[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 67 (Friday, May 22, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       PROBLEMS WITH THE FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT COMPETITION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. BRUCE F. VENTO

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                          Friday, May 22, 1998

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 716. 
Simply put, this legislation states the Government's role and service 
function is for sale. The current draft, which was the subject of a 
joint House-Senate hearing on May 24, would replace the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 Cost Comparison study. This 
detailed review process is the current system for competing and 
comparing commercial services between federal employees and contractor 
employees. The revised H.R. 716 turns out less objective and more 
ideological. Furthermore, this new policy provides a bias toward 
contracting out and would place the Government's role and service 
function up for bid over a 5 year period.
  Currently, the federal government contracts out $110 billion 
annually. Under the policy of H.R. 716, the absence of sound Cost 
Comparison studies would allow private contractors to receive work 
without competing against federal workers. This simply results in a 
loss of federal employee jobs and questionable cost savings for 
taxpayers. What kind of message does Congress relay to a hard working 
federal workforce in our Districts and across the nation after their 
outstanding participation in the Vice President's reinventing 
government program? We should provide adequate resources and tools 
necessary to our valued federal employees.
  H.R. 716 has three flaws:
  (1) This legislation would replace the OMB Circular A-76 Cost 
Comparison study in favor of a pro-contractor system. Currently, 
federal employees regularly lose the competitions conducted under the 
OMB Circular A-76. Only a few years ago, federal employees lost 
approximately 70% of all contracts. Thanks to the continuing efforts of 
federal employees to reinvent themselves, they now win one-half of the 
public-private competitions. This dramatic change in fortunes for the 
contractors has inspired this recent legislative effort to do away with 
the OMB Circular A-76.
  (2) This legislation would make public-private competitions subject 
to work which is inherently governmental. H.R. 716 would allow 
contractors to protest agencies' decisions to keep work in-house. In 
addition, this bill would allow contractors to challenge agency awards 
in federal claims court. As might be expected, federal employees would 
be forbidden from both challenging agencies' decisions about what is 
inherently governmental and would be bullied by the threat of costly 
and protracted litigation into contracting out as much work as 
possible. Decisions about awards and what is inherently governmental 
should continue to be made by department officials who are most 
familiar with the services actually provided.
  (3) This legislation would mandate public-private competitions under 
a pro-contractor successor to the Cost Comparison study regardless of 
how well federal employees are actually performing their jobs.
  After 12 years of Reagan-Bush political appointees, who largely 
disdained the public sector and racked up the largest service 
contracting out bills in the nation's history, it is difficult to argue 
that the reason more work has not been contracted out is to protect 
federal employees. Federal employees consistently and efficiently 
deliver the needs of service department customers at the prices 
taxpayers can afford. If federal employees are performing 
satisfactorily, then there is no need to impose public-private 
competitions.
  Finally, the savings generated from this disruptive system of 
competitions would be short-lived and could very well disappear soon 
thereafter. Work contracted out is unlikely to ever be brought back in 
house because of the expense of recapitalizing in house capability and 
reassembling and retraining the necessary staff.
  Moreover, this legislation fails to address several very serious 
problems:
  Arbitrary personnel ceilings are already forcing work to be 
contracted out. Federal agencies do not have enough employees, so they 
simply contract out the work without any public-private cost 
comparisons. The size of the federal workforce has been dramatically 
reduced. Ironically, the American people have not been told federal 
employees are being replaced with contractor employees, often at 
greater expense.
  Champions of contracting out say that private sector firms generate 
savings for taxpayers by devising more efficient ways of delivering 
services. However, some contracting out is done to devise better ways 
of delivering services and reducing their incentive to provide 
substandard wages and benefits. Today, the economy is booming and the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects a budget surplus between $48 
and $68 billion. However, income distribution grows worse and worse. 
How can the federal government justify replacing workers and middle 
class Americans with poorly paid, contingent workers?
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 716 is a pro-contractor bill that simply states the 
Government is for sale. Therefore, I urge my Colleagues to oppose this 
radical measure.

                          ____________________