[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 6 (Thursday, January 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S674-S676]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NEW CONGRESS

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it is sort of exciting to begin to move 
into a

[[Page S675]]

new Congress, the 105th Congress. You and I and others came first here 
to the Senate 2 years ago with some dedication to principles that we 
still hold. Now, we have a new opportunity to continue to work toward 
the implementation of those things that we came away from the election 
2 years ago thinking that people in our States wanted, and people in 
this country continue to want those things. So we have a great 
opportunity now.
  I think we had success, particularly in the last few months of the 
last session, as we moved toward doing something with health care. We 
did something about a couple of Federal mandates, Federal programs that 
were in place, such as welfare and farm programs, which have been 
changed now--and I think are more useful and effective--moving them 
closer to the States. I think that is a good thing to do.
  So I hope that we can continue to follow on our efforts in the 104th 
Congress, efforts that will lead us to a smaller Federal Government, a 
Federal Government that is more defined in terms of its role, a Federal 
Government that is more efficient and effective in delivering services, 
one that is closer to the people that are governed, closer to the 
people who receive the services and benefits, more efficient in the 
delivery of those services, less bureaucratic and more accountable. I 
think that's what all of us would like to do. These are principles that 
most of us agree to.
  I am pleased that the President has, in the last year, as well as in 
his inaugural address and other statements, indicated his support for a 
Government that has a balanced budget, that is financially and fiscally 
responsible not only to taxpayers now, but, maybe even more important, 
to our children and grandchildren in the future. The President has 
spoken of the era of big Government being passed. I think we would find 
a lot of agreement to that in the country and here in the U.S. 
Senate. It is very easy to talk about those concepts, and it is 
something else to do it. It is something else to put it into place. We 
have seen and will continue to see--and, of course, I understand that 
this is the place of great debate, and frankly it is a place of 
differences of view. That is what the system is all about. That is what 
elections are about--to put out there alternative choices and voters 
choose what they support. So we will see that here, as we should--and I 
think we will debate, I hope, more civilly than we have sometimes those 
differences and come to an agreement. We will not have unanimous 
agreement, of course. But this place wasn't designed to have unanimous 
agreement. That is why we vote. That is what the system is all about. 
But it is very easy to talk about concepts, and, yet, you will see 
everyone say, ``Yes, I am for a balanced budget. I want a balanced 
budget except for * * * '' and then find many reasons why we can't do 
it.

  So it is very difficult sometimes to move beyond the rhetoric, to 
move beyond the general principles and put it into place. That, I 
think, will be our challenge, and we are starting now to do that. So 
the challenge is, if these are the principles, if these are the 
philosophies, let us just do it. That is what I would like to talk 
about a little bit today. I would like to talk about doing some things 
within the Government that we have had as a policy for many years and 
really have not done, and that is more contracting in the private 
sector; some privatization of those kinds of functions of the 
Government that could well be carried on in the private sector.
  Last year I introduced a bill called the Freedom From Government 
Competition Act. We supported that. As a matter of fact, the Senate 
voted 59 to 39 on an amendment which was offered as part of the 
Treasury-Postal bill which required, in the instance of activities that 
were not inherently governmental, that agency to test the alternative 
of doing it in the private sector and seeing if that would be cost 
efficient and cost effective.
  The bill was not considered last year, but we intend this year to put 
it back in again. It will be something that I believe will move us 
toward the broader concepts that we are looking for. We can help save 
money. We can balance the budget. That is what it is all about. It will 
help eliminate some of the programs that are now there by the 
Government and bureaucracy that will help us move toward smaller 
government. The privatization of the contracting often can be done on a 
more local level, which moves it more, of course, toward the people who 
are, indeed, in the private sector. It strengthens the private sector 
and creates a broader tax base. These are the purposes of this kind of 
approach.
  For some 40 years it has been the policy of government to contract 
wherever possible in the private sector. Unfortunately, that has not 
been done. CBO estimated that in 1987 nearly 1\1/2\ million Federal 
employees were engaged in the kinds of functions, the kinds of 
operations, that are commercial in nature. That is a lot of folks doing 
some things.
  So what we need to do is to get this principle that has been there, 
this policy that has been in place but not implemented, I think, in 
some kind of statutory language which would be fairly simple. The bill 
simply requires that OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, go 
through all the functions of government and segregate those that are 
inherently government--and there are some, of course, which are only 
properly done by the Government and the bureaucracy but many that are 
not--and separate those and then have a system in place so that the 
work in those areas where it can be done easily be contracted or at 
least be offered for contract. And if they can be done more 
inexpensively and more efficiently by contract, then that would be 
done.

  Let me add that it is a little more difficult than that in that it 
will take some change of culture of the agency to adjust itself to the 
idea of putting together specifications of bidding, the bidding 
process, and overseeing and carrying out of the bidding process, and it 
will take some changes in the agency to do that. If the agency stays 
the same and simply takes some of these functions and contracts, there 
will be nothing gained. There will just be additional things. But it 
can be done, and in fact is being done. The agency that probably does 
the most of that and does it the best is the Department of Defense. 
They do a number of things of that kind.
  This is not a new idea. It is an idea that was talked about and 
suggested in the Reagan Office of Privatization, Citizens Against 
Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Defense Science Board, and the 
Grace Commission. Interestingly enough, all three sessions of the White 
House Conference on Small Business, 1980, 1986, and 1994, listed unfair 
Government competition as one of the top issues impacting small 
business. So it is not new. We have worked during the last 6 months 
substantially with groups in the private sector who now are involved in 
this activity of promoting this bill, and we look forward to it.
  Lots of things could easily be done. Let me give you some examples: 
janitorial services, printing, map making, engineering services, 
surveying, and laboratory. In our Wyoming Legislature a number of years 
ago when I was a member there, we did this kind of thing, and the focus 
was sort of on laboratories. We had private laboratories that were very 
capable of doing these kinds of things that government labs were set up 
to do, and we were able to do that, and we were able to move those 
activities from the bureaucratic activity to a private one, which 
creates more jobs, creates more tax base, and creates less cost. So 
these are the things that we look forward to doing.
  So, Mr. President, we will have an opportunity certainly over the 
next number of months to look at the Government, to take the philosophy 
that most of us have and put it in place to decide how we can make some 
changes. Change is not easy to make, of course. There is great 
resistance to change. There will be resistance to this kind of change. 
There will be resistance largely from labor unions that represent some 
of the workers in the Government agencies. But I think that there is a 
reasonable and logical explanation and reasonable and logical reason 
for taking a look at saving money, smaller Government, more in the 
private sector, and more tax base. These are the kinds of benefits that 
will accrue to families and to America if we can move forward in this 
direction.
  Mr. President, we look forward to introducing the bill. We look 
forward to

[[Page S676]]

having the opportunity to implement the things that we have been 
talking about in general terms for the last several years.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and ask it be appropriately 
referred.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately 
referred.
  (The remarks of Mr. Ford pertaining to the introduction of S. 201 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________