[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 160 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7977-S7982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 3671. A bill to provide certain assistance to North Atlantic
Treaty Organization allies; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Liquefied Natural
Gas, LNG, for NATO Act.
The United States is in possession of vast resources that could
directly contribute to the energy security of our closest NATO allies,
who face over-reliance on Russian and Iranian gas sources. In 2009, the
United States overtook Russia as the world's largest natural gas
producer due to vast unconventional reserves. At current U.S.
consumption rates, the United States possesses perhaps a century of gas
supply. This development has caused U.S. natural gas prices to fall to
nearly a half to a third of gas prices in other key European and Asian
markets and has prompted numerous applications for export licenses of
U.S. liquefied natural gas exports.
Pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, gas exports are subject
to approval by the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which must certify that a
particular export is in the U.S. public interest. For destination
countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement, a
presumption is created that the export is in the public interest, and
the license is automatic. For non-free trade agreement nations, a study
must be conducted to determine the public interest, entailing a notice
and comment period. Several companies have submitted applications to
retrofit U.S. LNG import terminals for regasification and export; to
construct new LNG export terminals; and to export cryogenic natural gas
to Latin America by rail and ship. After approving one application, the
Obama administration deferred others until at least 2013, pending a
study completed last week. This study found that under any scenario,
LNG exports will be a net benefit for the U.S. economy. Moreover,
continued development of unconventional gas suppliers is an important
source of job creation in the United States.
U.S. shale gas reserves are already transforming European natural gas
markets since LNG previously destined for the United States has now
been made available for Europe. The United States can do much more to
both use LNG exports to benefit NATO allies facing energy insecurity in
Europe and to promote economic growth in the United States.
Turkey currently relies on Iran for 20 percent of its gas imports,
which could come under increased pressure when the European Council's
decision of October 15, 2012 to prohibit the ``purchase, import or
transport of natural gas from Iran'' is implemented. Moreover, several
allies and partners in Central and Southeastern Europe, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Hungary, Greece, the Czech Republic, and Moldova, will see
their long-term contracts with Gazprom expire in the coming years. For
these countries, targeted U.S. LNG exports, along with infrastructure
investment and other policy responses, could help alleviate energy
insecurity. It is possible that several other NATO allies and partners
may opt for U.S. natural gas imports, and even paying a reliability
premium for them, if the opportunity existed.
Meanwhile, European nations are ramping up capacity to import LNG. At
present, Europe imports LNG primarily from Algeria, Egypt, Oman, and
Qatar to meet about 26 percent of its gas needs, due in large part to a
lack of LNG import terminals, which are mostly located in Western
Europe, as well as underdeveloped onward interconnectors and storage
capacity in Europe. However, numerous European countries, some with
financing from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
EBRD, are considering construction of additional LNG import terminals,
including Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland,
Romania, Turkey, and Ukraine. In light of these dynamics, the United
States is well-positioned to
[[Page S7978]]
become a strategic energy supplier of LNG to NATO allies in need of
diversification.
The LNG for NATO Act would not direct supply, which should remain
exclusively the function of private industry. Instead, this legislation
would affect Section 3 the Natural Gas Act to create a presumption that
licenses to export U.S. natural gas to NATO allies is in the U.S.
public interest, giving NATO allies the same preferential treatment
enjoyed by our free trade partners. Specifically, swift passage of this
act will make gas export licenses automatic for Turkey, which relies on
Iran for 20 percent of its gas demand, and those NATO countries, whose
long-term gas contracts with Russia's Gazprom expire in the coming
years.
Through market forces, NATO allies will be more secure and the
Alliance will be stronger. While the U.S. Congress will no doubt
continue to debate full liberalization of natural gas exports, the LNG
for NATO Act follows other precedents for narrowly tailored exceptions
to our export licensing regime.
I am hopeful that the LNG for NATO Act can command bipartisan support
and swift passage.
______
By Mr. CORKER:
S. 3673. A bill to provide a comprehensive deficit reduction plan,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I am here to introduce a bill that would
address entitlement reforms and the debt ceiling called the Dollar for
Dollar Act. I continue to hope Speaker Boehner and President Obama will
negotiate a deal north of $4 trillion before year end. However, I think
we should also prepare now for the possibility that they will not,
especially based on recent conversations. The next opportunity we have
to make the structural, transformative reforms to Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid that will save these programs and put our
country on a path to fiscal solvency will be during the debt ceiling
vote which will come up after the first of the year as soon as we get
back.
I am introducing the Dollar for Dollar legislation that will raise
the debt ceiling by roughly $1 trillion in exchange for roughly $1
trillion in reforms to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This
puts into legislative language many of the concepts laid out in a
bipartisan Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin proposal. This meets our
obligations to older and younger Americans.
Young Americans expect us to solve their fiscal issues so they are
not saddled with debt and robbed of opportunity for the American dream.
Seniors expect us to honor the commitments we have made to them. If we
act now, we will be addressing the debt ceiling more than 3 months
before we reach it.
Let me walk through those changes that are well known to policymakers
and Congress and the administration. I will begin with Medicare.
Medicare's trust fund has $27 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and it
is expected to be insolvent by the year 2024. According to an Urban
Institute study, an average income of a married family will contribute
about $119,000 in payroll taxes to Medicare in today's dollars over
their lifetime and consume about $357,000 in today's dollars in
Medicare benefits. Obviously, this is unsustainable. Everybody in this
room knows this. The pages in front of me know it. Medicare needs to be
structured in a way to provide care for current and future
beneficiaries in a fiscally responsible manner.
This bill would structurally transform Medicare, keeping fee-for-
service Medicare in place forever, while having it compete side-by-side
with a reformed Medicare Advantage program called Medicare Total
Health. Seniors would maintain the option of choosing fee-for-service
Medicare or a private plan as they do today. I think most of us know
that about 25 percent of the people in our country who are on Medicare
are in a private plan today.
The competition created by these reforms would significantly reduce
Medicare costs by $290 billion--and this is very important--without a
spending cap on the program. This proposal is similar to one backed by
Alice Rivlin, former Budget Director for Bill Clinton.
In addition, this bill would update cost-sharing requirements to
reflect 21st-century health care practices, such as capping out-of-
pocket expenditures for beneficiaries and unifying deductibles and
coinsurance structures. This bill also would improve solvency by
requiring higher income beneficiaries to pay more for their premiums.
Finally, it would raise the eligibility age incrementally from 65 to
67 by the year 2027. Moving to Medicaid, the bill would provide
increased flexibility for States to achieve Medicaid savings by
establishing a waiver process for States to better manage their
Medicaid programs. It also would eliminate a massive ``bed tax''
gimmick used to bilk Federal taxpayers out of $50 billion over a 10-
year period.
Next, let me walk through Social Security changes. Although some have
suggested we should ignore the impending crisis in Social Security
funding, we should address it now because it is already beginning to
cause the Federal Government to spend more than it takes in, and the
Social Security trust fund is projected to be exhausted in the year
2033. It also will be much more painful to make these adjustments to
achieve solvency in Social Security if we procrastinate.
In order to return the program to long-term solvency, the bill would
enhance the progressivity of benefit calculations. In addition, it
would adopt chained CPI in measuring inflation to calculate annual
cost-of-living adjustments. Chained CPI is the Bureau of Labor
Statistics most modern and most accurate measure of inflation. By the
way, the bill would apply chained CPI government-wide, which would also
affect revenues, and it would reflect revenues in a positive way as it
relates to our budget deficits. It would slowly raise the retirement
age to better reflect longevity increases.
Finally, the bill would strengthen the disability insurance program
by moving beneficiaries into Social Security insurance at an earlier
age. This part of Social Security will go bankrupt by the year 2017 if
we do nothing.
In conclusion, I am offering a bill that would implement structural
entitlement reforms and, in exchange, it would raise the debt ceiling
dollar for dollar. Dealing with this now would avoid facing a crisis
next year when we hit that debt ceiling in February or March, which
would rattle financial markets and generate tremendous uncertainty in
our country and around the world. We need to get our fiscal problems
behind us so that businesses, investors, and all of the American people
can have confidence about the future. If we do that, the economy will
truly take off.
So if I could, if one of the pages could take this to the desk, I am
introducing this bill. I hope Senator Reid will put in place a process
through regular order for bills of this nature to be introduced and go
through the appropriate committees. I hope when we deal with the debt
ceiling in this coming year, we do so on a dollar-for-dollar basis,
just as has been recently established this last year--the precedent has
been set--that during this fiscal dilemma we are dealing with, when we
raise the debt ceiling, we actually lower spending by a dollar. Up
until this point, almost all the things we have talked about have been
through discretionary spending. Thus far, we really haven't addressed
entitlement reforms.
Again, let me reiterate that I hope the President and Speaker Boehner
come to some accommodation over the next couple of weeks that actually
deals with some maybe $4 trillion in size that would actually put this
in the rearview mirror. But as the conversations continue, and not much
substance is coming forward, that is looking doubtful. So I hope as we
end this year and move into next year we will begin to put in place an
open process whereas we move toward the debt ceiling and use the same
precedent we have already used this last year, so that when we raise
the debt ceiling by a dollar, we will reduce spending by a dollar.
We have all said we need revenues and we need entitlement reform.
What I have done today is to lay out a way--and I know other Senators
will have ideas, and I hope they will bring them to the floor--for us
to raise the debt
[[Page S7979]]
ceiling by around $1 trillion and in return have entitlement reform on
a dollar-for-dollar basis, saving and reforming these programs, so that
seniors in the future certainly will have the opportunity to continue
these programs they depend upon so much, and the young people who are
coming behind us will have the certainty that we, as mature adults, I
hope, have dealt with these issues in an appropriate way.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 3675. A bill to expand the HUBZone program for communities
affected by base realignment and closure, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, with
Senator Snowe, to expand the geographic boundaries of HUBZones located
at former U.S. military installations that have been closed through the
so-called Base Closure and Realignment--or BRAC--process. These
military installations were often the economic heart of the community
in which they were located, and those communities can struggle for
years to overcome the closure of those facilities.
In recognition of this fact, Congress passed legislation providing
``HUBZone'' status for 5 years to military facilities closed through
the BRAC process. Last week, the Defense Reauthorization bill passed by
the Senate included language, authored by Senator Sherrod Brown of
Ohio, to extend HUBZone status for these facilities for an additional
five years.
The HUBZone program provides certain federal contracting preferences
to small businesses located within a HUBZone. In addition to the BRAC-
related HUBZones I have already mentioned, HUBZones are located in
``economically distressed communities,'' that suffer from low income,
high poverty rates, or high unemployment.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there are currently
127 BRAC-related HUBZones in the United States. Unfortunately, for many
of the military bases that have been closed, HUBZone status has not
brought the benefits we had hoped for. One of the reasons is simple--
the law defines the geographic boundaries of a BRAC-related HUBZone to
be the same as the boundaries of the base that was closed. When that is
combined with the requirement that 35 percent of the employees of a
qualifying business must live within the HUBZone, the problem is clear:
very few people live on these former bases, so it is difficult or
impossible for businesses to get the workers they need to meet the
requirements of the HUBZone program.
One of these HUBZones is located at the former Brunswick Naval Air
Station, in Brunswick, Maine. This facility closed in 2011, as a result
of the 2005 BRAC round. When the Navy left, the host community lost
more than 2400 military and civilian personnel. Brunswick and its
neighbor, Topsham, have a combined population of just 22,000, so losing
the Naval Air Station has had a significant economic impact on these
communities. Because so few people actually live within the boundaries
of the former base, its HUBZone designation does not provide any real
assistance to these communities.
My legislation would expand the geographic boundaries of BRAC-related
HUBZones to include the town or county where the closed installation is
located, or census tracts contiguous to the installation, up to a total
population base of 50,000. This would provide a large enough pool of
potential workers to enable qualifying businesses to locate within the
HUBZone, and to help host communities overcome the loss of military
installations closed through the BRAC process.
The Association of Defense Communities has endorsed the concept of
expanding BRAC-related HUBZones in this manner. In a letter to Senate
Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain, the
ADC noted how important it is that ``Congress restore its intent to
support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small businesses to help
build and strengthen their local economies.''
Steve Levesque, the Executive Director of the Midcoast Regional
Redevelopment Authority, or MRRA, which oversees the redevelopment of
the former Brunswick Naval Air Station, also urges Congress to modify
the HUBZone program. In a letter, Steve explained that BRAC facilities
do not have the residential areas needed to support the 35 percent
residency requirement for businesses located within the HUBZone. As a
consequence, these businesses cannot ``realize the HUBZone benefits for
BRAC'd installations as envisioned by Congress.''
This point was underscored in a letter from Heather Blease, an
entrepreneur who is hoping to locate a new business at the former
Brunswick Naval Air Station. Ms. Blease describes the HUBZone law as
``flawed,'' because the 35 percent residency requirement makes it
impossible for businesses like hers to achieve HUBZone status.
I ask my colleagues to consider the legislation I am offering today
to help communities get back on their feet after the loss of a military
installation closed through the BRAC process.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Association of Defense
Communities,
Washington, DC, December 11, 2012,
Hon. Carl Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John McCain,
Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Seante,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McCain: The
Association of Defense Communities (ADC) admires your
longstanding support of current and former military
communities. ADC, the leading organization representing those
communities, always appreciates the opportunity to share
information with you and your staff that may help strengthen
communities with active installations and those that continue
to redevelop following base closure or realignment.
Communities that have been impacted by Base Realignment and
Closure (BRAC) often face severe economic distress for years,
especially during times of national economic difficulty. To
assist in these communities' recovery, Congress authorized in
the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 that BRAC-
impacted communities would receive Small Business
Administration HUBZone certification, a federal initiative
that further helps small businesses in disadvantaged areas to
compete for federal contracts. The designation gives small
businesses relocating to closed military installation areas
equal footing with businesses in other disadvantaged areas
that receive the designation because of their location in
under-utilized census tracts.
While the intent of Congress was to provide the HUBZone
designation to help closed military installations attract
small businesses, one aspect of the HUBZone program actually
works against these redevelopment areas. To maintain HUBZone
status, 35 percent of a business' employees must also live in
a HUBZone area. Because a military installation's HUBZone
area encompasses only the base itself, many closed military
installations do not have a substantial number of HUBZone-
certified residential areas from which to draw sufficient
future employees for the businesses desiring to locate on
those properties. Thus, it is often impossible for a business
to qualify for HUBZone status and compete fairly against
other small businesses.
Many defense community leaders are hopeful this issue can
be resolved without additional spending, creation of a new
government program or a change in government contracting
goals. Senator Susan Collins is also working to address this
issue during the final stages of the FY 2013 National Defense
Authorization Act. We look forward to sharing further
information with your office and hers to help explain why it
is important to defense communities that Congress restore its
intent to support BRAC-impacted communities attracting small
businesses to help build and strengthen their local
economies.
As always, ADC appreciate your service and support and
hopes you will contact us if we may be of further assistance.
Respectfully,
Robert M. Murdock,
President, Association
of Defense Communities.
____
Midcoast Regional
Redevelopment Authority,
December 11, 2012.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: I represent the Midcoast Regional
Redevelopment Authority, which is charged with redeveloping
the former Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine that closed in
2011 and is now known as Brunswick Landing.
We seek your assistance in modifying the current federal
program related to SBA HUBZones to make it a more effective
tool for businesses locating at Brunswick Landing. Over the
past several years, we have had several companies inquire
about the current HUBZone status of the former NAS Brunswick.
In fact, we are currently working with one company who is
willing to locate here
[[Page S7980]]
and create upwards of 200 jobs, if we are successful in
getting the current HUBZone program for closed military
installations broadened.
With the implementation of the latest 2005 BRAC round, a
number of military installations have been closed across the
country resulting in severe economic distress for those
communities and States that have realized these closures.
Redeveloping these BRAC'd properties proved quite difficult
in good economic times, and now it is made even more
difficult with the national and State economic recession we
are experiencing.
While it would seem that the HUBZone designation for a
closed military installation would be an aid to its
redevelopment efforts, the 35% residency rule in the existing
law actually makes the program not a very effective
redevelopment tool for these properties at all. With the
exception of closed military installations, most of the
HUBZones in the Country are census tract based. Under current
law, only the closed military base itself (i.e., the
geographic area which used to be the former base) is
designated as a HUBZone, which is a much smaller area than
the census tract basis. Furthermore, many closed military
installations do not have a substantial amount of residential
areas from which to draw sufficient future employees (35%)
for the businesses desiring to locate on those properties.
In addition the above, the Small Business Act established a
five year time-frame for the duration of the HUBZone from the
actual date of base closure. This is of particular concern
given that the actual transfer of properties from the
military services to the base closure communities often
occurs many years following closure. Thus, these properties
are not available for business development until actually
transferred.
The net effect is that eligible HUB businesses seeking new
or expanded opportunities on closed installations cannot meet
these requirements and thus are not able to realize the
HUBZone benefits for BRAC'd installations as envisioned by
Congress. This issue exacerbates the difficulties for us and
other similar communities to overcome the devastating
economic effects of base closures.
In order to make the BRAC HUBZone designation an effective
economic development tool for Brunswick Landing, as well as
all the other closed installations across the country, the
attached amendment language to the existing law is
recommended. It should be noted that these recommendations do
not create a new program, require additional government
spending, or increase federal contracting goals.
Thank you for your service to our Country and the State of
Maine and your thoughtful consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Steven H. Levesque,
Executive Director.
____
December 12, 2012.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: I have established a new contact
center business that focuses on providing service to the
federal government. A key strategy for our success hinges
upon the establishment of my business as a HUBZone certified
entity.
As a native of Brunswick, Maine, I am keenly interested in
locating my business at the former Brunswick Naval Air
Station, now called Brunswick Landing. As a BRAC facility,
the SBA rules limit the boundary of the HUBZone
geographically to base property which has very few housing
units.
In order to achieve HUBZone certification, 35% of my
employees need to reside within the HUBZone.
As the law is written, I cannot locate at Brunswick Landing
and hope to achieve HUI3Zone status. The BRAC HUBZone law is
flawed as written. Our Congress attempted to create an
economic development vehicle to help communities recover from
base closures, but unless the law is tweaked, the HUBZone
designation is meaningless.
Please help modify the existing definition for BRAC
HUBZones by broadening the boundary of the HUBZone for closed
military installations to include the surrounding community.
In the case of my company, it provides me with HUBZone
employees to put to work so I can meet the HUBZone
certification requirements.
If the law is changed, I will locate my business at
Brunswick Landing and provide hundreds of jobs to the
economically depressed area. Otherwise, I will need to seek
out other alternatives.
Thank you for your service to our country, the State of
Maine and your interest in helping small businesses thrive.
With greatest respect,
Heather D. Blease,
CEO, Savi Systems, LLC.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of a bill that I
am cosponsoring today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins,
that will ensure that the Small Business Administration's, SBA,
Historically Underutilized Business Zone, HUBZone, program will support
the many communities around this Nation that have been negatively
impacted by base closures.
Over the course of my career, my state has experienced two major base
closures--Loring Air Force Base was closed by the 1991 BRAC round and
Brunswick Naval Air Station was closed by the 2005 BRAC round. Like
every community around the Nation that has experienced a base closure,
Brunswick and Loring have fought tirelessly to replace the jobs and
economic impact of their military installations.
Unfortunately, theirs is an exceptionally difficult task. Consider,
for instance, that the closure of Brunswick Naval Air Station directly
eliminated nearly 3,300 military and federal civilian jobs, and
indirectly caused the loss of approximately 3,800 additional jobs from
the region. Overcoming the effects of such dramatic changes in a local
employment and economic market is, without question, a long-term
challenge that is made even more difficult in a period of prolonged
economic recession.
That is why I have always argued that the Nation has a responsibility
to do everything within our power to help those communities that have
supported our military infrastructure for decades to recover from the
devastating economic impacts of a base closure.
One way that we can assist in their recovery is to encourage the
location and growth of small businesses in and around closed military
installations. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, I frequently talk with small business
owners and employees about their challenges and needs. In many cases,
they tell me about the difficulties they face in competing against
larger and more established businesses for federal contracts.
That is why, in my efforts to champion our Nation's small businesses
and to promote their interests, I have supported the Small Business
Administration's HUBZone Empowerment Contracting program. Congress
established this program as part of the Small Business Reauthorization
Act in 1997 in order to spur business development and employment
opportunities in economically distressed areas of the country. In 2004,
with my support, we took the critical step of expanding the HUBZone
program to include ``base closure areas,'' which directly addressed
military installations that have been closed through any of several
military base closure and realignment authorities, including BRAC
rounds.
Although this was an important step forward, the 2004 expansion to
include closed military installations in the HUBZone program was
limited to areas within the physical boundaries of the military base.
Current law requires that 35 percent of the employees of a HUBZone
qualified small business concern also must live within the HUBZone
designated area.
However, small businesses that are interested in establishing a
location at a closed military installation in order to gain the
benefits of becoming a HUBZone small business concern are likely to
discover that not very many people live on the grounds of that closed
base, leaving them without sufficient workers to meet the 35 percent
requirement. This, of course, defeats the very purpose of the HUBZone
designation for closed military installations by serving as a
disincentive for small businesses to open shop at a redeveloping base.
In light of these facts, and considering that the economic and
employment impacts of closing a military installation are
unquestionably and disproportionately felt by the people who reside in
the communities around former military installations--not just within
the fencelines of former bases--it is clear that the HUBZone
designation for closed military installations needs to be clarified.
That is why the bill that I have cosponsored with my colleague
adjusts the designation of a base closure area to include the
geographic area that is the municipality, county, or census tract in
which the installation is located (as well as the adjacent census
tract), which incorporates up to 50,000 people. And so, to my friends
and colleagues here in the Senate, I urge you to join me in supporting
this bill and showing your strong support for providing the maximum
benefits of the HUBZone designation to the many communities around our
nation that have been impacted by base closures.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 3676. A bill to promote high-quality, cost-efficient, and
effective administrative support services to agencies
[[Page S7981]]
overseas; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Reducing
Duplication Overseas Act of 2012.
At a time when the Federal Government is facing significant fiscal
challenges, we must explore all potential avenues to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of Federal programs. This bill seeks to
ease some of our current fiscal pressures by eliminating duplication of
certain administrative services at overseas posts and reducing
administrative operational costs.
The Department of State oversees the International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services, ICASS, system, which provides and
shares the cost of administrative support services for overseas
employees, such as vehicle maintenance or leasing services. The purpose
of developing this system was to ensure more efficient delivery and
quality of overseas administrative support services. Although the level
of agency participation varies, as use of ICASS for most administrative
services is voluntary, last year, more than 40 agencies participated in
ICASS and the cost of the services totaled approximately $2 billion.
In 2004, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, reported that
ICASS had not achieved efficient delivery of administrative support
services because it failed to eliminate duplicative services and
contain costs. GAO recommended that there be one provider for each
service at American facilities overseas. The ICASS Executive Board took
steps to reduce costs, but still had not implemented GAO's
recommendation that there be a single service provider.
In 2010, former Senator Voinovich and I requested that the GAO review
the delivery of administrative services at overseas posts. In their
report issued earlier this year, GAO concluded that, although agency
participation in ICASS has increased, agencies chose to provide their
own services about one third of the time, resulting in duplicative
administrative services and missed opportunities to decrease costs.
Duplication and overseas administrative costs can and must be
decreased. The Reducing Duplication Overseas Act seeks to eliminate
duplicative services and reduce overall costs to the Federal Government
by requiring agencies to use ICASS for services. Although the GAO
recommends that agencies consolidate all services with ICASS, this bill
starts with only a few services in order to determine best practices
for consolidation, as well as whether consolidation is appropriate for
all services.
Specifically, the Act would require agencies to participate in the
ICASS for household furniture, furnishings, appliance pools, and motor
pool services, unless the agency provides an explanation on how
providing the service outside the ICASS system will not increase
overall costs to the Federal Government or if it certifies that the
mission of the agency cannot be achieved by participating in ICASS
system.
Additionally, the bill would allow an agency to provide
administrative services at an overseas post in place of the existing
ICASS provider if it can provide the administrative service more
efficiently and agrees to provide the administrative service to all
ICASS customer agencies at the overseas post.
The Act would also require the ICASS Executive Board and the
Comptroller General of the United States to submit reports to Congress
on agency use of ICASS services and the impact consolidating these
services has on cost-efficiencies and redundancies at overseas posts.
Nothing in this bill is intended to interfere with the existing
authorities of the Chief of Mission at each overseas post.
I believe that this bill is an important step towards improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of government operations overseas.
Although I will not have the opportunity to push for this bill in the
next Congress, it is my hope that my colleagues will take up and pass
this important 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. 3676
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 ``Reducing Duplication
Overseas Act of 2012''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to promote high-quality, cost-
efficient, and effective administrative support services to
agencies overseas.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means a department,
agency, or independent establishment in the executive branch
performing any foreign affairs functions.
(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(C) the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate;
(D) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives;
(E) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives; and
(F) the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
(3) International cooperative administrative support
services system.--The term ``International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services system'' means the mechanism
established pursuant to section 23 of the State Department
Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2695) by which the
United States Government manages and funds administrative
support services at overseas posts.
(4) International cooperative administrative support
services customer agencies.--The term ``International
Cooperative Administrative Support Services customer
agencies'' means agencies participating in the International
Cooperative Administrative Support Services system.
(5) International cooperative administrative support
services executive board.--The term ``International
Cooperative Administrative Support Services Executive Board''
means the highest-level International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services policy-making body comprised
of senior representatives of agencies participating in the
International Cooperative Administrative Support Services
system.
SEC. 4. PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, each agency with operations
overseas under the authority of the Chief of Mission pursuant
to section 207 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C.
3927) shall participate in the International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services system for purposes of
obtaining household furniture, furnishings, and appliance
pools services, motor pool services, and management services
unless--
(1) the agency provides a detailed explanation for
evaluation and decision by the International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services Executive Board that
describes--
(A) how the agency will provide the service outside of the
International Cooperative Administrative Support Services
system;
(B) the cost to the agency of the service; and
(C) how providing the service outside the International
Cooperative Administrative Support Services system will not
increase overall costs to the United States Government; or
(2) the agency submits a detailed explanation for
evaluation and decision by the International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services Executive Board certifying
that the mission of the agency cannot be achieved by such
participation in the International Cooperative Administrative
Support Services system.
(b) Rule of Construction.--The motor pool services
requirement under subsection (a) applies to administrative
services, and shall not be construed as superseding,
removing, or limiting any statutory or programmatic
requirements related to agency use or procurement of
vehicles.
SEC. 5. USE OF ALTERNATE SERVICE PROVIDERS.
The International Cooperative Administrative Support
Services Executive Board shall allow an agency to act as an
alternate service provider for administrative services at an
overseas post in place of the existing International
Cooperative Administrative Support Services provider for
purposes of reducing overall costs to the United States
Government if the agency--
(1) demonstrates through a business case that it can
provide the administrative service more efficiently; and
(2) agrees to provide the administrative service to all
other International Cooperative Administrative Support
Services customer agencies at the overseas post.
SEC. 6. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Biennial Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the
Secretary of State, in consultation with the International
Cooperative Administrative Support Services Executive Board,
shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report on the International Cooperative Administrative
Support Services system.
[[Page S7982]]
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1)
shall--
(A) establish performance goals to define the level of
performance to be achieved in providing efficient, effective,
and equitable administrative services to International
Cooperative Administrative Support Services customer
agencies;
(B) establish a balanced set of performance indicators to
be used in measuring or assessing progress toward each
performance goal;
(C) describe how the International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services system ensures the accuracy
and reliability of the data used to measure progress; and
(D) identify strategies and the resources required to
achieve performance goals.
(b) Comptroller General Review.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a review of the International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services system.
(2) Content.--The review required under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) an evaluation of whether requiring agencies to
participate in the International Cooperative Administrative
Support Services system for household furniture, furnishings,
and appliance pools services and motor pools services has
increased cost-efficiency and reduced administrative
redundancies;
(B) recommendations, if warranted, for further
consolidation of services in the International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services system;
(C) an evaluation of how implementation of this Act is
affecting the performance of International Cooperative
Administrative Support Services customer agencies; and
(D) recommendations, if warranted, for improving the
International Cooperative Administrative Support Services
system and implementing this Act.
____________________