Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, you do not do anything by yourself. They say you always like to be like a turtle; a turtle never gets anywhere unless he sticks his neck out. Some folks are proud of that. But if you find one on the top of a fence post, he did not get there by himself. I appreciate the support we have had from Senator Dorgan and his side of the aisle. It is something that needed doing. We are getting a different fire nowadays. It has a different characteristic. It is hotter and more damaging. We have to deal with it and we have to pay for it. It is the people's land. It is the people's timber. It is the people's place where they recreate, hunt, and fish. There is a lumber industry that depends on the forest lands. This is a vital resource for this country. Amendments Nos. 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1725 as Modified, 1777, 1737, 1732 as Modified, 1778, 1779, 1743 as Modified, 1733, 1780, 1749, 1781 and 1782, En Bloc

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for the second-degree amendment. I certainly understand some of Senator Reid's concerns about the competitive sourcing initiative. For one, most of the agencies funded in this bill failed to budget adequately for the costs of the competitive sourcing studies. As a result, funds that would have been available for other purposes--such as maintenance projects or grazing management--were diverted. Ultimately, I regard this as a failure of the Office of Management and Budget as much as anything. Yes, competitive sourcing in some cases may result in actual savings. But those savings are likely to be over the long term, and the fact that there may be savings doesn't relieve agencies of the need to budget for the implementation costs up front. It is for that very reason that we included language in this bill that made further competitive sourcing work by the Forest Service contingent on approval of a detailed reprogramming request. The Forest Service is slated to spend more than any other agency in this bill on this initiative. But the question before us now is whether to shut down any and all competitive sourcing studies by agencies in this bill. This strikes me as overkill. Has the administration flawlessly implemented its initiative? Certainly not. We have already discussed its failure to adequately budget for the initiative. I would also note that the administration initially proposed quotas of positions that each agency was to competitively source. I think this was inappropriate. Competitive sourcing makes more sense in some agencies than it does in others. And some agencies have already used forms of competitive sourcing to great advantage. There should be some recognition what these agencies have done previously. Finally, I know there is much concern among my colleagues on this side of the aisle about the potential impact of competitive sourcing on rural areas. I absolutely understand and share this concern. In such areas the potential loss of a handful of well-paying Government jobs is not a trivial thing. This is particularly true if there is no guarantee that any jobs that are outsourced will remain in the community. I don't think the administration has fully appreciated this fact. But the root of the question raised by this amendment is whether competitive sourcing is, in all cases, a bad thing. The answer is clearly no. Competitive sourcing experts can cite numerous examples--and they have been cited in the Chamber--of success in the Department of Defense. But even within the Department of the Interior, careful use of outsourcing has resulted in both dollar savings and improved performance. The construction program of the National Park Service is one such example. I have one of those in Great Falls, MT. Proponents of this amendment can certainly cite examples of poor performance or malfeasance by contractors. Without question, there are cases of this. But we know well enough that there are at least as many instances of poor performance by Federal employees. This argument simply doesn't fly. Finally, I note that the pending amendment is identical to language included in the House bill. The Statement of Administration Policy states that the President's senior advisers will recommend a veto of the Interior bill if such language is included. While I am not generally one to back down in the face of such a threat, I do think we should consider whether we want to take that trip. Wouldn't it be better to see if we can't go to conference and produce language that further improves the quality of the competitive sourcing initiative, rather than simply throwing what amounts to a legislative tantrum? I vow to my colleagues that I will work hard with the administration to see that their concerns are addressed. But do we put an absolute stop to a management practice that has been available to agencies in this bill for many years? Or do we instead try to improve the product, and increase congressional oversight of competitive sourcing efforts? I simply find it hard to accept that in all cases competitive sourcing is a bad thing. And I am guessing Federal employees will win more of the competitions than people think if they're well structured. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Reid amendment, and to work with me as we go to conference to produce a better solution.

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. BURNS. Yes, I thank the Senators for the clarification. There is more to this project than suggested by its name and I hope that we might give your request every possible consideration.

Mr. BURNS. Is that agreeable?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request to propound. I ask unanimous consent that prior to a series of stacked votes, which will begin at 4:45 p.m., there be 10 minutes of debate equally divided in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 1740; further, that there be a total of 50 minutes equally divided in the usual form in relation to the Voinovich and Reid amendments on competitive sourcing. I further ask unanimous consent that at the hour of 4:45 p.m., the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Bingaman amendment No. 1740, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment No. 1753, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Voinovich amendment which is to be modified to be a first-degree amendment, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Reid amendment No. 1731; provided, further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments prior to the vote, with 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk which has been agreed to by both sides. This happens to be an amendment that covers almost the core of the debate during this piece of legislation. This has moneys which replace the moneys that were borrowed from all the funds to fight fires.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield part of my time to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from Vermont and also recognize that Rebuild America can help alleviate the pressure on our transmission grid in the near term. The Department's budget request indicates that every dollar the taxpayer invests in this program gets a return of about $10 in benefits. The program focuses on our schools, hospitals, small communities, and small businesses. It successfully enables the upgrading of millions of square feet per year. I will work with Senators Leahy and Dorgan to improve funding for this program in conference with the House.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we are working on the managers' package. It will be done momentarily. Then there is a package that has been agreed to on both sides. Both of those packages have been agreed to so far. There is one more vote tonight, and that is the Daschle amendment regarding Indian Health Service. Then we are also, probably--if no one shows up, why, we would go to final passage on a voice vote, and we could be out of here pretty early, in time to make it home for supper. As soon as the minority leader comes to the floor, why, we would have the closing arguments on his amendment and our colloquy. I yield the floor to my good friend from Michigan.

Mr. BURNS. Senator, we included language in the Interior Subcommittee Report that required the BIA, if legally responsible, to formulate a plan to address the rehabilitation cost no later than 120 days after the Interior Appropriations bill is enacted. Do you believe the BIA has clarified its legal obligation?

Mr. BURNS. I understand your concerns about the ITM Oxygen program. For this reason I included language in the committee report encouraging the Department of Energy to fund ITM Oxygen at a level higher than identified in the budget request in order to keep the program on track for completion. I hope the Department heeds this report language and responds appropriately to avoid unnecessary program costs for the completion of the project.

Mr. BURNS. I would be glad to join my colleague from Wyoming in a discussion about this program. The Senate Interior appropriations bill is proposing to fund this program at $40 million and should provide States and private landowners some of the dollars they need to protect and restore habitats on private lands, to benefit federally listed, proposed or candidate species or other species determined to be at- risk, and it provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners for habitat protection and restoration. I agree with my colleague from Wyoming that this is an important program for the West, and, if it is implemented properly, it should help States like Wyoming and Montana to maximize local habitat restoration efforts by allowing them to target dollars where they are needed most.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Iraq: Next Steps

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2003, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``The Implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Restoring Investor Confidence.''

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 23 at 9 a.m. to conduct a business meeting to consider the TEA-21 extension and to conduct a hearing immediately following the markup to consider the nomination of Michael O. Leavitt, to be Administrator of the Environment Protection Agency. The business meeting and the hearing will take place in SD-406 (Hearing Room).

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 23, 2003, at 2 p.m., to conduct a markup of the following original legislation: the ``National Consumer Credit Reporting System Improvement Act of 2003''; the ``Defense Production Reauthorization Act of 2003''; and the ``Federal Transit Extension Act of 2003.''

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 10 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Unfulfilled Promises: Mexican Barrier to U.S. Agricultural Exports.''

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Information Sharing and Coordination for Visa Issuance: Our first line of defense for homeland security'' on Tuesday, September 23, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., in SD226. witness list Panel I: Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, Washington, D.C.; C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, Border and Transportation Security, Department of Homeland Security, Arlington, Virginia. Panel II: John O. Brennan, Director, Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC), Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, McLean, Virginia; Larry A. Mefford, Executive Assistant Director, Counter-terrorism and Counter- intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 232, submitted earlier today by Senators Miller, Burns, Chambliss, and Corzine.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.