[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 12 (Thursday, January 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1375-S1379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITION
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we would like to take the remainder of the
time that has been assigned to this side of the aisle to talk about an
amendment that would be before us this morning, the Mikulski amendment,
which has been proposed as an amendment to the bill. It has to do with
the implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act, the
FAIR Act, which was passed in 1998. It basically requires all Federal
agencies to itemize jobs that are classified as noninherently
governmental in nature, so there will be an opportunity for competition
for those kinds of activities that the private sector, in the cases
where it is appropriate, can be a competitor and can, indeed, do
generally more efficiently than having it continue, as it has, with no
competition.
In 2001 the FAIR Act inventory noted over 840,000 Federal jobs that
are noninherently governmental. Those are jobs that could be done by
contract, that could well be done by contract. There should be
opportunity for that competition to exist.
The goal, of course, of the FAIR Act is to spend taxpayers' money as
efficiently as possible, to ensure the Federal Government is not
without competition with the private sector.
I think most of us would like to have as much done in the private
sector as we reasonably can do. This, obviously, is not all the things
Government does. There are inherently governmental programs, and they
will continue to be that. The goal of the FAIR Act is to spend the
taxpayers' money as efficiently as possible to ensure the Federal
Government does not compete with the private sector. Wherever that can
be, whether it is in contracting, whether it is the kinds of
things that could be better done in the private sector, that is what we
are seeking to do.
President Bush's Competitive Sourcing Initiative asked the Federal
agencies to conduct private sector competitions in up to 15 percent of
the jobs listed in the FAIR Act inventory. Of course, that is exactly
what needs to be done, to identify these roles and then to have an
opportunity to put them into the private sector and let the Government
compete with the private sector and do it that way. It is a pretty
basic sort of philosophy and something which I think most people would
agree to do.
The amendment that has been put forth was to not allow the
administration to move forward with their plans. I will later offer a
copy of a letter that the President has sent through his
administration, saying that they are opposed to this idea, that they
want to move forward.
The fact is, during the Clinton administration, after the 1998
passage of the FAIR Act, there was very little done to implement it.
Now we have an administration that believes they ought to implement the
law as it exists, and we want to move forward in doing that.
[[Page S1376]]
That is what this is all about. We will be voting on that amendment
later today. It has been before the Senate several times. It has failed
before. Hopefully, it will fail again. In fact, it was put on the
appropriations bill for the Treasury Department last year and then
taken off before it became part of this bill. So there has been a
strong feeling about that, and that is what we want to pursue.
I yield the Senator from Virginia 5 minutes to comment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming, Mr.
Thomas, for his leadership. I will not repeat his eloquent explanation
of the FAIR Act. I am rising with him, and hopefully with a majority of
our colleagues, in opposition to Senator Mikulski's amendment which
would prohibit the administration from applying and enforcing efforts
to get the private sector involved where it is appropriate in various
governmental services.
This amendment would weaken the executive branch's ability to manage
the Federal Government. It would impede improvement of many of the
Government's significant commercial activities and prevent the
outsourcing of inherently nongovernmental jobs to the private sector.
It really would be one of anti-efficiency.
I think the Bush management plan has a relatively modest goal of
injecting some competition to the commercial activities performed by
the Government. I believe we ought to be encouraging, not impeding,
public-private competition reviews. Clearly, the President ought to
have the flexibility to best execute governmental functions and to
enforce important management objectives and goals, specifically in the
area of competitive sourcing.
The fact that they look at potentially competitive areas each year
doesn't mean that these jobs will go to the private sector. It only
means that there will be an analysis. It may be that the Government
functions at less cost and with better service and efficiency than the
private sector.
They also realize even if the Government continues to perform a
service or function that there are better ways of doing it. We will
need to be looking at ways of improving, of innovating, of adapting and
not just keep doing things the same old way.
This amendment is opposed by large and small business enterprises all
across the country. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposed to this,
whose letter I will submit along with my statement.
For example, they state the time is now to create a more efficient
and effective partnership between the public and private sectors and
not to enact restrictive policies that limit funding, flexibility, and
the decisionmaking process.
We also have received letters from the Professional Services Council
which represents 140 different businesses--the CADI, Northrup-Grumman,
Lockheed, Quest, and many others. They point to what we all recognize
as the truth. Competition is the greatest and the best guarantor of
optimal performance and efficiency, and the Government's increasing
reliance on competition has proven essential to achieving both
meaningful savings and significant performance improvements.
Also, the Northern Virginia Technology Council that represents 1,600
member companies with 180,000 employees in Northern Virginia, is
opposed to this.
The Information Technology Association of America, which represents
400 corporate technology companies, is opposed to it.
In addition, there is a coalition on outsourcing and privatization
made up of small, minority, and women-owned businesses, national
security organizations, experts in technology, community, and taxpayer
groups that says do not be fooled by the hype and that urges Congress
to hold the executive branch responsible for the highest possible level
of performance and efficiency without placing procedural obstacles in
the way of achieving that goal.
The Contract Services Association also points out that many of their
members oppose this. Many of their members are small businesses,
including eight A-certified companies, small, disadvantaged businesses,
and Native American-owned firms. The goal of their Contract Services
Association is to put the private sector to work for the public good. I
ask unanimous consent that all of these letters be submitted as part of
my statement.
Perhaps as important as all of these job opportunities is the
recognition right now that this could have not only negative economic
ramifications, but that it could impact national security as well.
Indeed, at a time when our Nation is at war, the Federal Government
must have the flexibility to contract out for services.
For example, look at the Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security. What is going to be most useful for the Department of
Homeland Security is not where all these boxes are located and who is
moved from one place to the other, but the adaptation and the
utilization of enterprise systems that will allow them to analyze
volumes of information, analyze it accurately, and share it within the
institution and also with others.
Furthermore, such contracting creates more private sector jobs and
allows federal agencies to focus on their core missions, instead of
concentrating on commercial activities.
I think at this point we need to be working for the taxpayers. We
need to be increasing security. And we should be embracing advancements
in technology and have the private sector help where they can help.
Therefore, I suggest that no member of this body should support
legislation that increases the cost of government for taxpayers while
limiting the government's ability to respond to the changing economic
and security needs of the American people.
I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, DC, January 21, 2003.
To Members of the U.S. Senate: The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the world's largest business federation,
representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector and region, offers our
strong support of H.J. Res. 2--the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations bill. Passage of this measure is critical for
continuity of existing domestic spending programs and
initiation of funding for new programs for Homeland Security.
The U.S. Chamber and the business community applaud the
Senate's resolve to wrap up the Fiscal Year 2003 spending
bills prior to the upcoming Appropriations Committee's
important work on the Fiscal Year 2004 appropriations
measures. While separate passage of the 11 remaining
individual Fiscal Year 2003 spending bills would be
preferable, we support the Senate's determination in creating
and moving this $385.9 billion spending package during this
compressed time frame. We are troubled that passage of this
important appropriations measure could be jeopardized by the
addition of several onerous policy riders to this package.
The Chamber strongly opposes any efforts to stall needed
reform of the new source review (NSR) program. The amendment
offered by Senator John Edwards (D-NC) would effectively
prohibit the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from
expending funds to implement recently promulgated changes to
the NSR program. This amendment would derail much needed NSR
reforms at a time when the courts are reviewing the
regulations.
The Edwards NSR amendment would disrupt the Clean Air Act
permitting process, and stifle economic activity during an
economic downturn by making the maintenance and expansion of
existing industrial facilities and power plants almost
impossible. The new regulations have restored some certainty
to the troubled NSR process. Congress should not interfere in
the regulatory efforts of two administrations in this way.
In addition, we specifically urge you to oppose an
amendment offered by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) that
would prohibit the expenditure of funds by executive agencies
to establish, apply or enforce any numerical goals, targets
or quotas for public-private competitions of commercial
functions with Federal agencies. Such language would
legislatively weaken any President's authority to manage the
Federal government and effect real saving and fundamental
improvements. It is directly counter to efforts by the Bush
Administration to increase government efficiency through
competition between the public and private sectors. It would
limit the President's ability to establish goals for
outsourcing, and other procurement and acquisition workforce
initiatives. Such a prohibition could significantly limit
private sector involvement and discourage competition, which
has proven to reap significant cost savings and performance
enhancements regardless of who wins. The time is now to
create more efficient and effective partnerships between the
public and private sector, not to enact restrictive policies
that
[[Page S1377]]
limit funding or flexibility in the sourcing decision-making
process.
We also ask you to oppose an amendment sponsored by Senator
Mark Dayton that would deny new contracts to subsidiaries of
a publicly traded corporation if the corporation is
incorporated in certain tax-advantaged foreign countries. By
imposing these bans on contracting with domestic subsidiary
corporations, Congress is seeking to discourage corporate
``inversions,'' i.e., corporate flight from U.S. tax domicile
in order to achieve tax parity with foreign competitors. We
believe Congress should be asking why our tax system is
causing corporate flight increasingly to occur.
Corporations should be free to incorporate where they
choose, without the Federal government imposing economic
penalties upon their free exercise of prudent business
decision-making, and that the U.S. Congress certainly should
not favor foreign firms over U.S. firms in the tax code.
These contract bans are a poor substitute for needed reform
of the U.S. tax code's archaic international provisions which
currently put our corporations at a competitive disadvantage
internationally and provide great incentive for them to leave
this country. We believe that the proper response should be
the undertaking of serious and overdue tax reform, such as
conversion of the U.S. tax system to one based on
territoriality, to active parity.
We also urge you to oppose the amendment offered by Senator
Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) pertaining
to cash balance plans. Cash balance plans have become popular
among both employers and employees. Because they are a
relatively new ``hybrid'' type of plan, until last month,
Treasury had not provided clear guidance to plan sponsors
about how such plans should be designed. On December 10,
2002, after more than three years of study by an interagency
task force, the Treasury Department issued proposed cash
balance plan regulations.
The Harkin/Feingold amendment would prohibit the Treasury
Department from finalizing or enforcing this rule. The
proposed regulation clarifies how cash balance plans must be
designed in order to satisfy existing laws pertaining to age
discrimination and pension accruals. While the Chamber has
concerns about certain parts of the regulations, which we
will be conveying in comments to the Treasury Department, we
do not believe the appropriations process is the proper place
for enforcing pension laws and regulations.
We urge your swift consideration of the Fiscal Year 2003
Omnibus spending measure. In addition we strongly support the
concept that spending restraint is a critical component to
encouraging economic growth and long-term prosperity. Because
of the importance of fully funding our domestic spending
priorities, the U.S. Chamber may include votes on or in
relation to these issues in our annual How They Voted Ratings
for 2003.
Sincerely,
R. Bruce Josten,
Executive Vice President, Government Affairs.
____
Professional Services Council,
Arlington, VA, January 8, 2003.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stevens: I write on behalf on the 140 member
companies of the Professional Services Council (PSC), the
leading national trade association representing the Federal,
professional and technical services industry. PSC's companies
provide services including information technology, research
and development, and high-end consulting to every government
agency, and represent a significant portion of the
government's technology industrial base.
As the Senate considers the remaining FY 2003
appropriations bills, I urge you to remove Section 640 of the
Fiscal Year 2003 Treasury Appropriations bill, or any related
provision that prohibits the expenditure of funds by
executive agencies to establish, apply or enforce any
numerical goals, targets or quotas for public-private
competitions for commercial functions within agencies.
While Congress should hold the Executive Branch responsible
for the highest levels of performance and efficiency, it
should not place obstacles in the way of achieving that goal.
Section 640 prohibits the President from establishing and
enforcing important management objectives and goals,
specifically in the area of competitive sourcing, which is
one key element of his management agenda. It is an
inappropriate constraint on executive branch management and
on the President's flexibility to best execute governmental
functions. Competition is the best guarantor of optimal
performance and efficiency, and the government's increasing
reliance on competition has proven essential to achieving
both meaningful savings and significant performance
improvements.
Again, on behalf of the member companies of the PSC, and
the hundreds of thousands of working Americans who provide
support to our government every day, I urge you to remove
Section 640 of the Fiscal Year 2003 Treasury Appropriations
bill.
Sincerely,
Stan Z. Soloway,
President.
____
Northern Virginia
Technology Council,
Herndon, VA, January 23, 2003.
Hon. George Allen,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Allen: On behalf of the more than 1,600 member
companies of the Northern Virginia Technology Council (NVTC),
I urge you to oppose an amendment offered by Senator Barbara
Mikulski that would prohibit the expenditure of funds by
executive agencies to establish, apply or enforce any
numerical goals or targets for public-private competition of
commercial functions within federal agencies.
During floor action on the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations
bill, Senator Mikulski intends to offer an amendment (#61)
which would prevent President Bush from setting any goals for
federal agencies as a way to save taxpayer dollars and make
the government more efficient. It is directly counter to
efforts by the Bush Administration to increase government
efficiency through competition between the public and private
sectors. This amendment would significantly limit private
sector involvement and discourage competition vital to the
technology community.
I am concerned that this amendment hinders the flexibility
of the President to efficiently manage the Federal
government. By prohibiting the President from establishing
and enforcing important management goals, specifically in the
area of competitive sourcing, this amendment inappropriately
hinders private-public competition. Competition creates the
best environment for optimal performance and efficiency. The
government's increasing reliance on competition has proven
beneficial to taxpayers, private industry and the overall
economy.
Again, on behalf of the more than 1,600 member companies
representing over 180,000 employees in Northern Virginia that
heavily rely on federal procurement contracts, I urge you to
oppose the Mikulski amendment. Our membership includes
companies from all sectors of the technology industry
including information technology, software, Internet, ISPs,
ASPs, telecommunications, bioscience, and aerospace, as well
as the service providers that provide vital support and
services to the Federal government.
Sincerely,
Bobbie Kilberg,
President.
____
Contract Services
Association of America,
Arlington, VA, January 23, 2003.
Hon. George Allen,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Allen: On behalf of the members of the Contract
Services Association of America (CSA), I urge you to vote
against an amendment offered by Senator Barbara Mikulski.
This provision would prohibit the expenditures of funds by
executive agencies to establish, apply or enforce any
numerical goals, targets or quotas for public-private
competitions for commercial functions within agencies.
I am concerned, however, that the amendment hinders the
flexibility of the President to efficiently manage the
Federal government. One long-established management tool,
used by all Presidents, is to set goals--whether it is for
outsourcing targets within the Department of Defense (as
established by the Clinton Administration), goals for
performance-based services contracting or even small business
contracting goals. Indeed, the amendment is directly counter
to efforts by the Bush Administration aimed at increasing
government efficiency through competition between the public
and private sectors.
CSA is the premier industry representative for private
sector companies that provide a wide array of services to
Federal, state, and local governments. CSA members are
involved in everything from maintenance contracts at military
bases and within civilian agencies to high technology
services, such as scientific research and engineering
studies. Many of our members are small businesses, including
8(a)-certified companies, small disadvantaged businesses, and
Native American owned firms. The goal of CSA is to put the
private sector to work for the public good.
Again, I urge you to vote against the Mikulski amendment.
Sincerely,
Gary Engebreison,
President.
____
Information Technology
Association of America,
January 23, 2003.
Hon. George Allen,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Allen: On behalf of the Information Technology
Association of America, we urge you to oppose an amendment
that Senator Barbara Mikulski will be offering today during
floor consideration of the Omnibus Appropriations bill. ITAA
appreciates your leadership in raising the IT industry's
concerns on this restrictive amendment.
As you know, this amendment would prohibit agencies from
using appropriated funds to establish, apply or enforce any
numerical goals aimed at conducting public-private
competitions for commercial functions within Federal
agencies. President Bush and his Administration would be
hampered in their efforts to promote competition and to
manage the Federal government. All future Administrations
would also face these restrictions. The Mikulski Amendment
would also undermine the intent of the new revisions to the
OMB Circular A-76, which were recently issued by the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy.
[[Page S1378]]
The Information Technology Association of America consists
of over 400 corporate members throughout the United States,
and a global network of 49 countries' IT associations. ITAA
members range from the smallest IT start-ups to the industry
leaders in the Internet, software, IT services, ASP, digital
content, systems integration, and telecommunications services
sectors.
Again, we urge you to vote ``No'' on this amendment and
thank you for your leadership in opposing this restrictive
amendment.
Sincerely,
Harris N. Miller,
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia who
certainly touched on the issues involved.
I yield to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Wyoming.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the
amendment that was offered by my colleague, the Senator from Maryland.
This amendment would prohibit the administration from applying or
enforcing any numerical goals for competitive sourcing within agencies,
or converting Federal employees doing this work to private sector
contractors. This provision would prevent this President and all future
Presidents from managing Federal agencies for increased cost-
effectiveness and quality.
I want to emphasize that again.
It would prevent this President and all future Presidents from
managing Federal agencies for increased cost-effectiveness and quality.
That is what we are trying to do. It is good for Government. Congress
passed the first step, which was the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act--the FAIR Act--in 1998. That was the bill that was drafted
and sponsored and put through the process by my colleague from Wyoming,
Senator Thomas. It requires all Federal agencies to itemize jobs
classified as noninherently governmental in nature. These are positions
which potentially could be from the private sector, lessening the size
of the Federal Government, and creating more opportunities for our
economy through private business.
This is a tremendous step we have taken. It is one that recognizes we
pay Government with taxes to operate, and we provide buildings and
space for them--and a lot of other things that are kind of hidden
costs. We have said the hidden costs ought to be counted in all of
this. There ought to be competition with the private sector in all
areas where it is traditionally done.
It seems to me like a pretty basic concept. President Bush's
Competitive Sourcing Initiative requires Federal agencies to conduct
public-private competition on 15 percent of the jobs listed on the FAIR
Act inventory--that is, 840,000 jobs in 2001. That is to conduct
public-private competition on just 15 percent of these 840,000 jobs
that were listed in the inventory as being noninherently governmental
in nature.
This amendment would prevent the President from setting and enforcing
this reasonable goal. If this amendment passes, one of the losers will
be the small business community.
I host an annual procurement conference in Wyoming to encourage small
businesses to seek Federal procurement opportunities. Small businesses,
services, and products is one of the treasures we will leave in the
ground if this amendment is agreed to. We have a tremendous resource--
the small businesses out there--that can provide services in a very
competitive way. We need to make sure they have that opportunity.
I was visiting one Federal agency where they were talking about how
they were going to check on bills that were coming in for Medicare.
They were building their own program to do that. The interesting thing
is the private sector already had programs that would do thousands more
procedures than they were able to program in their first year of
programming. Their agency wasn't designed to program it. But they tried
doing it from the ground up.
I see that in agency after agency. When I take a look at this
Government Performance Results Program, that is another thing that we
put on agencies. They are supposed to tell us what they are doing, how
we will know when they get it done, and how that relates to the budget.
Congress needs to enforce that a little bit more to make sure it is
happening because it gives us tremendous insight into all of the
agencies and what their job is and the ways they are infringing on the
private sector at greater expense than what the private sector would
have. It is also resulting in some greater efficiencies in Government.
A couple of weeks ago, I visited the mint in Philadelphia. Those
people are aware of this particular amendment. They are working like
crazy to make sure they are the most competitive agency for being able
to perform that work, and I am certain that they will. It is that kind
of spirit of American competitiveness that they have at that Government
agency. They do outstanding work there. I am sure, as a result, that is
the way they will continue to handle it.
But it is an awareness that agencies have to have. President Bush's
initiative encourages Federal agencies to allow private industry--
including small business--to compete for jobs. Everybody wins because
Federal agencies can concentrate on their real goals and private
industry is encouraged at the same time.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, allow the
administration to manage Federal agencies, and give small businesses a
chance.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator for his comments. Certainly, his
interest in small business activities is reflected in his comments on
this bill.
I think there are a number of reasons why we should oppose this
amendment. The administration opposes such limitations on the
management agenda. I think all of us in the Government need to push the
idea of having some vision as to where we are going and look beyond
next week but to look to the future as to what we want to do with a
number of activities that could well be in the competitive arena and to
make some plans to get those out there.
That is basically what the administration is seeking to do. Senior
advisers to the President are recommending that he veto any legislation
that challenges this management agenda. Certainly we do not want that
to happen.
Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes ten seconds remain.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend from
Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for
recognizing me.
I rise in opposition to the Mikulski amendment to this omnibus
appropriations bill. Succinctly put, we held a hearing 4 or 5 years ago
on this very particular point. Much of it has been covered in the
discussion and the debate so far, but if we want to have an efficient
Government, we need to allow the private sector to compete.
What we need to do as well is make sure this 47-year-old Federal
policy--which states ``the government should not be involved in
commercial activities''--is complied with and is enforced.
The goal of the FAIR Act was to eliminate the Government's direct
competition with the private sector while at the same time providing a
better utilization of taxpayer dollars. This is going both ways: So we
do not have direct competition with the private sector, which we should
not do, which is against Federal law for us to do, and at the same time
provide a better utilization of taxpayer dollars so we concentrate the
Government workers in areas where only the Government can do the work.
This seems to me to be good management and good objectives.
In 2001, the FAIR Act inventory noted that over 840,000 Federal jobs
were noninherently governmental. President Bush's Competitive Sourcing
Initiative requires Federal agencies to conduct public-private
competition on 15 percent of the jobs listed on the FAIR Act inventory.
This seems to be minimal at best.
The Mikulski amendment prohibits the President from establishing or
enforcing goals for competitive sourcing. This is not the direction in
which we should go. In addition, it would severely impede our ability
to manage the Federal Government. We need that management flexibility
at this time.
[[Page S1379]]
Where we have budget deficits that are rising, we need to get those
down and to use every tool we have at our disposal to be able to keep
those budget deficits down as efficiently and effectively as we
possibly can.
This amendment would prevent improving the performance of the
Government's many commercial activities. We certainly do not need to do
that. The amendment goes against the congressionally mandated findings
of the Commercial Activities Panel which unanimously adopted the
principle of competition.
Competition has been good in this country. It is the basis for what
our economy is--so that things can grow based on competition.
For those reasons, I will oppose the Senator's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his time.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMAS. Our time has expired, Mr. President. I thank the Chair
for the opportunity to express these views. I urge that Members vote
against this amendment when it comes before the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has yielded back his time.
Mr. THOMAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________