[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1624-1628]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 1625]]

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 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

[[Page 1626]]

     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.
       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.

[[Page 1627]]

  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. 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

[[Page 1628]]

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.

                          ____________________