[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16933-16938]
[From the U.S. 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 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.

[[Page 16934]]

  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 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

[[Page 16935]]

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. Senate, 
         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 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.

[[Page 16936]]

       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 16937]]

 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.--

[[Page 16938]]

       (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.
       (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.

                          ____________________