Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. In drafting the Senate Interior Appropriations bill, my staff and I consulted with the Department of Energy to ensure the amount provided in the bill would fully support the fiscal year needs of the ITM syngas membrane technology you just described.

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. Is that agreeable?

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

Mr. BURNS. In drafting the Senate Interior Appropriations bill, my staff and I consulted with the Department of Energy to ensure the amount provided in the bill would fully support the fiscal year needs of the ITM syngas membrane technology the Senator just described.

Mr. BURNS. I appreciate the interest my colleagues have shown in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' irrigation program. As I have discussed with them in the past, I have similar problems in my own home state of Montana and hope to address them in the near future. Insufficient fee collections and mismanagement have taken their toll on the irrigation systems and both tribal and non-tribal members are now having their livelihoods placed at risk. Unfortunately, within the current Subcommittee allocation we can not even begin to tackle the problem with the current funding levels. I invite my colleagues to work with me in next year's budget process to reform this program and work to provide additional funding specifically for Bureau of Indian Affairs irrigation projects so the Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations has the opportunity to begin addressing the problem.

Mr. BURNS. The order of business now is the Boxer amendment. We have set aside some time for the Senator to speak on the outsourcing amendment.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator from Maine for her comments and do pledge to help find funds in conference for the Downeast Lakes Forestry Partnership. The Senator from Maine has been a tireless advocate for this worthy project, and I know that she has suggested that it receive funds from the Forest Service's National Forest System account, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Resource Management account. I will use my best efforts to consider funding the Downeast Lakes project as the Senator suggests.

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

Mr. BURNS. That is my understanding.

Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered and agreed to.

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. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BURNS. I understand the Senator's 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. Mr. President, I would respond that, yes, the subcommittee is aware of the problem affecting the Landsat 7 satellite, and we are willing to work with USGS and our friend from South Dakota to address this situation in conference.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 233 which was submitted earlier today.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 237, S. 1404.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 229, which was submitted earlier today.

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. For the information of all Senators, tomorrow following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 2165, the DC appropriations bill. The two bill managers will be here tomorrow morning to begin working through the amendments on the bill. Rollcall votes should be expected throughout the day as the Senate attempts to finish action on the DC appropriations bill. Members will be notified when the first vote is scheduled.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.