Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Stevens, I ask unanimous consent that Pamela Friedmann and John Hennigan, both detailees to the Commerce Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the 110th Congress.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to clarify the unanimous consent request, I believe there were 2 minutes between the votes, am I correct, for debate?

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it is actually a Collins-Alexander amendment, along with several of our colleagues. I am very pleased to note the Senator from Tennessee, who has been such a leader and such an early voice raising concerns about the implications of the REAL ID Act for State governments, is here on the floor. As a former Governor, he has a better appreciation than many of us of the burden this act imposes on the States. So I am very pleased the Senator is here and I yield to him such time as he may need.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:20 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Inouye amendment No. 285, to be followed by a vote in relation to the DeMint amendment No. 279, as modified; with the time until then for debate to run concurrently on both amendments, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Inouye and DeMint or their designees; that no amendments be in order to either amendment prior to the vote and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the votes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to address the growing concern among States regarding the implementation of the REAL ID Act of 2005. This law requires States to meet minimum security standards before citizens can use their driver's licenses for Federal purposes, such as boarding an airplane. I am very pleased to have several cosponsors of this amendment, including Senator Alexander, Senator Carper, Senator Cantwell, Senator Snowe, and Senator Mikulski. All of them have expressed concerns about the impact on their States. I particularly wish to single out Senator Alexander, who has long been a leading voice in raising concerns about the costs imposed upon States by the REAL ID Act. As the deadline for compliance for the REAL ID Act rapidly approaches, States are beginning to send a very clear message that they are deeply concerned they simply will not be able to meet these standards. The amendment I introduce today recognizes those concerns by allowing more time to devise a way to make driver's licenses more secure without unduly burdening State governments and without threatening privacy and civil liberties. To begin with, perhaps some background information would be useful. The 9/11 Commission's investigation found that all but one of the 9/11 terrorists had acquired some form of U.S. identification--in most cases a State driver's licenses. The Commission recommended that the Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of driver's licenses to make them more secure, to ensure the person was, in fact, entitled to a driver's license, and to make certain the driver's license has certain security features to ensure the individual is who he or she claims to be. To implement that recommendation, which was indeed in response to a very real concern identified by the 9/11 Commission, I worked with a bipartisan group of Senators, most notably my colleague, Senator Lieberman, to craft a provision in the 2004 Intelligence Reform Act that would accomplish the goal of the Commission. It called for the creation of a committee of experts from the Federal Government, from State governments, from privacy groups, from technology information organizations, to come together in a negotiated rulemaking process and to develop a means of providing secure identification, while protecting privacy and civil liberty rights, and also respecting the role of the States, which have always had the primary responsibility in this area. The language we came up with also provided for some grants that would help the States bear this cost--not the whole cost but to help them out. This committee was indeed appointed--indeed, at my recommendation, Maine's secretary of state was one of the members--and they began diligently working on this task. Unfortunately, before the committee could complete its work, the House of Representatives attached the REAL ID Act of 2005 to an emergency war supplemental, a bill that was truly urgent. There was not a lot of consideration in the Senate nor debate over this provision. It was inserted into the emergency war appropriations bill. The effect of that was to repeal the negotiated rulemaking provisions that we had worked so hard to craft and to put into the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. The further effect, therefore, was to halt the very productive and worthwhile progress this committee was making in devising standards to improve security without imposing unnecessary burdens and costs on State governments. Unlike our Intelligence Reform Act, the REAL ID Act of 2005 did not include States and other interested parties, whether privacy advocates or technological experts, in the rulemaking process. Instead, the REAL ID Act simply instructed the Department of Homeland Security to write its own regulations. It has been almost 2 years since the REAL ID Act was passed, and the Department has yet to issue the detailed guidance the States need to comply with the law. We expect these regulations are just about to be published, that they are about to be issued under the formal notice and comment period later this week. The problem is, the States are facing this looming May of 2008 deadline for being in full compliance with the REAL ID Act. That is an enormously constricted period for the States to comply, when the regulations have not yet been issued. As States begin work this year on their 2008 budgets, they still have no idea what the final regulations will require of them, but they do know that the costs are likely to be substantial based on a study released in 2006 by the National Governors Association. The NGA estimated that the costs to States to implement the REAL ID Act could total more than $11 billion over the next 5 years. This is a substantial amount. Perhaps the cost will be less than that, but the point is, we don't know because the regulations with the detailed guidance have still not been issued, even as we speak. The State of Maine reports that the costs of implementation of the REAL ID Act could total $158 million. The Secretary of State tells me that is more than six times the normal operating budget of the Maine Bureau of Motor Vehicles. The result has been an increasing rebellion by States over this unfunded, very difficult mandate. Some States, including my home State of Maine, have passed resolutions that have sent the message to Washington that they cannot and will not implement the REAL ID Act by the May 2008 deadline. So what do we do? Here is what my amendment proposes. I have had extensive consultations with the National Governors Association, the National Council of State Legislatures, and other experts on this issue. My amendment has two primary objectives. The first is to give the Federal Government and States the time and flexibility they need to come up with an effective but practical system to provide secure driver's licenses. Second, my amendment would ensure the involvement of experts from the States, from the technology industry, and privacy and civil liberties advocates, by bringing them back to the table and giving them a chance to review these regulations and make them work. There are three major provisions in the amendment we are offering. First, the amendment provides that States would not have to be in full compliance with the REAL ID Act until 2 years after the final regulations are promulgated. That is reasonable. This is a difficult task, and it is important that we get it right. It is important for our security, but it is also important for the States that have been burdened with the task. That means no matter how long it takes for the Department of Homeland Security to finish these regulations, States will have a full 2 years to implement them. Most likely, the impact of that is to delay from May of next year to May of 2010 the compliance date. That is the likely timeframe about which we are talking. Second, the amendment would give the Secretary of Homeland Security more flexibility to waive certain requirements of REAL ID, if an aspect of the program proves to be technically difficult to implement. I have talked with some technology experts. Some of them say it can be done. Some of them say this is an enormous task because we are talking about having interlocking databases so that States can check with other States on whether an individual is licensed there. That is a very complex project because, not surprisingly, each State has its own system. So there are questions about the technology and the feasibility of all of the requirements of the REAL ID Act. We want to give the Secretary some flexibility in that area. It is possible that some of the technological links necessary for REAL ID may not be fully in place at the time that compliance is required. On the other hand, if the technology is there and the systems are up and running, it will be easier for the States to proceed. That is another advantage of the extension in time. The technology is only going to get better and become more effective. This also gives us more time to address privacy concerns because there are a lot of questions, if you have people throughout the country working in motor vehicle bureaus who are now going to have access to databases and are going to need training in evaluating the underlying documents, whether they are birth certificates or visas, in determining their validity. So this is a complicated task. Third, the amendment reconstitutes the committee that we created in 2004, and that was making such good progress in its deliberations before these provisions were repealed by the REAL ID Act. This committee would be required to look at the regulations published by the Department of Homeland Security and to make suggestions for modifications to meet the concerns of States, privacy advocates, and other interested parties. Within 120 days of convening, the committee would report its recommendations to the Department of Homeland Security and to Congress. So we are not throwing out the work that has already been done by the Department of Homeland Security. It doesn't make sense to go back to square one, to go back to scratch, as the 2004 bill had proposed. Instead, we create this committee, bringing all the stakeholders to the table. They would take a rigorous look at the regulations that are issued, and they would make recommendations to the Department and to us so that we could exercise our oversight. The Department of Homeland Security would then either have to make the recommendations recommended by this committee or explain why it chose not to. So we would have much more transparency and accountability in the process. In addition, the committee could recommend to Congress, if they believed that statutory changes are needed to mitigate concerns that could not be addressed by modifications to the regulations. That is an important safeguard as well. The amendment we are offering would give us time, the information that Congress and the Department of Homeland Security need to better implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in order to make our driver's licenses secure so that they cannot again be used to facilitate a plot to attack our country. There is a real problem. The 9/11 Commission was correct in identifying the ease with which the hijackers were able to secure driver's licenses. But let's come up with not only an effective solution to the problem identified but also a practical one. We don't have to choose one versus the other. We can come up with a cost- effective, efficient, effective way to achieve this goal. This bill does so in a way that does not rewind the clock 3 years but instead keeps us moving to a more secure America. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to address REAL ID and to put us back on the right track to protect our country, to protect our privacy, to protect our liberty, and to do so in a practical way. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, to clarify for our colleagues, the objection or the clarification I mentioned earlier has been resolved on this side of the aisle. I know of no objection to adopting the amendment of Senator Feinstein. I believe it strengthens the provisions in the underlying bill and I urge its adoption.

Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have only had a brief time to look at the amendment offered by the Senator from California, but it would, in my judgment, enhance certain provisions in the underlying bill on the visa waiver program. There are discussions going on with key Senators on our side of the aisle, such as Senator Kyl of Arizona, who has also a great interest in this area. We are not prepared on this side to proceed with a full discussion of the amendment at this time or to dispose of it at this time, but I would inform my colleagues that I am optimistic that the discussions will produce a fruitful result. At this time, we cannot proceed to disposing of the amendment, however. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his excellent statement. He outlined the issue very well. I emphasize two points the Senator made. First is the cost. The National Governors Association has estimated that compliance with the requirements of the REAL ID card will impose $11 billion of costs on State governments over the next 5 years. Yet we have appropriated only $40 million to be used toward that cost, and of that amount the Department of Homeland Security has only allocated $6 million, so only a tiny fraction of the expected cost. The second point I emphasize is the Department of Homeland Security has yet to issue the regulations detailing how States are to comply with the law. So to expect the States to comply by May of next year with regulations that have yet to be issued is simply unfair and will add another layer of costs because of the short time for compliance. This 2 years will allow a more careful review. It will allow more input by the States when DHS does issue the regulations, and it will allow us to devise a cost-effective way of achieving a goal all of us have, and that is to make driver's licenses more secure. I am very grateful for the insights of the Senator from Tennessee, for his support, and for his very early leadership on this issue. Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, speaking of the Collins amendment on REAL ID, cosponsored by Senators Alexander, Mikulski, Carper, Cantwell, Snowe, Chambliss, and Murkowski, I bring to my colleagues' attention the several groups representing Governors, State legislatures, and others who are now speaking in favor of passage of this amendment. In addition, as the Presiding Officer so ably represents the State of New York, there was a Newsday editorial today also endorsing the amendment with its 2-year delay. The National Governors Association has also issued a statement that says: Senator Collins' bipartisan amendment recognizes the need to give state officials and other interested parties the right to review regulations and suggest modifications. It goes on to say: This proposal would provide states a more workable time frame to comply with federal standards, ensure necessary systems are operational and enhance the input states and other stakeholders have in the implementation process. We have also heard from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union that is affiliated with the AFL-CIO, which has written a letter as well. It says: It is clear that the states do not have the capacity to comply with the REAL ID Act by the 2008 deadline and that a number of serious concerns related to privacy must be addressed. The Collins amendment provides the opportunity to address these matters. Similarly, another group with whom we have worked closely is the National Conference of State Legislatures. In fact, it was a high- ranking official of the NCSL who sat next to me on a plane going to Maine some time ago and suggested that what States needed most was a delay in the compliance time. I worked very closely with the NCSL in drafting our amendment. I am very grateful for their advice. I ask unanimous consent that the letters and editorials I have mentioned be printed in the Record so we may share them with our colleagues.

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2007, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing this legislation. Everyday, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with burdensome regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing. Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing ranks among the Nation's most dangerous occupations. Last August, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the most recent National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, fishing was the most dangerous occupation. While the national rate of occupational-related fatalities dropped by 1 percent in 2005, I am saddened to say that the fishing community saw an increase of almost 14 percent from the previous year. I have introducd similar measures in previous sessions of Congress, but these tragic statistics illustrate why this piece of legislation is absolutely needed right now. And as we know, these statistics have a very real face to them. And sadly, the New England fishing community is certainly no stranger to the pain and loss of their own. Last November, the small fishing community of Port Clyde saw the tragic loss of one their own. The Taylor Emily, a 48-foot fishing boat, capsized and sank about 80 miles east of Portland, ME. Tragically, long-time fisherman Jim Weaver perished in this incident. Another fisherman aboard the boat, Christopher Yattaw, was saved when the Taylor Emily sank. Chris treaded the frigid waters for almost an hour, but finally, the boat's life raft inflated. Almost 8 hours later, Chris was rescued from the life raft by a passing fishing vessel. This incident could have been even more tragic if the critical live-saving equipment had not been aboard. Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the vessel travels from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a life raft that automatically inflates and floats free, should the vessel sink. This is what saved Christopher Yattaw's life. Other live- saving equipment includes: personal flotation devices or immersion suits which help protect fishermen from exposure and increase buoyancy; EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to Coast Guard Search and Rescue Personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2007 provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1,500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the Federal tax code. We have seen far too many tragedies in this occupation. Please, let us support fishermen who are trying to prepare in case disaster strikes. Safety equipment saves lives. By providing a tax credit for the purchase of safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be put in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2007, a bill to help fishermen purchase the life-saving safety equipment they need to survive when disaster strikes. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing this legislation. Everyday, members of our fishing communities struggle to cope with the pressures of running a small business, complying with burdensome regulations, and maintaining their vessels and equipment. Added to these challenges are the dangers associated with fishing. Year-in and year-out, commercial fishing ranks among the Nation's most dangerous occupations. Last August, when the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the most recent National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, fishing was the most dangerous occupation. While the national rate of occupational-related fatalities dropped by 1 percent in 2005, I am saddened to say that the fishing community saw an increase of almost 14 percent from the previous year. I have introducd similar measures in previous sessions of Congress, but these tragic statistics illustrate why this piece of legislation is absolutely needed right now. And as we know, these statistics have a very real face to them. And sadly, the New England fishing community is certainly no stranger to the pain and loss of their own. Last November, the small fishing community of Port Clyde saw the tragic loss of one their own. The Taylor Emily, a 48-foot fishing boat, capsized and sank about 80 miles east of Portland, ME. Tragically, long-time fisherman Jim Weaver perished in this incident. Another fisherman aboard the boat, Christopher Yattaw, was saved when the Taylor Emily sank. Chris treaded the frigid waters for almost an hour, but finally, the boat's life raft inflated. Almost 8 hours later, Chris was rescued from the life raft by a passing fishing vessel. This incident could have been even more tragic if the critical live-saving equipment had not been aboard. Coast Guard regulations require all fishing vessels to carry safety equipment. The requirements vary depending on factors such as the size of the vessel, the temperature of the water, and the distance the vessel travels from shore to fish. Required equipment can include a life raft that automatically inflates and floats free, should the vessel sink. This is what saved Christopher Yattaw's life. Other live- saving equipment includes: personal flotation devices or immersion suits which help protect fishermen from exposure and increase buoyancy; EPIRBs, which relay a downed vessel's position to Coast Guard Search and Rescue Personnel; visual distress signals; and fire extinguishers. When an emergency arises, safety equipment is priceless. At all other times, the cost of purchasing or maintaining this equipment must compete with other expenses such as loan payments, fuel, wages, maintenance, and insurance. The Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2007 provides a tax credit equal to 75 percent of the amount paid by fishermen to purchase or maintain required safety equipment. The tax credit is capped at $1,500. Items such as EPIRBs and immersion suits cost hundreds of dollars, while life rafts can reach into the thousands. The tax credit will make life-saving equipment more affordable for more fishermen, who currently face limited options under the Federal tax code. We have seen far too many tragedies in this occupation. Please, let us support fishermen who are trying to prepare in case disaster strikes. Safety equipment saves lives. By providing a tax credit for the purchase of safety equipment, Congress can help ensure that fishermen have a better chance of returning home each and every time they head out to sea. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be put in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. I yield back the remaining time on this side.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. This legislation will strengthen our homeland security and will do so in the spirit that shaped the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I have worked very closely with the committee's chairman, Senator Lieberman, as well as with the Presiding Officer, a valued member of the committee, and with all of our committee members to shape this important legislation. Indeed, the committee voted unanimously on February 15 to report this bill. The bill before the Senate now is the product of careful collaboration among the members of our committee, State, local, and tribal governments, emergency response providers, the private sector, the administration, and other stakeholders. It has produced legislation that builds on the earlier work of the Committee on Homeland Security over the last 3 years. During that time, the committee has produced numerous pieces of legislation implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and otherwise strengthening our homeland security. In the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress enacted many significant measures to achieve the goals of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, that bill implemented the most sweeping changes in our intelligence community in more than 50 years. More recently, in the last Congress, we passed measures that greatly strengthened protections for America's cargo ports and chemical facilities--again addressing vulnerabilities highlighted in the Commission report. We also approved an overhaul and reform of FEMA that will help improve our emergency response and prepared negotiation, whether it is through terrorist attack or a natural disaster. As reported by the Homeland Security Committee, S. 4 builds upon these past successes. It would authorize a comprehensive homeland security grant program that includes four vital programs to assist State, local, and tribal governments in safeguarding our lives and property. Our approach to this bill reflects our belief that homeland security is a partnership and that our State and local partners are vital to accomplishing this goal. I will have much more to say about this bill as the debate proceeds. I will reserve the remainder of my time, if any does remain, and I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to this important bill. As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with the committee chairman and others, including the Presiding Officer.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to support S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. This legislation would strengthen our homeland security and would do so in the spirit that shaped the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. As my colleague and friend Senator Lieberman has already indicated, the Committee on Homeland Security voted unanimously on February 15 to report this bill. The bill before us is the product of careful collaboration among members of our committee; State, local, and tribal governments; emergency response providers; the private sector; the Administration, particularly the Department of Homeland Security; and other stakeholders. This collaboration has produced legislation that builds on the work of the Homeland Security Committee over the last 3 years. During that time, the committee has produced numerous bills implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and otherwise strengthening our homeland security. This bill helps to complete the picture. The vast majority of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were enacted in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. There were, however, some recommendations that did not make it through the process or were not incorporated into that bill, and those are reflected in the legislation before us. The Intelligence Reform Act was a bipartisan effort by the Homeland Security Committee, and it made possible the most significant reforms in the structure and operations of our intelligence community in more than 50 years--in fact, since the CIA was created after World War II. Indeed, approximately 39 of the 9/11 Commission's 41 recommendations have been acted on in one form or another. More recently, Congress passed measures that greatly strengthen the protections for America's cargo ports and its chemical facilities--again addressing vulnerabilities highlighted in the Commission's report and by other experts on terrorism. So during the past 3 years, in fact, a great deal has been done to help make our Nation more secure and to improve our defenses and capacity to respond to terrorism attacks. The Homeland Security Committee also conducted a comprehensive, bipartisan investigation of the Federal, State, and local preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina, our country's first real test of its homeland security apparatus since the attacks on September 11 of 2001. Our investigation found significant failures in emergency planning, preparation, and response at all levels of government. As a result, we issued a comprehensive report that summarized our investigation. Our investigation included 24 public hearings, interviews of more than 400 people, and the review of literally hundreds of thousands of investigations. It also included the issuance of subpoenas because we wanted to make sure we had access to all the information we needed. As a result of this investigation, the committee issued a detailed report and drafted legislation based on those recommendations. That legislation was incorporated into the Homeland Security appropriations bill which the President signed into law last year. The FEMA Reform Act built upon the 9/11 Commission recommendations already enacted by reforming the structure of FEMA, enhancing its regional role throughout the country, and giving FEMA a primary place within the Federal Government for planning, training, and exercising with State and local officials. As reported by the Homeland Security Committee then, S. 4 builds upon our past successes. The legislation before the Senate would authorize a comprehensive homeland security grant program. It includes four vital grant programs to assist State, local, and tribal governments in safeguarding our lives and properties in all catastrophes, whether natural or manmade. Taken together, these four grant programs--the Urban Area Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, and the Emergency Communications and Interoperability Grant Program--will ensure significant and predictable Federal funding for our State and local partners. The program will support error-prevention activities such as fusion centers, all-hazards planning, training exercises, and the installation of reliable interoperable emergency communications systems. The bill will help to strengthen emergency preparedness and response. It also strikes the right balance between targeting funding to jurisdictions the Department determines to be at the highest risk and ensuring a baseline of adequate funding for prevention and preparedness across the country because we know that our Nation's homeland security is only as strong as its weakest link. Let me comment in more detail on these programs. With respect to the Urban Area Security Initiative, also known as UASI, the bill retains the current practice directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to award grants based solely on risk of terrorist attacks. Clearly, our largest urban areas present attractive, high-value targets to terrorists. Our legislation, the Lieberman-Collins legislation, recognizes that fact, but it makes one sensible change. The Department's eligibility criteria for UASI grant applications has been, to say the least, arbitrary and controversial. For that reason, our bill would expand the potential pool of applicants beyond the current limit of 45. Instead of requiring the Department to select which cities are eligible to apply, S. 4 would expressly permit the largest 100 metropolitan areas to make their case for funding. Unfortunately, terrorist attacks do not respect city limits. A major attack could affect--or at least require--responses from many neighboring or regional jurisdictions. We also know that when we take a more regional approach, we have a more effective response. Our bill raises funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program to $913 million from the $525 million appropriated in fiscal year 2007. This funding increase would also correct a serious deficiency in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2008. Unfortunately, the administration is calling for only $250 million for this important program. As with the UASI grants, each State would receive funding on the basis of risk but with a minimum award of 0.45 percent of the program funds. This will, once again, ensure a baseline level of preparedness and response activities across the country. Hurricane Katrina illustrated that many of the actions required to respond to terrorist attacks are identical to those required for natural disasters. That is precisely why S. 4 would expand the emergency management performance grants. The EMPG has been a vital part of our national preparedness for years. Our bill seeks to increase its stature and importance by providing more funding and by authorizing States to use EMPG funds to construct and enhance emergency operation centers. The EMPG emphasizes all-hazards preparation, and the .75 percent minimum allocation and the population-based distribution of the remainder ensures that every State will receive assistance with planning, training, and exercises for vital functions such as evacuation, logistics, continuity of operations of government, and recovery. Those are skills which all States need to develop. Those are minimal levels of preparedness and response essential for every State. Every State has the potential for either a natural disaster or a terrorist attack or some other catastrophe or emergency. That is why it is important we develop that capacity in every State. It is important for me to emphasize that S. 4 does not change EMPG's allocation formula; it merely codifies existing practice. The EMPG is basic insurance. As the DHS manual for the program observes: An all hazards approach to preparedness, including the development of a comprehensive program of planning, training, and exercises, encourages an effective and consistent response to any threatened or actual disaster or emergency regardless of the cause. This view is consistent with the expert testimony before the Homeland Security Committee during our investigation of the failed response to Hurricane Katrina. Now, some people have suggested that guaranteeing minimum funding for State and local preparedness is just another example of pork barrel politics. These people could not be more mistaken. As the Rand Corporation noted in a 2004 report on the preparedness of State and local law enforcement after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: Homeland security experts and first responders have cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of smaller communities or rural areas. Again, I make the point that we need to bring up all areas to a certain baseline level of preparedness. That doesn't mean we don't factor in risk; we do. Indeed, the majority of the funds in this bill would be allocated based on risk, and we provide more risk-based funding than is the case in current law. The RAND report went on to recognize that much of our Nation's infrastructure and potential high-value targets are located in rural areas. We also cannot assume a precise calculation of risk. A Federal building in Oklahoma City was not an obvious target for a terrorist bombing. Yet, we know a tragic attack occurred in that city. Rural flight schools were not obvious training grounds for hijackers, nor was the Portland, ME, jetport an obvious departure point for terrorist pilots as they began their journey of death and destruction on September 11. My point is that terrorists can shelter, train, recruit, prepare, or attack in unlikely places. In view of this cold reality, our bill requires that at least 25 percent of the funding from the UASI and State homeland security grant programs--that is at least $548 million-- be used for terrorism prevention activities by law enforcement agencies. Sometimes I think we forget the basic truth that if we can prevent a terrorist attack from happening in the first place, that is the best possible approach. We do need to be prepared to respond effectively, but how much better if we can detect and interdict the attack before it occurs. We know from experience here, as well as in other countries, that terrorists can be spotted and attacks intercepted by well-trained local police. The prevention of attacks through better policing must be a focus of our grant programs. The last grant program our bill creates is an emergency communications and interoperability grants program. These grants will help to close the alarming and persistent gaps in our first responders' ability to simply communicate with one another. As the tragic events of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, this is often not the case. Before the second tower of the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11, the police received a radio message to evacuate, but, tragically, the firefighters never received that message because they used different radios and an incompatible frequency. The result was even more loss of lives. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the first responders resorted to the use of runners to carry messages by hand from one command center to another because the communications infrastructure was so badly damaged. Well, the events of the magnitude of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, fortunately, do not occur every day. There are daily incidents, such as fires, rescues, and hazardous material spills that require different agencies and different jurisdictions to communicate with one another in real time and on demand. This is precisely why the emergency communications grants program is so important. I will tell you it was very disturbing to hear, during our investigation of Hurricane Katrina, the same kinds of interoperability problems that occurred during 9/11. This is a problem we simply must solve. Let me comment on some other important features of the bill. It improves protection against terrorists traveling to our country under the visa waiver program by requiring more timely notice from participating countries of lost or stolen passports. It also requires those countries to share more information about travelers who could pose a threat to our security. The bill improves information sharing, establishes multijurisdiction fusion centers in order to encourage information to be shared, and allows the assignment of DHS intelligence analysts to those centers. The bill expands upon a requirement in the Homeland Security Act by requiring DHS to create a prioritized list of critical infrastructure and highest risks for terrorist attacks and other disasters. This list will help protect these critical assets from attacks and enable more effective response when disaster strikes. The bill also requires that risk assessments be completed for each sector of the economy. Recognizing the need to exercise good stewardship of our taxpayers' money, our bill also includes strong protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. By now, we have all heard the disturbing stories of misspent homeland security grants. In fact, when I was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, we held hearings looking at how homeland security grants have been spent in some States. Along with Senator Lieberman, I asked the GAO to do an investigation into this area, and GAO testified before our committee. At a time when the needs are so great for equipment, for training, and for more preparedness to strengthen our homeland security, it was very disturbing to hear the GAO testify that money had been wasted. Let me give you a couple of examples. In the District of Columbia-- yes, right here in Washington, DC, surely a high-risk area, an area attacked on 9/11--we found that leather jackets were purchased for the local police using homeland security grant money. In Newark, NJ, homeland security funds were used to purchase air-conditioned garbage trucks. This is totally inexcusable, when we have such great needs for new communications equipment, for training and exercises, and for help for our first responders. We simply cannot afford to have money frittered away. It is outrageous. Our bill would help to eliminate those abuses. It would strictly prohibit the use of grant funds on items that don't relate to securing our homeland. It requires States to have an approved plan and for funds to be allocated, distributed, and spent according to that plan, and to achieve certain baseline preparedness goals. It requires DHS to set minimum performance standards for agency grants, and it provides for audits to ensure accountability. I know that last safeguard is near and dear to the Presiding Officer's heart and that she understands, perhaps better than anyone in this body, the importance of regular, thorough, and timely audits. Madam President, I acknowledge the work of Senator Coburn, and many other members of our committee, to strengthen the provisions of our bill. I offered an amendment to make sure that homeland security funds were not used for social or recreational purposes. In short, I think we have tightened up the safeguards and put new measures in to ensure accountability. I mentioned earlier that our bill proceeds in the spirit of the 9/11 Commission; its provisions for increased and more effective information sharing, for strengthening the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, and for disclosing the total sums requested, authorized, and appropriated for intelligence programs all testified to that amendment. There are many provisions of the bill reported by the Homeland Security Committee that will improve our security in other ways. I want to note once again, however, that this bill is not a sudden, new, or unusual manifestation of congressional determination to strengthen our security. The bill before us today continues the work of Congress in taking proper notice of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. I am proud to be part of the bipartisan deliberations that shaped this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I want to also acknowledge the tireless efforts of the families of the victims of 9/11. They have worked with Senator Lieberman and me every step of the way when we were drafting the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act in 2004. They were our inspiration and they kept us going. They ensured that the bill got through to the President's desk and signed into law. They have continued to work with us on the bill before us today. I want to publicly thank them for their effort. They inspired our work. Our legislation's broad-front attack on the threats we face will ensure good value for every dollar our Nation spends to improve our defenses at the Federal and State and local levels. It will provide appropriate transparency and accountability into the Government's security decisions, and it will strike an appropriate balance between increased security and our cherished civil liberties. The passage of this bill will benefit every American. Let me close by saying I am certain this bill will be improved even further as we proceed with the deliberations this week. I do not support every single provision in this bill. But on balance, it is yet another step forward as we seek to protect the American people. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007. This bill, which I am delighted is cosponsored by Senators Lieberman, Coleman, Carper, and McCaskill, will improve our stewardship of taxpayers' money by reforming contracting practices, strengthening the procurement workforce, reforming our IG community, and including other provisions to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. It will also provide increased oversight and transparency in the Federal Government's dealings with its contractors. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy estimates that the Federal Government purchased approximately $410 billion in goods and services last year--more than a 50 percent increase in Federal purchases since 2001. As the administration's proposed budget suggests, the costs of war, natural disaster, homeland-security precautions, and other vital programs will drive those expenditures to even higher levels in the years ahead. Each of us in this Chamber knows that the Federal Government's prodigious purchasing can create abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. Whether the problem is purchases of unusable trailers for hurricane victims, shoddy construction of schools and clinics in Iraq, or abuse of purchase cards by Government employees, we must do a better job of protecting taxpayer dollars and delivering better acquisition outcomes. Recognizing that imperative requires that we also recognize the obstacles in our path. Such obstacles include resource constraints, inexcusable rushes to award contracts, poor program administration, and perverse incentives. Other challenges to fair, effective, and open competition and oversight include inadequate documentation requirements, overuse of letter contracts that fail to include all the critical terms until after performance is complete, excessive tiering of subcontractors, and insufficient publicly available data on Federal contracts. Too often, the problem of waste, fraud, and abuse stimulates floods of outrage and magic-bullet proposals that lean more toward symbolic gestures than practical reforms. The Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007 confines itself to sensible, practical reforms that will really make a difference. Competition for Government contracts clearly helps to control costs, encourage innovation, and keep contractors sharp. It is basic economics--and it's the law, as Congress provided in the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. This bill promotes more open competition for Government contracts--a positive step for both contractors and taxpayers. Unfortunately, the tide has been running the wrong way. Competition, intended to produce savings, has sharply diminished. While the dollar volume of Federal contracting has nearly doubled since the year 2000, a recent report concluded that less than half of all ``contract actions''--new contracts and payments against existing contracts--are now subject to full and open competition: 48 percent in 2005, compared to 79 percent in 2001. This is inexcusable. The dangers inherent in sole-source contracting are on full display in Iraq. For example, the Kellogg, Brown, and Root unit of Halliburton designed and was awarded a multi-year sole-source contract for the Restore Iraqi Oil project. A Defense Department audit concluded that the firm later over-charged the government $61 million for fuel. Incredibly, the Army Corps of Engineers permitted the overcharge. According to a January 2007 Congressional Research Service report, Kellogg, Brown, and Root's contract work in Iraq included billing for $52 million to administer a project that entailed only $13 million in actual project work, piping unpurified water into showers and laundries used by our troops, and billing for 6 months of failure while using an unsuitable technique to lay oil pipeline beneath a river. As these examples suggest, we need more competition, less sole source contracting, and tougher management in Federal contracts. The bill I introduce today extends a practice adopted in the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization Act government-wide, mandating competition for each task or delivery order over $100,000, the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. The bill would promote more informed and effective competition for orders over $5 million by requiring more information in the statement of work. At minimum, contractors would be given a clear statement of agency requirements, a reasonable response period, and disclosure of significant evaluation factors to be applied. For awards to be made on a best-value rather than lowest-cost basis, the agency must provide a written statement on the basis of the award and on the trade-off between quality and cost. To increase the quality of competitive bids, the bill mandates post- award debriefings for task or delivery orders valued over $5 million. Debriefings improve the transparency of the Federal acquisition process by providing information that contractors can use to improve future offers. Competition helps secure good value for taxpayers' money, but there are exceptions, and they should be the exception and not the rule, when sole-source contracting is appropriate. Sole-source contracting heightens the importance of effective oversight, but oversight is often hampered by a lack of publicly available information on sole-source contract awards. The bill addresses that problem by requiring publication at the ``FedBizOpps'' website of notices of all sole-source task-or-delivery orders above $100,000, within 10 business days after the award. I shall note some other important provisions of the bill. The bill will rein in the practice of awarding contracts missing key terms, such as price, scope or schedule, and then failing to supply those terms until the contractor delivers the good or service--thereby placing all risk of failure on the government. In Iraq and Katrina contracting, we saw the perils of failing to supply the ``missing term'' promptly. For example, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction last July identified 194 individual task orders valued at $3.4 billion that were classified as ``undefinitized contract actions.'' This is entirely too much money and too many contract actions to linger in this status. The bill corrects this flaw by requiring contracting officers to unilaterally determine all missing terms, if not mutually agreed upon, within 180 days or before 40 percent of the work is performed, with the approval of the head of the contracting agency, and subject to the contract disputes process. Contracting for Hurricane Katrina and Iraq has also involved excessive tiers of subcontractors, driving up costs and complicating administration. The bill extends a tiering-control rule we placed in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, preventing contractors from using subcontracts for more than 65 percent of the cost of the contract, not including overhead and profit, unless the head of agency determines that exceptional circumstances apply. To further decrease the Government's reliance on large single-source service contracts, the bill strengthens the preference for multiple awards of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity, or IDIQ, contracts by prohibiting single awards of IDIQ contracts for services over $100 million. The Government would therefore have at least two contractors for these large service contracts, who would then be required to compete with each other for all task and/or delivery orders, unless strict grounds for exceptions applied. To ensure that agencies' increasing use of interagency contracting is producing value, we require the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to collect and make publicly available data on the numbers, scope, users, and rationales for these contracts. But increased competition will not solve all our ills. We must also address the lack of personnel to award and administer Federal contracts. We moved into the 21st century with 22 percent fewer Federal civilian acquisition personnel than we had at the start of the 1990s. The Department of Defense has been disbursing enormous amounts of money to contractors since the first gulf war, but has reduced its acquisition workforce by more than 50 percent from 1994 to 2005. Among the current, attenuated Federal acquisition workforce, nearly 40 percent are eligible to retire by the end of this fiscal year. Meanwhile, the number and scale of Federal purchases continue to rise, making this human-capital crisis even more dire. Therefore, the bill would help Federal agencies recruit, retain, and develop an adequate acquisition workforce. Its mechanisms include acquisition internship programs, promoting contracting careers, a government-industry exchange program; an Acquisition Fellowship Program with scholarships for graduate study, requirements for human-capital strategic plans by chief acquisition officers, and a new senior- executive-level position in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to manage this initiative. In keeping with earlier Senate action, the bill also targets wasteful use of purchase cards by seeking better analysis of purchase-card use to identify fraud as well as potential savings, negotiate discounts, collect and disseminate best practices, and address small-business concerns in micro-purchases. Such information is clearly necessary. In a hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, GAO detailed how a FEMA employee provided his purchase card number to a vendor, who agreed to provide the government 20 flat-bottom boats. Besides the fact that FEMA agreed to pay $208,000 for the boats, about twice the retail price, the vendor used the FEMA employee's purchase card information to make two unauthorized transactions totaling about $30,000. Neither the cardholder nor the approving official disputed the unauthorized charges. As if this was not bad enough, FEMA failed to gain title to the boats. It did not even enter 12 of the 20 boats into their property system. Eventually, one of the boats was later found back in the possession of the original owner. The bill restricts the de-facto outsourcing of program-management responsibility when a large contractor becomes a ``lead systems integrator'' for a multi-part project. The bill requires OFPP to craft a government-wide definition of lead systems integrators and study their use by various agencies. The bill also specifically addresses demonstrated problems in contracting for assistance programs in Afghanistan. Numerous reports of fraud, waste, and abuse in that country, such as the shockingly poor construction of schools and clinics by the Louis Berger Group, echo the findings of the SIGIR in Iraq. The Louis Berger Group was awarded a contract to build schools and clinics to help restore a decent life for the people of Afghanistan. Of the 105 structures they erected before their work was stopped, 103 suffered roof collapses after the first snowfall. Here was a case that combined a waste of taxpayer funds, damage to the U.S. image we were trying to enhance, and an actual danger to the people we were trying to help. This bill requires the Administrator of USAID to revise the strategy for the agency's assistance program in Afghanistan to include measurable goals, specific time frames, resource levels, delineated responsibilities, external factors bearing on success, and a schedule for program evaluations. All of these things should have been done from the outset, not after billions in Federal funds were expended. Title II of the bill introduces targeted reforms of the Inspector General system. IGs play a vital role in preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse. We must attract more of these specialists to government service, and make the career attractive. One vital provision in our bill might appear to run counter to that aim but the provision, in fact, preserves the independence of our Inspector Generals. It prohibits IGs from accepting any cash award or cash bonus from the agency that they are auditing or investigating. This codifies the honorable practice of most IGs of declining to accept such awards because of the inherent conflict of interest they present. The balancing mechanism for that prohibition is to increase the salaries of Presidentially appointed IGs from Senior Executive Service Level III to Level IV. This also corrects a common anomaly wherein Deputy IGs collecting performance pay earn more than their supervising IG. The bill removes the inequity and the disincentive to accepting a promotion. The bill makes other reforms that will increase the quality of IG reports and audits. For example, it clarifies that IGs' subpoena power extends to electronic documents. It also sets out professional qualifications for the designated Federal entity IGs, or DFE IGs. These IGs work in our smaller Federal agencies and are not subject to confirmation. This is no excuse for this failure to supply minimum professional qualifications for these important positions. This bill also corrects a serious problem that has left millions of fraudulently disbursed dollars un-recouped. Currently DFE IGs do not have the power to institute lawsuits to recover claims under $150,000, even if they have a compelling case. This is unacceptable. DFE IGs need the power to pick this ``low hanging fruit,'' whose cumulative cost can be huge. The bill corrects this problem by giving DFE IGs the same authority that Presidentially appointed IGs have to investigate and report false claims, and to recoup losses resulting from fraud below $150,000. I believe this summary shows how the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007 combines practical, workable, and targeted reforms to improve a complex process that expends hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars every year. It will pay recurring dividends for years to come in higher-quality proposals, in more efficiently administered projects, and in better results for our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to introduce the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007. This bill, which I am delighted is cosponsored by Senators Lieberman, Coleman, Carper, and McCaskill, will improve our stewardship of taxpayers' money by reforming contracting practices, strengthening the procurement workforce, reforming our IG community, and including other provisions to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. It will also provide increased oversight and transparency in the Federal Government's dealings with its contractors. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy estimates that the Federal Government purchased approximately $410 billion in goods and services last year--more than a 50 percent increase in Federal purchases since 2001. As the administration's proposed budget suggests, the costs of war, natural disaster, homeland-security precautions, and other vital programs will drive those expenditures to even higher levels in the years ahead. Each of us in this Chamber knows that the Federal Government's prodigious purchasing can create abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. Whether the problem is purchases of unusable trailers for hurricane victims, shoddy construction of schools and clinics in Iraq, or abuse of purchase cards by Government employees, we must do a better job of protecting taxpayer dollars and delivering better acquisition outcomes. Recognizing that imperative requires that we also recognize the obstacles in our path. Such obstacles include resource constraints, inexcusable rushes to award contracts, poor program administration, and perverse incentives. Other challenges to fair, effective, and open competition and oversight include inadequate documentation requirements, overuse of letter contracts that fail to include all the critical terms until after performance is complete, excessive tiering of subcontractors, and insufficient publicly available data on Federal contracts. Too often, the problem of waste, fraud, and abuse stimulates floods of outrage and magic-bullet proposals that lean more toward symbolic gestures than practical reforms. The Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007 confines itself to sensible, practical reforms that will really make a difference. Competition for Government contracts clearly helps to control costs, encourage innovation, and keep contractors sharp. It is basic economics--and it's the law, as Congress provided in the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. This bill promotes more open competition for Government contracts--a positive step for both contractors and taxpayers. Unfortunately, the tide has been running the wrong way. Competition, intended to produce savings, has sharply diminished. While the dollar volume of Federal contracting has nearly doubled since the year 2000, a recent report concluded that less than half of all ``contract actions''--new contracts and payments against existing contracts--are now subject to full and open competition: 48 percent in 2005, compared to 79 percent in 2001. This is inexcusable. The dangers inherent in sole-source contracting are on full display in Iraq. For example, the Kellogg, Brown, and Root unit of Halliburton designed and was awarded a multi-year sole-source contract for the Restore Iraqi Oil project. A Defense Department audit concluded that the firm later over-charged the government $61 million for fuel. Incredibly, the Army Corps of Engineers permitted the overcharge. According to a January 2007 Congressional Research Service report, Kellogg, Brown, and Root's contract work in Iraq included billing for $52 million to administer a project that entailed only $13 million in actual project work, piping unpurified water into showers and laundries used by our troops, and billing for 6 months of failure while using an unsuitable technique to lay oil pipeline beneath a river. As these examples suggest, we need more competition, less sole source contracting, and tougher management in Federal contracts. The bill I introduce today extends a practice adopted in the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization Act government-wide, mandating competition for each task or delivery order over $100,000, the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. The bill would promote more informed and effective competition for orders over $5 million by requiring more information in the statement of work. At minimum, contractors would be given a clear statement of agency requirements, a reasonable response period, and disclosure of significant evaluation factors to be applied. For awards to be made on a best-value rather than lowest-cost basis, the agency must provide a written statement on the basis of the award and on the trade-off between quality and cost. To increase the quality of competitive bids, the bill mandates post- award debriefings for task or delivery orders valued over $5 million. Debriefings improve the transparency of the Federal acquisition process by providing information that contractors can use to improve future offers. Competition helps secure good value for taxpayers' money, but there are exceptions, and they should be the exception and not the rule, when sole-source contracting is appropriate. Sole-source contracting heightens the importance of effective oversight, but oversight is often hampered by a lack of publicly available information on sole-source contract awards. The bill addresses that problem by requiring publication at the ``FedBizOpps'' website of notices of all sole-source task-or-delivery orders above $100,000, within 10 business days after the award. I shall note some other important provisions of the bill. The bill will rein in the practice of awarding contracts missing key terms, such as price, scope or schedule, and then failing to supply those terms until the contractor delivers the good or service--thereby placing all risk of failure on the government. In Iraq and Katrina contracting, we saw the perils of failing to supply the ``missing term'' promptly. For example, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction last July identified 194 individual task orders valued at $3.4 billion that were classified as ``undefinitized contract actions.'' This is entirely too much money and too many contract actions to linger in this status. The bill corrects this flaw by requiring contracting officers to unilaterally determine all missing terms, if not mutually agreed upon, within 180 days or before 40 percent of the work is performed, with the approval of the head of the contracting agency, and subject to the contract disputes process. Contracting for Hurricane Katrina and Iraq has also involved excessive tiers of subcontractors, driving up costs and complicating administration. The bill extends a tiering-control rule we placed in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, preventing contractors from using subcontracts for more than 65 percent of the cost of the contract, not including overhead and profit, unless the head of agency determines that exceptional circumstances apply. To further decrease the Government's reliance on large single-source service contracts, the bill strengthens the preference for multiple awards of Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity, or IDIQ, contracts by prohibiting single awards of IDIQ contracts for services over $100 million. The Government would therefore have at least two contractors for these large service contracts, who would then be required to compete with each other for all task and/or delivery orders, unless strict grounds for exceptions applied. To ensure that agencies' increasing use of interagency contracting is producing value, we require the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to collect and make publicly available data on the numbers, scope, users, and rationales for these contracts. But increased competition will not solve all our ills. We must also address the lack of personnel to award and administer Federal contracts. We moved into the 21st century with 22 percent fewer Federal civilian acquisition personnel than we had at the start of the 1990s. The Department of Defense has been disbursing enormous amounts of money to contractors since the first gulf war, but has reduced its acquisition workforce by more than 50 percent from 1994 to 2005. Among the current, attenuated Federal acquisition workforce, nearly 40 percent are eligible to retire by the end of this fiscal year. Meanwhile, the number and scale of Federal purchases continue to rise, making this human-capital crisis even more dire. Therefore, the bill would help Federal agencies recruit, retain, and develop an adequate acquisition workforce. Its mechanisms include acquisition internship programs, promoting contracting careers, a government-industry exchange program; an Acquisition Fellowship Program with scholarships for graduate study, requirements for human-capital strategic plans by chief acquisition officers, and a new senior- executive-level position in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to manage this initiative. In keeping with earlier Senate action, the bill also targets wasteful use of purchase cards by seeking better analysis of purchase-card use to identify fraud as well as potential savings, negotiate discounts, collect and disseminate best practices, and address small-business concerns in micro-purchases. Such information is clearly necessary. In a hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, GAO detailed how a FEMA employee provided his purchase card number to a vendor, who agreed to provide the government 20 flat-bottom boats. Besides the fact that FEMA agreed to pay $208,000 for the boats, about twice the retail price, the vendor used the FEMA employee's purchase card information to make two unauthorized transactions totaling about $30,000. Neither the cardholder nor the approving official disputed the unauthorized charges. As if this was not bad enough, FEMA failed to gain title to the boats. It did not even enter 12 of the 20 boats into their property system. Eventually, one of the boats was later found back in the possession of the original owner. The bill restricts the de-facto outsourcing of program-management responsibility when a large contractor becomes a ``lead systems integrator'' for a multi-part project. The bill requires OFPP to craft a government-wide definition of lead systems integrators and study their use by various agencies. The bill also specifically addresses demonstrated problems in contracting for assistance programs in Afghanistan. Numerous reports of fraud, waste, and abuse in that country, such as the shockingly poor construction of schools and clinics by the Louis Berger Group, echo the findings of the SIGIR in Iraq. The Louis Berger Group was awarded a contract to build schools and clinics to help restore a decent life for the people of Afghanistan. Of the 105 structures they erected before their work was stopped, 103 suffered roof collapses after the first snowfall. Here was a case that combined a waste of taxpayer funds, damage to the U.S. image we were trying to enhance, and an actual danger to the people we were trying to help. This bill requires the Administrator of USAID to revise the strategy for the agency's assistance program in Afghanistan to include measurable goals, specific time frames, resource levels, delineated responsibilities, external factors bearing on success, and a schedule for program evaluations. All of these things should have been done from the outset, not after billions in Federal funds were expended. Title II of the bill introduces targeted reforms of the Inspector General system. IGs play a vital role in preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse. We must attract more of these specialists to government service, and make the career attractive. One vital provision in our bill might appear to run counter to that aim but the provision, in fact, preserves the independence of our Inspector Generals. It prohibits IGs from accepting any cash award or cash bonus from the agency that they are auditing or investigating. This codifies the honorable practice of most IGs of declining to accept such awards because of the inherent conflict of interest they present. The balancing mechanism for that prohibition is to increase the salaries of Presidentially appointed IGs from Senior Executive Service Level III to Level IV. This also corrects a common anomaly wherein Deputy IGs collecting performance pay earn more than their supervising IG. The bill removes the inequity and the disincentive to accepting a promotion. The bill makes other reforms that will increase the quality of IG reports and audits. For example, it clarifies that IGs' subpoena power extends to electronic documents. It also sets out professional qualifications for the designated Federal entity IGs, or DFE IGs. These IGs work in our smaller Federal agencies and are not subject to confirmation. This is no excuse for this failure to supply minimum professional qualifications for these important positions. This bill also corrects a serious problem that has left millions of fraudulently disbursed dollars un-recouped. Currently DFE IGs do not have the power to institute lawsuits to recover claims under $150,000, even if they have a compelling case. This is unacceptable. DFE IGs need the power to pick this ``low hanging fruit,'' whose cumulative cost can be huge. The bill corrects this problem by giving DFE IGs the same authority that Presidentially appointed IGs have to investigate and report false claims, and to recoup losses resulting from fraud below $150,000. I believe this summary shows how the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007 combines practical, workable, and targeted reforms to improve a complex process that expends hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars every year. It will pay recurring dividends for years to come in higher-quality proposals, in more efficiently administered projects, and in better results for our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support it.