;
``(II) preparing and executing marketing plans;
``(III) developing pricing strategies;
``(IV) locating contract opportunities;
``(V) negotiating contracts; and
``(VI) using varying public relations and advertising
techniques.
``(B) Business development assistance recipients.--The
business development assistance under subparagraph (A) shall
be offered to prospective and current owners of Native
American small business concerns.
``(3) Form of federal financial assistance.--
``(A) Documentation.--The financial assistance to Native
American business centers authorized under this subsection
may be made by grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
``(B) Payments.--
``(i) Timing.--Payments made under this subsection may be
disbursed in periodic installments, at the request of the
recipient.
``(ii) Advance.--The Administrator may disburse not more
than 25 percent of the annual amount of Federal financial
assistance awarded to a Native American business center after
notice of the award has been issued.
``(C) Non-federal contributions.--
``(i) In general.--
``(I) Initial financial assistance.--Except as provided in
subclause (II), an eligible applicant that receives financial
assistance under this subsection shall provide non-Federal
contributions for the operation of the Native American
business center established by the eligible applicant in an
amount equal to--
``(aa) in each of the first and second years of the
project, not less than 33 percent of the amount of the
financial assistance received under this subsection; and
``(bb) in the third through fifth years of the project, not
less than 50 percent of the amount of the financial
assistance received under this subsection.
``(II) Renewals.--An eligible applicant that receives a
renewal of financial assistance under this subsection shall
provide non-Federal contributions for the operation of a
Native American business center established by the eligible
applicant in an amount equal to not less than 50 percent of
the amount of the financial assistance received under this
subsection.
``(III) Exceptions.--The requirements of this section may
be waived at the discretion of the Administrator, based on an
evaluation of the ability of the eligible applicant to
provide non-Federal contributions.
``(4) Contract and cooperative agreement authority.--A
Native American business center may enter into a contract or
cooperative agreement with a Federal department or agency to
provide specific assistance to Native American and other
underserved small business concerns located on or near tribal
land, to the extent that the contract or cooperative
agreement is consistent with and does not duplicate the terms
of any assistance received by the Native American business
center from the Administration.
``(5) Application process.--
``(A) Submission of a 5-year plan.--Each applicant for
assistance under paragraph (1) shall submit a 5-year plan to
the Administration on proposed assistance and training
activities.
``(B) Criteria.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator shall evaluate
applicants for financial assistance under this subsection in
accordance with selection criteria that are--
``(I) established before the date on which eligible
applicants are required to submit the applications;
``(II) stated in terms of relative importance; and
``(III) publicly available and stated in each solicitation
for applications for financial assistance under this
subsection made by the Administrator.
``(ii) Considerations.--The criteria required by this
subparagraph shall include--
``(I) the experience of the applicant in conducting
programs or ongoing efforts designed to impart or upgrade the
business skills of current or potential owners of Native
American small business concerns;
``(II) the ability of the applicant to commence a project
within a minimum amount of time;
``(III) the ability of the applicant to provide quality
training and services to a significant number of Native
Americans;
``(IV) previous assistance from the Administration to
provide services in Native American communities;
``(V) the proposed location for the Native American
business center, with priority given based on the proximity
of the center to the population being served and to achieve a
broad geographic dispersion of the centers; and
``(VI) demonstrated experience in providing technical
assistance, including financial, marketing, and management
assistance.
``(6) Conditions for participation.--Each eligible
applicant desiring a grant under this
[[Page S5444]]
subsection shall submit an application to the Administrator
that contains--
``(A) a certification that the applicant--
``(i) is an eligible applicant;
``(ii) employs a full-time executive director, project
director, or program manager to manage the Native American
business center; and
``(iii) agrees--
``(I) to a site visit by the Administrator as part of the
final selection process;
``(II) to an annual programmatic and financial examination;
and
``(III) to the maximum extent practicable, to remedy any
problems identified pursuant to that site visit or
examination;
``(B) information demonstrating that the applicant has the
ability and resources to meet the needs, including cultural
needs, of the Native Americans to be served by the grant;
``(C) information relating to proposed assistance that the
grant will provide, including--
``(i) the number of individuals to be assisted; and
``(ii) the number of hours of counseling, training, and
workshops to be provided;
``(D) information demonstrating the effectiveness and
experience of the applicant in--
``(i) conducting financial, management, and marketing
assistance programs designed to educate or improve the
business skills of current or prospective Native American
business owners;
``(ii) providing training and services to a representative
number of Native Americans;
``(iii) using resource partners of the Administration and
other entities, including institutions of higher education,
Indian tribes, or tribal colleges; and
``(iv) the prudent management of finances and staffing;
``(E) the location at which the applicant will provide
training and services to Native Americans;
``(F) a 5-year plan that describes--
``(i) the number of Native Americans and Native American
small business concerns to be served by the grant;
``(ii) if the Native American business center is located in
the continental United States, the number of Native Americans
to be served by the grant; and
``(iii) the training and services to be provided to a
representative number of Native Americans; and
``(G) if the applicant is a joint project--
``(i) a certification that each participant in the joint
project is an eligible applicant;
``(ii) information demonstrating a record of commitment to
providing assistance to Native Americans; and
``(iii) information demonstrating that the participants in
the joint project have the ability and resources to meet the
needs, including the cultural needs, of the Native Americans
to be served by the grant.
``(7) Review of applications.--The Administrator shall
approve or disapprove each completed application submitted
under this subsection not later than 90 days after the date
on which the eligible applicant submits the application.
``(8) Program examination.--
``(A) In general.--Each Native American business center
established under this subsection shall annually provide to
the Administrator an itemized cost breakdown of actual
expenditures made during the preceding year.
``(B) Administration action.--Based on information received
under subparagraph (A), the Administration shall--
``(i) develop and implement an annual programmatic and
financial examination of each Native American business center
assisted pursuant to this subsection; and
``(ii) analyze the results of each examination conducted
under clause (i) to determine the programmatic and financial
viability of each Native American business center.
``(C) Conditions for continued funding.--In determining
whether to renew a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement
with a Native American business center, the Administration--
``(i) shall consider the results of the most recent
examination of the center under subparagraph (B), and, to a
lesser extent, previous examinations; and
``(ii) may withhold the renewal, if the Administrator
determines that--
``(I) the center has failed to provide the information
required to be provided under subparagraph (A), or the
information provided by the center is inadequate;
``(II) the center has failed to provide adequate
information required to be provided by the center for
purposes of the report of the Administrator under
subparagraph (E);
``(III) the center has failed to comply with a requirement
for participation in the Native American small business
development program, as determined by the Administrator,
including--
``(aa) failure to acquire or properly document a non-
Federal contribution;
``(bb) failure to establish an appropriate partnership or
program for marketing and outreach to reach new Native
American small business concerns;
``(cc) failure to achieve results described in a financial
assistance agreement; and
``(dd) failure to provide to the Administrator a
description of the amount and sources of any non-Federal
funding received by the center;
``(IV) the center has failed to carry out the 5-year plan
under in paragraph (6)(F); or
``(V) the center cannot make the certification described in
paragraph (6)(A).
``(D) Continuing contract and cooperative agreement
authority.--
``(i) In general.--The authority of the Administrator to
enter into contracts or cooperative agreements in accordance
with this subsection shall be in effect for each fiscal year
only to the extent and in the amounts as are provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
``(ii) Renewal.--After the Administrator has entered into a
contract or cooperative agreement with any Native American
business center under this subsection, the Administrator may
not suspend, terminate, or fail to renew or extend any such
contract or cooperative agreement unless the Administrator--
``(I) provides the center with written notification that
describes the reasons for the action of the Administrator;
and
``(II) affords the center an opportunity for a hearing,
appeal, or other administrative proceeding under chapter 5 of
title 5, United States Code.
``(E) Annual management report.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator shall prepare and
submit to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Small Business and the Committee
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives an
annual report on the effectiveness of all projects conducted
by Native American business centers under this subsection and
any pilot programs administered by the Office of Native
American Affairs.
``(ii) Contents.--Each report submitted under clause (i)
shall include, with respect to each Native American business
center receiving financial assistance under this subsection--
``(I) the number of individuals receiving assistance from
the Native American business center;
``(II) the number of startup business concerns established
with the assistance of the Native American business center;
``(III) the number of existing businesses in the area
served by the Native American business center seeking to
expand employment;
``(IV) the number of jobs established or maintained, on an
annual basis, by Native American small business concerns
assisted by the center since receiving funding under this
section;
``(V) to the maximum extent practicable, the amount of the
capital investment and loan financing used by emerging and
expanding businesses that were assisted by a Native American
business center;
``(VI) any additional information on the counseling and
training program that the Administrator determines to be
necessary; and
``(VII) the most recent examination, as required under
subparagraph (B), and the determination made by the
Administration under that subparagraph.
``(9) Annual reports.--Each Native American business center
receiving financial assistance under this subsection shall
submit to the Administrator an annual report on the services
provided with the financial assistance, including--
``(A) the number of individuals assisted, by tribal
affiliation;
``(B) the number of hours spent providing counseling and
training for those individuals;
``(C) the number of startup small business concerns
established or maintained with the assistance of the Native
American business center;
``(D) the gross receipts of small business concerns
assisted by the Native American business center;
``(E) the number of jobs established or maintained by small
business concerns assisted by the Native American business
center; and
``(F) the number of jobs for Native Americans established
or maintained at small business concerns assisted by the
Native American business center.
``(10) Record retention.--
``(A) Applications.--The Administrator shall maintain a
copy of each application submitted under this subsection for
not less than 7 years.
``(B) Annual reports.--The Administrator shall maintain
copies of the certification submitted under paragraph (6)(A)
indefinitely.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out the Native American small business development
program $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011 through
2013.
``(2) Administration.--Not more than 10 percent of funds
appropriated for a fiscal year may be used for the costs of
administering the programs under this section.''.
______
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bennet,
and Mr. Hatch):
S. 3537. A bill to provide for certain land exchanges in Gunnison
County, Colorado, and Uintah County, Utah; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about
legislation I am introducing, co-sponsored by Senators Bennett, Hatch,
and Bennet of Colorado, to effectuate a relatively small land exchange
involving
[[Page S5445]]
lands in Colorado and Utah. The exchange involves a private ranch, the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
In a nutshell, the private Bear Ranch in central/west Colorado is
completely bisected by a narrow strip of BLM land, mostly 1/4 to 1/2
mile wide, which is of limited public use due to its narrow
configuration. The Bear Ranch would like to acquire the BLM strip in
order to consolidate its ranch holdings for more efficient land, ranch
and wildlife management, and to improve wildlife enhancement. There is
also an issue of inadvertent trespass onto the Bear Ranch from the
neighboring BLM land that would be eliminated by the Bear Ranch's
acquisition of the BLM land strip.
In return for the BLM land, the Bear Ranch has purchased or optioned
two magnificent tracts of land in Colorado and Utah that would be added
into the National Park System. The first is a 911 acre property near
the shores of the heavily used Blue Mesa Reservoir in the Curecanti
National Recreation Area outside of Gunnison, CO. This property has an
important sage grouse habitat, superb views of both the Blue Mesa
Reservoir and the spectacular Dillon Pinnacles, and an important elk
and deer winter range. A portion of it might also be utilized for a
future park visitor center.
In Utah, the Bear Ranch has optioned 80 acres located inside Dinosaur
National Monument. The so-called Orchid Draw property is about 1 mile
west of the Monument's Quarry Visitor Center and is thought to contain
rich dinosaur and vertebrate fossil resources. It is also within an
area of special botanic interest, with nine sensitive plant species.
The Park Service has been trying to acquire this property for a long
time.
There are several other special features of our legislation which
deserve special mention.
First, the Bear Ranch will place a permanent conservation status on
all the land it acquires from the BLM which will limit future use of
the land to ranching, wildlife conservation, open space and
recreational purposes only.
Second, the BLM land will be appraised at its full market value
before the conservation easement is put in place so that the U.S.
taxpayers will get full value for the land they convey to the Bear
Ranch.
Third, if the land Bear Ranch conveys to the Park Service appraises
higher than the BLM land, the Bear Ranch will forego any cash
equalization payment which might otherwise be due from the U.S., and
will instead donate the excess value to the U.S.
Fourth, the Bear Ranch has committed to donate up to $250,000 for new
trail, trailhead and other outdoor recreational improvements in the
vicinity of the land exchange in order to improve public access and
enhance recreational opportunities on nearby Forest Service and BLM
lands. Exactly where, and how, those funds will be used will be
determined by BLM and Forest Service planning that is currently
underway.
Our legislation has received the support of the local county and town
governments of jurisdiction in both Colorado and Utah, and from
numerous environmental, conservation, recreation, historic and natural
preservation organizations. Those include Gunnison County. CO, Uintah
County, UT, the City of Gunnison, CO, City of Vernal, UT, the Nature
Conservancy, National Parks & Conservation Association, Thunder
Mountain Wheelers, Intermountain Natural History Association, and
several others.
The bill also effectuates another small land for right of way
exchange near Marble, CO, in order to facilitate a proposed small
hydroelectric project and to acquire a new public trailhead to access
the popular Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area. That exchange is
endorsed by the Aspen Valley Land Trust, Holy Cross Electric
Association, a rural electric cooperative, the Town of Marble, CO and
Gunnison County, CO, among others.
In summary, this legislation represents a true ``win-win'' for both
the general public and numerous local communities. I thank my
colleagues, Senators Bennett, Hatch, and Bennet for joining me in
sponsoring the bill, and for Congressmen John Salazar, Jim Matheson and
Mike Thompson for introducing an identical bill in the House. I am
looking forward to the Senate's expeditious consideration and approval
so that it can become law this year.
______
By Mr. BOND (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 3538. A bill to improve the cyber security of the United States
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Government Affairs.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, over the past several months, our Homeland
has experienced direct terrorist attacks against two military bases and
attempted terrorist attacks on Christmas Day and in Times Square. These
attacks quickly captured the attention of the American public and stand
as stark reminders of the threats our Nation continues to face from
terrorists across the globe.
After these recent attacks, I have no doubt that every American is
aware of the threat from a terrorist with a bomb, which could take out
a city block or bring down an airplane. But I am afraid that right now,
the American public is largely unaware of a silent threat that could
devastate our entire Nation--cyber attacks.
These cyber attacks happen every day, but have remained largely under
the public radar. Our government, businesses, citizens, and even social
networking sites all have been hit. Cyber attacks are on the rise and
unless our private sector and Congress start down a better path to
protect our information networks, serious damage to our economy and our
national security will follow.
In an ever-increasing cyber age, where our financial system conducts
trades via the Internet, families pay bills online, and the government
uses computers to calculate benefits and implement war strategies,
successful cyber attacks can be devastating. The nightmare scenarios no
longer exist just in Hollywood movies. Imagine if a terrorist disrupted
our air traffic control on an average day with more than 28,000
commercial aircraft in our skies; if a hacker took down Wall Street
trading for just hours; or if an attack destroyed an electrical grid in
a major city.
Scenarios like these make it even more important that we listen to
the recent comments by former Director of National Intelligence Mike
McConnell who testified that ``[i]f we were in a cyber war today, the
United States would lose.'' That is no insignificant statement coming
from a military and intelligence veteran like Mike McConnell and it
should cause all of us to pause and take a look at how we should
neutralize this rising threat. Our networks and way of life could be
taken down by an enemy state, a terrorist group, or a single hacker.
That is why Senator Hatch and I are introducing the National Cyber
Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 today.
Let me be blunt here: our enemies won't wait for us to do our
homework, solve our turf battles, or modernize our laws before using
our networks as a deadly weapon; in fact, the attacks have already
started. We do not have another day to waste, and I believe our bill is
the best solution to address this threat.
This act is built on three principles: first, we must be clear about
where Congress should, and, more importantly, should not legislate.
Congress should set lanes in the road to protect our Nation's cyber
security, but leave flexibility for the private sector and government
to adapt to changing threats within those lanes.
In 1978, when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was enacted,
it put into law certain technologies. Those technologies changed and
thus FISA was ineffective in enabling us to listen in on cell phone and
e-mail traffic between terrorists in foreign countries.
We have seen within the past few years the national security problems
that can arise when laws are too rigid to keep pace with technology. We
have also heard repeated concerns from industry, the private sector,
and those operating critical infrastructure that overlegislating by
Congress ultimately will make it harder to protect our networks as
innovation and quick response get overrun by unnecessary regulatory
schemes and mandates.
Second, right now virtually every Federal department or agency has
[[Page S5446]]
someone who is responsible for cyber security issues. But who makes
sure that all those departments and agencies work together to protect
all of our government networks? Who is the one person responsible, with
authority to impact our cyber security strategies and activities?
Unfortunately, right now, the answer is ``no one.''
To solve this problem, our bill establishes a National Cyber Center
and designates a single, Senate-confirmed individual, accountable to
the Congress and the American people and reporting directly to the
President, to serve as the Director. The Director has the statutory
responsibility and authority to coordinate activities to protect
government networks and develop policies and procedures to help Federal
agencies do the job.
In order to reduce the center's operating costs and to capitalize on
the cyber expertise we all know resides in the Department of Defense,
the National Cyber Center is administratively placed in DOD. But, out
of deference to concerns that the military should not have too much
control over government networks, the center is not run by the Defense
Department and the Director does not report to the Secretary of
Defense.
Because a key part of the center is to make sure the right people are
talking to each other, the act requires those parts of DOD, the
Department of Homeland Security, the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation needed to carry
out the center's missions to collocate and integrate within the center,
much like the National Counterterrorism Center integrates elements of
the intelligence community. Other Federal agencies may also participate
in the center.
As we put this bill together, former senior intelligence community
officials told us that providing strong budget authority was essential
for the Director to have the clout needed to do the job. And so, this
act gives the Director clear input into cyber budgets across all
Federal agencies, much like the Federal drug czar has in coordinating
counterdrug budgets across different agencies. To hit this point home,
the act also creates a National Cyber Security Program, similar to the
National Intelligence Program. Such influence--influence that the
current cyber czar simply does not have--is essential to creating a
comprehensive, cost-effective approach to securing our government
information networks.
The third and final principle underlying this act is the idea that
there must be a venue for the government and the private sector to
collaborate and share information on cyber-related matters. The private
sector is often on the front lines of cyber attacks, so any information
it can provide to increase government awareness of the source and
nature of cyber threats will make both government and the private
sector stronger. The corollary to this is that the Government must
share its own cyber threat information, including classified or
declassified intelligence, with the private sector.
Moreover, this collaboration, in order to be effective, must be
voluntary. Once the private sector stands to gain technical advice and
greater access to cyber threat information, there will be a clear
incentive to join with the government in protecting our networks.
Our bill codifies this collaboration, creating a public-private
partnership known as the Cyber Defense Alliance to facilitate the flow
of information about cyber threats and the latest technologies between
the private sector and the government. The Alliance will be the
clearinghouse for passing sensitive cyber threat information to the
private and critical infrastructure entities on the front lines, but
without compromising our intelligence sources and methods.
We agree with intelligence experts and private sector representatives
who have told us if the heavy hand of government drives this
collaboration, it will not be effective. Therefore, the alliance will
be managed by a board of directors consisting largely of private sector
representatives and located in the Department of Energy, where the
existing National Labs have great expertise to share. Because our
private partners must know the information will not be compromised or
other consequences will occur, the act gives solid protections from
FOIA, antitrust restrictions, and other limitations.
This bill is one of many cyber-bills introduced in Congress, so some
may be asking why this approach is better.
A key aspect of this bill is that it provides a practical public-
private cyber infrastructure designed to address effectively the cyber
threat rather than preserve the jurisdictional turf of any one agency
or congressional oversight committee. In other words--I don't have a
dog in this fight--I just want to pass the best bill to protect our
networks. The cyber threat will only be eliminated when we get all of
the public and private players working together in harmony under a
common vision toward common mission objectives.
Our bill does not impose mandates on industry and the private
sector--mandates and regulations that form the core of other bills,
raising substantial concerns among our industry and private sector
partners. Our economy is in turmoil as it is and the last thing we need
are mandates imposed on U.S. businesses that will put them at a serious
competitive disadvantage and jeopardize their proprietary information
in the global marketplace. Many industry partners have told us that if
we mandate this it would put them at a competitive disadvantage.
Finally, our bill moves away from the notion that creating a
statutory cyber coordinator in the Executive Office of the President
will solve the cyber security problem. The current cyber security
coordinator in the White House has neither the authority nor the staff
to coordinate the government's wide-range of cyber operations and
strategies. Simply enshrining his position in statute will not overcome
the claims of ``Executive Privilege'' that are bound to come when
Congress asks for information and it will not guarantee the leadership
necessary to address the cyber threat.
Also, I think many of my colleagues would agree that now is not the
time to give the Department of Homeland Security more responsibility,
as some of the cyber bills out there want to do. I don't think many in
this Chamber would disagree that DHS is already overburdened.
The bill we are introducing today has already earned praise from the
electric power sector because of the cooperative relationship that the
Cyber Defense Alliance created in this bill fosters between the
government and private sector. The entities that are part of the
electric power sector recognize that this bill builds on what is
already working and creates the infrastructure necessary to ensure a
cooperative relationship between all of the relevant public and private
cyber players to address the evolving cyber-security threat. I ask
unanimous consent that this statement from the electric power sector be
made a part of the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010
Protecting the North American electric grid and ensuring a
reliable supply of power is the electric power industry's top
priority. Reliability is more than a buzzword for the
electric industry--it's a mandate. In fact, electric
companies can be assessed substantial penalties for failure
to comply with reliability standards.
This focus on reliability, resiliency and recovery requires
the power sector to take an all-hazards approach, recognizing
risks from natural phenomena such as hurricanes or
geomagnetic disturbances to intentional cyber attacks. The
electric power sector works closely with the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and federal agencies
to enhance the cyber security of the bulk power system. This
includes coordination with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
and the Department of Energy (DOE), as well as federal
intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and various
federal and provincial authorities in Canada.
To complement its cyber security efforts and to address
rapidly changing intelligence on evolving threats, the
industry welcomes a cooperative relationship with federal
authorities to protect against situations that threaten
national security or public welfare, and to prioritize the
assets that need enhanced security. A well-practiced, public-
private partnership utilizes all stakeholders' expertise,
including the government's ability to gather and share timely
and actionable threat information with critical
infrastructure asset owners and operators, upon which they
can formulate appropriate mitigation strategies to prevent
significant adverse consequences to utility operations or
assets.
[[Page S5447]]
The comprehensive draft cyber security legislation under
development in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
attempts to create such a cooperative relationship by: * * *
Mr. BOND. In addition, because, the vice chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, believe no legislation in this area should impede the
intelligence community's ability to protect our nation from terrorist
attacks and other threats, we asked the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence for an informal assessment of our bill. They told
us that, unlike other bills that have been introduced, this bill
protects intelligence community equities, especially with respect to
protecting classified intelligence sources and methods.
The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act of 2010 provides
broad lanes in the road, without micromanaging, to give all partners in
cyber security, whether government or private, the flexibility to
defend against threats from our enemies. The private sector already has
a tremendous incentive to protect their own networks; all the Federal
Government needs to do is support them with technology and information
and get out of the way.
Cyber attackers have been stealing intellectual property, threatening
to take down our critical infrastructure, and gaining insight into our
national security networks. The longer Congress waits to act, the more
our vulnerability to these attacks increases. The National Cyber
Infrastructure Protection Act will put the Government, our critical
infrastructure companies, and the private sector on the right path to
securing our networks. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting
this important legislation.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to express my support as a
cosponsor of the National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act. At long
last, our Nation is finally recognizing the increasing danger posed by
cyber threats and the devastating disruption that they can cause
because of the interdependent nature of information systems that
support our Nation's critical infrastructure.
As a Nation, we must develop a strategy that provides a strategic
framework to prevent cyber attacks against America's critical
infrastructures. As a government, we must reduce national vulnerability
to cyber attacks and minimize the damage and recovery time from cyber
attacks should they occur. I believe that the legislation that my
colleague from Missouri and I are introducing today will provide a sure
foundation to put our Nation on a path to begin to address cyber
vulnerabilities.
The challenge to protect cyberspace is vast and complex and
ultimately requires the efforts of the entire government. As a Nation,
we must recognize that cyber threats are multi-faceted and global in
nature. These threats operate in an environment that rapidly changes.
The sharing of information between government and the private sector is
crucial to our overall national and economic viability.
Last January, McAfee issued a report that concluded that the use of
cyber attacks as a strategic weapon by governments and political
organizations is on the rise. The U.S. is the most targeted nation in
the world--and our military, government, and private sector systems are
often attacked with impunity. Our Nation has experienced large-scale
malicious cyber intrusions from individuals, groups and nations. These
attacks have dramatically increased in number and complexity.
Just last year, Google and over 30 other companies linked to our
energy, finance, defense, technology and media sectors fell prey to
costly cyber attacks. Too many nations either directly sanction this
activity or give it tacit approval by failing to investigate or
prosecute the perpetrators. Many of the major incidents are presently
coming out of Russia and China.
The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act would establish a
National Cyber Center, housed within the Department of Defense. The
mission of the National Cyber Center would be to serve as the primary
organization for coordinating Federal Government defensive operations,
cyber intelligence collection and analysis, and activities to protect
and defend Federal Government information networks. Critical in
achieving this mission would be the sharing of information between the
private sector and federal agencies regarding cyber threats. This
center would be led by a Senate-confirmed director modeled after the
Director of National Intelligence position. The director reports
directly to the President and would coordinate cyber activities to
protect and defend Federal Government information networks. The
director would serve as the President's principal adviser on such
matters and developing policies for securing Federal Government
information networks.
In our Nation today, over 3/4 of our Nation's critical infrastructure
is under the control of the private sector. One such example is smart
grid technology for power grids. The Smart Grid will use automated
meters, two-way communications and advanced sensors to improve
electricity efficiency and reliability. The nation's utilities have
embraced the concept and are installing millions of automated meters on
homes across the country. However, cyber security experts have
determined that some types of meters can be hacked. As we rely on
technology developed by private industry, we must ensure that we harden
this technology against threats that could leave our citizens
vulnerable.
The opening salvos of future conflicts will be launched in
cyberspace. In 2008, we saw this occur when Russian forces launched a
cyber attack on Georgian defense and information networks. The Russians
essentially blinded the Georgian military during the South Ostessia
conflict. Our reliance on technology and integrated networks certainly
makes our military and critical infrastructure more efficient. However,
that efficiency can have its price in the form of cyber vulnerability.
As Americans, we must be prepared to fight back should we be
attacked. We must also harden our networks against the tools that
criminals use to steal a person's identity and a company's trade
secrets. These are the same tools that today can and will be used by
terrorists in the future to attack and erode our infrastructure and
defense systems. The stakes are too high and the risks are too grave to
delay. If we don't move now to protect our national cyber
infrastructure, the consequences to our economy, security and citizens
could be dire. This is a fight we must win. The only way to win is to
be prepared.
____________________