Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there are a number of things that many of us feel to be very important in terms of principles. One of them is federalism, of course--making the appropriate division between those things that are done in State government and those things that are done in local government, and the role of Federal Government. Another, it seems to me, is to do those things that can be done in the private sector, and that has, indeed, been the policy of this Government for a very long time. I rise today to express my deep appreciation for the members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and staff for their time and effort in developing a consensus on my legislation to codify this 40- year-old Federal principle that has been in place. In the beginning of this Congress, I introduced S. 314, the Freedom from Government Competition Act. This legislation is an attempt to put in statute a workable process by which the Federal Government utilizes the private sector to do those things that are commercial in nature. This, indeed, has been the policy of the Government for a very long time. In fact, as early as 1932, Congress first became aware of the fact that the Federal Government was starting to carry out activities of a commercial nature and said that is not necessary and we should not do that. In 1954, a bill to address the issue passed the House and was reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. At that time, the Eisenhower administration said that we would take care of it administratively. Therefore, Bureau of the Budget Bulletin 55-4 was issued, and there was no further action taken. To make a relatively long story short, all the administrations since that time in one way or another have endorsed the idea of taking those things that could at least as well be done in the private sector as in the Government, allowing for some competition. There is a circular now called A-76 which has been endorsed since 1955. Unfortunately, it hasn't been enforced. Unfortunately, when it is only a bulletin or Executive order, there is no real appeal process. What we are seeking to do is to put that concept into statute--it has now been approved by the committee in the Senate; it has been approved by the committee in the House--that would simply say to agencies, we want you to take an annual inventory of those kinds of things that you do, those that are commercial in nature. There ought to be a fair opportunity for the private sector to seek to compete in those areas. Mr. President, we hope that that will come before the Senate and the House before this session is over; that it would, indeed, be put in statute, that concept that has been there for a very long time, the notion simply being that the taxpayers benefit from the cost, and whoever can do this the most efficiently, whether it be mapping, whether it be laboratory work, whether it be all kinds of things that are often and always done in the private sector, that can be done better and more efficiently there, will, indeed, be done there. To reiterate, that policy is now found in OMB Circular A-76 and has been endorsed by every administration, of both parties, since 1955. However, the degree of enthusiasm for implementation of the circular has varied from one administration to another. In fact, the issue of government competition has become so pervasive that all three sessions of the White House Conference on Small Business, held in 1980, 1986 and 1995, ranked this as one of the top problems facing America's small businesses. According to testimony we received, it is estimated that more than half a million Federal employees are engaged in activities that are commercial in nature. However, the purpose of my legislation is not to bash Federal employees. I believe most are motivated by public service and are dedicated individuals. However, from a policy standpoint, I believe we have gone too far in defining the role of government and the private sector in our economy. Because A-76 is nonbinding and discretionary on the part of agencies, too many commercial activities have been started and carried out in Federal agencies. Because A-76 is not statutory, Congress has failed to exercise its oversight responsibilities. Further, by leaving ``make or buy'' decisions to agency managers, there has been no means to assure that agencies ``govern'' or restrict themselves to inherently governmental activities, rather than produce goods and services that can otherwise be performed in and obtained from the private sector. Among the problems we have seen with Circular A-76 is (1) agencies do not develop accurate inventories of activities (2) they do not conduct the reviews outlined in the Circular, (3) when reviews are conducted they drag out over extended periods of time and (4) the criteria for the reviews are not fair and equitable. These are complaints we heard from the private sector, government employees, and in some cases from both. In the 1980's our former colleague Senator Warren Rudman first introduced the ``Freedom from Government Competition Act'' in the Senate. Later, Representative John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) introduced similar legislation in the House. I was a cosponsor of that bill when I served in the other body. Upon my election to the Senate in the 104th Congress, I introduced the companion to Representative Duncan's bill in the Senate. On Wednesday, July 15, 1998 the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously reported a version of S. 314 that is a result of many months of discussions among both the majority and minority on the committee, OMB, Federal employee unions and private sector organizations. The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Chairman Fred Thompson and approved by the committee is a consensus and a compromise. It is important to point out that the bill that I introduced in the 104th Congress was an attempt to codify the original 1955 policy that the government should rely on the private sector. After a hearing on that bill was convened by Senator Stevens, during his tenure as chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, it became clear to me that it was necessary to add to the bill the concept of competition to determine whether government performance or private sector performance resulted in the best value to the American taxpayer. While S. 314 as introduced, and H.R. 716 introduced in the House, was still entitled the ``Freedom from Government Competition Act,'' it in fact not only did not prevent government competition, but it mandated it. This was not a change that private sector organizations came to comfortably support. However, inasmuch as OMB Circular A-76 changed through the years from its original 1955 philosophical statement to its more recent iterations that required public-private competition, I revised my bill when introducing it last year to include such competitions, provided they in fact are conducted and that when conducted, they are fair and equitable comparisons carried out on a level playing field. I would also hasten to add that the measure reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which I hope will be promptly approved by the full Senate, is significantly different than S. 314 as introduced. While S. 314 as introduced was opposed by the administration and by the Federal employee unions, the compromise measure reported from the committee is not opposed by these groups. Mr. President, this is important legislation that I believe will truly result in a government that works better and costs less. Certainly government agency officials should have the ability to contract with the private sector for goods and services needed for the conduct of government activities. This bill will not inhibit ability. However, it should not be the practice of the government to carry on commercial activities for months, years, even decades without reviewing whether such activities can be carried out in a more cost effective or efficient manner by the private sector. I believe that the drive to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government will be successful only when we force the government to do less and allow the private sector to do more. During the course of our hearings, it became abundantly clear that there are certain activities that the Federal Government has performed in-house which can and should be converted to the private sector. Areas such as architecture, engineering, surveying and mapping, laboratory testing, information technology, and laundry services have no place in government. These activities should be promptly transitioned to the private sector. There are other activities in which a public-private competition should be conducted to determine which provider can deliver the best value to the taxpayer. This includes base and facility operation, campgrounds, and auctioning. There are several key provisions in the bill upon which I would like to comment. In particular, section 2(d) requires the head of an agency to review the activities on his or her list of commercial activities ``within a reasonable time''. OMB strongly opposed a legislative timetable for conducting these reviews. As a result of the compromise language on this matter, it will be incumbent on OMB to make certain these reviews are indeed conducted in a reasonable time frame. These reviews should be scheduled and completed within months, not years. I will personally monitor progress on this matter, as will the Governmental Affairs Committee. I urge OMB to exercise strong oversight to assure timely implementation of this requirement by the agencies. This provision also requires that agencies use a ``competitive process'' to select the source of goods or services. In my view, this term has the same meaning as ``competitive procedure'' as defined in Federal law (10 U.S.C. 2302(2) and 41 U.S.C. 259(b)). To the extent that a government agency competes for work under this section of the bill, the government agency will be treated as any other contractor or offeror in order to assure that the competition is conducted on a level playing field. Another issue that I have been concerned about is the proliferation of Interservice Support Agreement's (ISSA's). Under the ``FAIR'' Act, consistent with the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535), items on the commercial inventory that have not been reviewed may not be performed for another federal agency. In addition, any item on the inventory cannot be provided to state or local governments unless there is a certification, pursuant to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. 6505(a)). Enactment of the ``FAIR'' Act is a major achievement because it codifies a process to assure government reliance on the private sector to the maximum extent feasible. Further, it will put some teeth into Executive Order 12615 issued by President Reagan, which is still on the books today. Again, I thank the members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the committee's staff, for all of the hard work necessary to forge this compromise. I look forward to working with them on thorough congressional oversight on the implementation of this bill. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep appreciation to the members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and the Committee's staff, for the time and effort they have dedicated to developing a consensus on my legislation to codify the 40+ year Federal policy on reliance on the private sector. At the beginning of this Congress, I introduced S. 314, the ``Freedom from Government Competition Act.'' This legislation was an attempt to establish in statute a workable process by which Federal agencies utilize the private sector for commercially available products and services. As we have learned from our research and from House and Senate hearings, as early as 1932 Congress first became aware of the fact that the Federal government was starting and carrying out activities that are commercial in nature, and that government performance of these activities resulted in unfair competition with the private sector. In 1954, a bill to address this issue passed the House and was reported by the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate. At that time, the Eisenhower Administration indicated that it could resolve the issue administratively. Bureau of the Budget Bulletin 55-4 was issued and the Senate suspended action on the legislation. The budget document established a federal policy of reliance on the private sector. It noted that the free enterprise system was the strength of our economy and that the government should not compete with private business. Rather, the Bulletin said, the government should rely on the private sector for those good and services that could be obtained through ordinary business channels. That policy is now found in OMB Circular A-76 and has been endorsed by every Administration, of both parties, since 1955. However, the degree of enthusiasm for implementation of the Circular has varied from one Administration to another. In fact, the issue of government competition has become so pervasive that all three sessions of the White House Conference on Small Business, held in 1980, 1986, and 1995, ranked this as one of the top problems facing America's small businesses. According to testimony we received, it is estimated that more than half a million Federal employees are engaged in activities that are commercial in nature. However, the purpose of my legislation is not to bash Federal employees. I believe most are motivated by public service and are dedicated individuals. However, from a policy standpoint, I believe we have gone too far in defining the role of government and the private sector in our economy. Because A-76 is non-binding and discretionary on the part of agencies, too many commercial activities have been started and carried out in Federal agencies. Because A-76 is not statutory, Congress has failed to exercise its oversight responsibilities. Further, by leaving ``make or buy'' decisions to agency managers, there has been no means to assure that agencies ``govern'' or restrict themselves to inherently governmental activities, rather than produce goods and services that can otherwise be performed in and obtained from the private sector. Among the problems we have seen with Circular A-76 is (1) agencies do not develop accurate inventories of activities (2) they do not conduct the reviews outlined in the Circular, (3) when reviews are conducted they drag out over extended periods of time and (4) the criteria for the reviews are not fair and equitable. These are complaints we heard from the private sector, government employees, and in some cases from both. In the 1980's our former colleague Senator Warren Rudman first introduced the ``Freedom from Government Competition Act'' in the Senate. Later, Representative John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) introduced similar legislation the House. I was a cosponsor of that bill when I served in the other body. Upon my election to the Senate in the 104th Congress, I introduced the companion to Rep. Duncan's bill in the Senate. On Wednesday, July 15, 1998 the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously reported a version of S. 314 that is a result of many months of discussion among both the majority and minority on the committee, OMB, Federal employee unions and private sector organizations. The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Chairman Fred Thompson and approved by the Committee is a consensus and a compromise. It is important to point out that the bill that I introduced in the 104th Congress was an attempt to codify the original 1955 policy that the government should rely on the private sector. After a hearing on that bill was convened by Senator Stevens, during his tenure as Chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, it became clear to me that it was necessary to add to the bill the concept of competition to determine whether government performance or private sector performance resulted in the best value to the American taxpayer. While S. 314 as introduced, and H.R. 716 introduced in the House, was still entitled the ``Freedom from Government Competition Act'', it in fact not only did not prevent government competition, but it mandated it. This was not a change that private sector organizations came to comfortably support. However, inasmuch as OMB Circular A-76 changed through the years from its original 1955 philosophical statement to its more recent iterations that required public-private competition, I revised my bill when introducing it last year to include such competitions, provided they in fact are conducted and that when conducted, they are fair and equitable comparisons carried out on a level playing field. I would also hasten to add that the measure reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which I hope will be promptly approved by the full Senate, is significantly different than S. 314 as introduced. While S. 314 as introduced was opposed by the Administration and by the Federal employee unions, the compromise measure reported from the committee is not opposed by these groups. Mr. President, this is important legislation that I believe will truly result in a government that works better and costs less. Certainly government agency officials should have the ability to contract with the private sector for goods and services needed for the conduct of government activities. This bill will not inhibit ability. However, it should not be the practice of the government to carry on commercial activities for months, years, even decades without reviewing whether such activities can be carried out in a more cost effective or efficient manner by the private sector. I believe that the drive to reduce the size and scope of the federal government will be successful only when we force the government to do less and allow the private sector to do more. During the course of our hearings, it became abundantly clear that there are certain activities that the Federal government has performed in-house which can and should be converted to the private sector. Areas such as architecture an engineering, surveying and mapping, laboratory testing, information technology, and laundry services have no place in government. These activities should be promptly transitioned to the private sector. Thre are other activities in which a public-private competition should be conducted to determined which provider can deliver the best value to the taxpayer. This includes base and facility operation, campgrounds an auctioning. There are several key provisions in the bill upon which I would like to comment. In particular, section 2(d) requires the head of an agency to review the activities on his or her list of commercial activities ``within a reasonable time''. OMB strongly opposed a legislative timetable for conducting these reviews. As a result of the compromise language on this matter, it will be incumbent on OMB to make certain these reviews are indeed conducted in a reasonable time frame. These reviews should be scheduled and completed within moths, not years. I will personally monitor progress on this matter, as will the Governmental Affairs Committee. I urge OMB to exercise strong oversight to assure timely implementation of this requirement by the agencies. This provision also requires that agencies use a ``competitive process'' to select the source of goods or services. In my view, this term has the same meaning as ``competitive procedures'' as defined in Federal law (10 U.S.C. 2302(2) and 41 U.S.C. 259 (b)). To the extent that a government agency competes for work under this section of the bill, the government agency will be treated as any other contractor or offeror in order to assure that the competition is conducted on a level playing field. Another issue that I have been concerned about is the proliferation of Interservice Support Agreement's (ISSA's). Under the ``FAIR'' Act, consistent with the Economy Act (31 U.S.C. 1535), items on the commercial inventory that have not been reviewed may not be performed for another federal agency. In addition, any item on the inventory cannot be provided to state or local governments unless there is a certification, pursuant to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. 6505(a)). Enactment of the ``FAIR'' Act is a major achievement because it codifies a process to assure government reliance on the private sector to the maximum extent feasible. Further, it will put some teeth into Executive Order 12615 by President Reagan, which is still on the books today. Again, I thank the members of the Senate Government Affairs Committee and the Committee's staff, for all of the hard work necessary to forge this compromise. I look forward to working with them on thorough Congressional oversight on the implementation of this bill.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I want to speak generally about credit unions and also on the amendment, if I may. I wanted to talk about credit union legislation because it is one of the most important things we will be doing, certainly, this year. I have spent many hours meeting with Wyoming citizens on both sides of the credit union legislation. In fact, in the last year and a half, I have had 32 meetings relative to this bill. So there is a great deal of interest in it. It is the kind of involvement that we ought to have in public issues. It is democracy, certainly, at work. I also have some kind of perspective to it, in that I helped organize a credit union, back when I was with the Wyoming Farm Bureau a number of years ago, a very small one designed to work with the employees there at the Farm Bureau. I think, having worked with not only the Farm Bureau but the Rural Electric Association, I am aware of the value of cooperatives, the value of people being able to come together and do some things for themselves, the ability to tailor the services that are needed in a particular place to that particular need. Certainly, Wyoming is one of the smallest--indeed, it is the smallest State in the Union with regard to population. We do have different needs than occur in New York or occur in Pennsylvania. So as we talk about services and distribution of services, it makes a good deal of difference. I also think credit unions have fitted themselves to these needs, as have community banks. They have fitted themselves, too. I believe there is an increasingly clear definition between some of the international banks and some of the community banks. It used to be everything was a bank was a bank was a bank. Now I think that has changed, and properly so. We need both kinds of banks. Wyoming has 39 credit unions and about 145,000 members in Wyoming. That represents about a quarter of our State population. So it is a unique and needed service. The median asset level in Wyoming credit unions is only $6.9 million. The smallest credit union has assets of about a half million dollars; the largest, $86 million. So we do have a unique situation. Things happen on a smaller scale there, and we need to continue to have that opportunity to serve. The things that are debated here, in credit unions, the changes that have taken place, the reason for the lawsuit, has very little to do with the kinds of operations we have in our State. I support the final passage of this bill. Perhaps the most important provision is to grandfather the millions of credit union members who were added to the multiple-group credit unions before the February 28 Supreme Court decision. As we know, these types of memberships were invalidated. No one wants to see the present credit union members lose their accounts, and this will ensure that they do not. Another important provision is to enhance the supervisory oversight of federally chartered credit unions to make sure they are sounder, safer, and more efficient. I think we would not be debating this legislation today if the regulatory authority, the National Credit Union Administration, had used its regulatory power to do more of those things to carry out the original intent of the Federal Credit Union Act of 1934. Arguably, the NCUA has been more of an advocate than a regulator. I think that has to change. As with every other federally chartered organization or institution, Federal credit unions must serve within that niche that is prescribed for them by law. I have told my friends in the credit unions that there are certain advantages to the way they are structured, certain advantages go to them as being cooperatives and being member-owned. That is good, and I endorse that. On the other hand, there have to be, then, some limitations to the kinds of things that they can do. I think commercial lending should not go unlimited. I support the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska which would allow for commercial lending, which they are seeking. I also support the Shelby amendment which exempts small community banks from the requirement of the Community Reinvestment Act. I hear all the time of the amount of the administrative and regulatory time spent in a very small bank; more time reporting than there is in lending. So I hope that not only the banks, but the credit unions can get out from under that basic paperwork requirement. The expenses of meeting these costs, as the Senator from Alabama just indicated, are, of course, passed on to the owners and depositors. I am supportive of the efforts to relieve those unnecessary mandates. That is what we ought to be doing whenever we can. I believe this is an appropriate place to do that. Clearly, banks and credit unions have a proper, legitimate, rightful, and important place in our financial system. We simply need to define what those roles are. Our challenge is to successfully address the Supreme Court's ruling in a way that will allow consumers access to credit and financial institutions, have fairness among them, and strengthen the regulatory and safety aspects of them. I believe this bill will do that. I support the unique status of credit unions, and I believe the bill before us, with amendments, maps out an appropriate role for the future. Madam President, I yield the floor. Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I wanted to take the opportunity today as we gather, and before we begin debate on a specific bill, to talk a little bit about the Patients' Bill of Rights, the Republican bill that was introduced last week, a bill that I believe has a great deal of value for the American people. S. 2330, the Patients' Bill of Rights, will be the subject, I think, of our discussion this week and, indeed, should be. For some time now we have been hearing from the other side of the aisle with respect to a Patients' Bill of Rights, and they will have one. Hopefully what will happen, we will have an opportunity to consider both of these bills, have an up-or-down vote on each of them, and successfully pass one of these versions that will protect patients throughout the country. The Republican proposal is a carefully crafted plan intended to give patients and families more choices as we change the way health care is delivered in this country. And as we move toward more managed care, then there needs, I believe, to be some additional provisions put into law which will ensure that Americans and their families receive the kind of care we would like them to receive. There are differences between the two bills. Some of them, I believe, are significant--some of them are broad differences that are philosophical, I suppose. For example, the Republican bill deals with those health plans that are not regulated by the States. In Wyoming, my home State, things are quite different in terms of a health care delivery system compared to New York or California. We have a State of 100,000 square miles with 470,000 people, so you can imagine--we have small towns, and we have a different kind of system. Just this weekend I was in Casper, WY, celebrating the 15th anniversary of the Life Flight program in Wyoming. That is the helicopter, and a fixed wing as well, from the Central Wyoming Medical Center which serves the whole State. We have one Life Flight program for all of Wyoming. It serves the mountains in the north; it serves the towns in the south. It is quite different, for example, than you would have in New England. So I think it is important that we allow States to continue regulating those health plans that they have jurisdiction over so they may craft regulations tailored to their specific needs. The Republican Patients Bill of Rights, therefore, focuses solely on health plans outside State jurisdiction. Secondly, Republicans propose a different type of appeals process. The Democratic proposal says go to the courts; let's have more litigation; let's bring the lawyers in to decide health care issues. Republicans, on the other hand, say let's have a health care system where the appeals are decided more quickly, less expensively, and are made by doctors. I think those are very important differences. The main focus of this debate, then, will and should center around patients. That is really what health care is all about. And I think the Republican plan achieves the goal of dealing with the needs of patients. It includes at least six new consumer standards that I think are important for us to consider. One is access to emergency care. This is the kind of thing that I just spoke of in terms of Wyoming. As you can imagine, the Life Flight helicopter is an expensive project but very necessary. There is no other way to carry patients from a small town in the Big Horns to the medical center in Casper. This ensures that emergency care will be received. The prudent lay care standard is adopted where emergency health care screening is guaranteed. And this is not the case, of course, in all managed care plans. So it is very important. Point-of-service access, point-of-service coverage, this provides that if you choose to see a provider outside of the managed care network, the program should make arrangements for you to be able to do that. We think that is important. For continuity of care in case the physician leaves the health plan or the plan changes, patients must be notified of such changes. Patients also should have the opportunity to continue seeing that provider for at least 90 days while they make the transition to choose another provider in the health plan's preferred network. This transition period would apply to patients in their second trimester of pregnancy or for those who may be terminally ill. Again, also, that is an important issue. By the way, many of these issues are the same in both bills and that is good; there will be some agreement. There needs to be open discussion of all treatment options. Those of us who are in managed care need to know exactly what is coming. We need to know exactly what benefits will be covered. On the other hand, if you are going to have managed care and choose that as a less expensive option, then we can only expect to utilize the benefits that are covered. So there needs to be open discussion of all treatment options, as well as full disclosure of the health plan's terms and conditions. There are some key differences, and I have mentioned them, between the GOP and the Kennedy bills. Most of the areas considered are the same or are, indeed, similar, and I think that is as it should be. But I have already mentioned that there is a grievance process that replaces litigation. I happen to think that is a great idea. One of the real problems we have had in health care through the years is not only the cost of litigation itself, but also the types of duplicative services performed to prevent lawsuits, tests that are terribly expensive. Over the last several years, we have been able to reduce these costs. But now we find ourselves faced with similar circumstances than may raise the cost of health care again. Obviously, you have to have some form of appeals program. However, the key is to make sure it proceeds in a timely manner so you do not wait 2 or 3 years to get redress. You don't have the time to do that in health care. You need some decisions made very quickly. The other requirement is to make sure such decisions are made by doctors, not by lawyers. That is important. So I think there is a great deal of merit to our approach. So there are a number of reasons why I think the Republican approach is best. One is, it gives rights and remedies to 48 million Americans whose current coverages are unregulated. It also provides for some new provisions. It allows full deductibility for the purchase of health insurance by the self-employed, which has not been the case in the past. It outlaws gag rules placed on physicians. Most States have done that. It expands emergency room coverage. It makes it easier to get service outside of the HMO. It remove barriers to seeing obstetricians, gynecologists and pediatricians, which provides great peace of mind. It also requires the continuity of care and more information to consumers. Consumers are entitled to these standards. Standards which are designed to make managed care plans more accountable. So as we change health care in this delivery system, there needs to be some regulatory revisions, and that is what the Republican Patients Bill of Rights does. This bill is something we need to do. The purposes are good. The legislation is well-written. It provides quality care based on sound medical evidence, and that is something that we sorely need in this country. I urge Members of the Senate to support the Republican health care bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I have finished what I have to say. I appreciate his patience.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Brownback, in offering this amendment. What we seek to do with this amendment is quite simple: require the legislative branch to identify its commercial functions that are performed in-house. For the past several years, I have been the primary Senate sponsor of the Freedom from Government Competition Act. That legislation would codify the 40 year old administrative policy in place for the executive branch which requires: (1) Federal agencies to identify their commercial activities; and (2) Conduct public/private competitions to determine whether the private sector or government employees can provide the ``best value'' to the American taxpayer. Unfortunately, this policy, now found in OMB Circular A-76, is routinely ignored by many federal executive agencies. In fact, OMB recently issued another call for federal agencies' commercial inventories, its third request in the last several years. That's why Senator Brownback and I have been working to get this policy into statute. Today, Senator Brownback and I seek to extend some of these requirements to cover the legislative branch. In fact, we know that there are over one million federal executive branch employees engaged in commercial work. But since this policy doesn't apply to the legislative branch, we don't know how many legislative branch employees are doing commercial work, how much that work costs or whether the work could be done more efficiently by the private sector. This amendment will help us gather that information and make the legislative branch play by the same rules as the rest of the federal government. I urge my colleagues to support this good government, common sense reform.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, may I ask unanimous consent that Vickery Fales from our office be granted privileges of the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 23, 1998, at 2 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2109, a bill to provide for an exchange of lands located near Gustavus, Alaska, and for other purposes; S. 2257, a bill to reauthorize the National Historic Preservation Act; S. 2276, a bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National Historic Trail; S. 2272, a bill to amend the boundaries of Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site in the State of Montana; S. 2284, a bill to establish the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in the State of South Dakota, and for other purposes; and, H.R. 1522, a bill to extend the authorization for the National Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I rise this morning in support of the resolution on Taiwan. My expectations for the recent summit meeting in the PRC were, frankly, not high. Summit meetings such as the one in Beijing rarely provide the atmosphere for momentous policy breakthroughs. Rather, they are an important opportunity for leaders to exchange views and to discuss further avenues of bilateral cooperation. This summit then, viewed from that standpoint, met expectations. And I must say, that I was encouraged by the willingness of the PRC to broadcast both the Clinton-Jiang press conference and the President's speech from Beijing Daxue in Beijing. Clearly, that decision was an important step in the PRC's continuing--albeit slow-- progress toward further openness. But Mr. President, I was disturbed by the President's pronouncements on Taiwan and the ``three noes.'' The PRC-Taiwan-US relationship is a very complex one. While it certainly can be argued that the President's statement was simply a restatement of actual U.S. policy on Taiwan, in a culture, on both sides of the Taiwan Straits, where nuances are everything, I believe that the statement sent the worst possible signals to both sides. First, the statement was the first time that a President of the United States has publicly adopted the PRC policy of the ``three noes.'' While--as the President's national security adviser pointed out to me in a meeting yesterday--it is true that both he and Secretary Albright have made similar statements in the past, and it is true that in many ways the statement was simply a restatement of implicit U.S. policies, the fact that the pronouncement came directly from the President gives it a special gravity in Chinese eyes. Second, it occurred while the President was still in the PRC, during the first visit of an American President since 1989, and more ominously for the Taiwanese, in Shanghai, the site of what they regard as the infamous Shanghai Communique. Third, to me the statement bore all the markings of a quid pro quo. Any outside observer looking at the give-and-take of the summit would see that the PRC gave the U.S. four unprecedented opportunities for the President to make live statements on Chinese TV and radio. What did the PRC get in return in what for both sides is always supposed to be a zero-sum game, they might ask? Well, aside from the reception in Tiananmen Square, the only other concession to the PRC I can find is the Taiwan statement. And let there be no doubt, Mr. President, the statement was a useful concession to the PRC. Beijing officials have stated that they intend to use the President's remarks as a lever to force Taiwan into political talks on reunification. The Foreign Ministry stated yesterday that Clinton's statement has ``positive implications for the resolution of the Taiwan question.'' Tang Shubei, the Vice President of the PRC's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS) with whom I have discussed the Taiwan issue on several occasions, has said that the remarks helped the PRC: ``This has provided favorable conditions for the development of cross-strait relations.'' It seems to me that the President could have simply said, when asked, ``There has been no change in the policy of the United States on the Taiwan question'' or ``The United States' position on the Taiwan question remains the same'' or words to that effect. Instead, he made a conscious decision to explicitly adopt the PRC's ``three noes'' policy. Such a decision was hardly accidental, and so I must ask why that decision was made. And in the total absence of any other rational explanation from the White House, I and others can only conclude that the statement was some sort of quid pro quo. Fourth, and most disturbing to me, the President explicitly stated that the United States will not under any circumstances support the independence of Taiwan. While it could be said that this policy is implicit in the fact that the United States supports the ``one China'' policy and does not support ``two Chinas'' or ``one China one Taiwan,'' it is the first time in my knowledge that it has been publicly enunciated in this manner. In addition, it seems to me to completely rule out a bid for independence even if the PRC uses force to reunify with Taiwan--a course of action it has pointedly refused to rule out. So Mr. President, I think it only proper under these unfortunate circumstances that the Congress make clear its position on the status of Taiwan. For that reason, I support the resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor, as many other Members have, to speak in favor of the IRS reform bill that is before the Senate. As the Senator from New Hampshire indicated, I want to take just a little bit of a different approach. We talk about this as one of the steps in the changes that do need to be made. I do come to the floor to express my support for the package. The agency, of course, has basically run roughshod over American taxpayers for too long. This is the first significant reform in this agency in over four decades. Congress should do more of this kind of oversight. It seems to me in this whole business of funding the Government, this whole business of appropriations, that we need to find a way to have more time for oversight. That is why I am supporting and continue to support a biennial budget in the appropriations process, so we would have off years to do this kind of thing for many other agencies. Basically, I guess my point is that this is an important part of the Republican agenda, of our agenda, to do things about taxes. No. 1, of course, is to have tax reduction. I think American families deserve that. I think it is good for the economy. It has to do with having less Government and a smaller Government. IRS reform is part of it, and this is a great step in that direction. Certainly, the third point is simplification of the Tax Code. I think, also, that is a necessary element before we find satisfaction with our Tax Code. So, reducing taxes, IRS reform, and simplification comprise a three- pronged agenda, one which I support. Last year we made some progress in terms of reducing taxes, reduced them in capital gains, reduced estate taxes, installed a $500-per-child tax credit, expanded IRAs, and passed other important small business tax reductions. I would like to go forward in that area, and I hope we shall. Further reducing capital gains, eliminating estate taxes, reducing and eliminating the marriage tax penalty are areas in which we can make progress. This year we will reform IRS, the Federal agency that has interaction with more Americans than any other agency. I salute Senator Roth and the Senator from New York and members of the Finance Committee for holding fast against the initial White House reluctance and opposition to reforms in this agency. His hearings, the committee's hearings, brought to light many unbelievable abuses of taxpayers by this agency. This reform package, then, increases the oversight on IRS, holds IRS employees more accountable, makes IRS a more service-friendly agency, puts the law on the side of the taxpayer, has some very key provisions: Taxpayer confidentiality, extends the attorney-client privilege to accountants, reverses the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS, guarantees 30 days to request a hearing of disputes, gives new powers to the taxpayers who petition the courts to contest decisions, and reforms the management of the IRS. These are all good things. The third part of our agenda, which is still there and I believe is of paramount importance if we are to really change the tax atmosphere: I think we have to address the basic underlying Tax Code. Hopefully, that will take place in the next year or two. We plan to significantly reform the Tax Code and to eliminate the complexity that is now there. There seems to be some misunderstanding about one of the proposals now which would terminate the current Tax Code in the year 2001. It does not eliminate the Tax Code, it simply gives a time certain in which a new Tax Code needs to be devised. The IRS is responsible for creating many of the problems the taxpayers have, but Congress needs to bear the burden of fixing the current Tax Code. There are 17,000 pages of inherently confusing data that need to be changed. Taxpayers spend $200 billion and 5.4 billion hours to comply with the tax law. The IRS employs over 100,000 people, more than five times the number of the FBI. After 80 years of abuses by lawmakers, lobbyists, and special interests, the tax system is unfair, complex, it is costly and punishes work, savings, and investment. Certainly there is a great opportunity for basic recodification of the Tax Code. I support plans, of course, that have the basic elements of fairness, of simplicity, reducing the overall tax burden. It is interesting, as you go about in your State, my State of Wyoming, and ask how many people like the Tax Code the way it is now, nobody responds, of course. Then you say: What do you want to do about it? Do you like sales tax? Do you like flat tax? Do you like consumption tax? But we haven't come, yet, to a consensus on what the replacement ought to be. That is the challenge before us. I am pleased we are about to pass this historic bill, complete the second part of a three-pronged tax agenda. I hope soon we will move to finish the job and fundamentally reform the Tax Code. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I ask that I may speak for 3 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to just mention again, as we enter into the real depth of appropriations, one of the things that we have talked about a great deal that I feel very strongly about, and I think we ought to think about as we do that, is a biennial budget. Each year in this institution we spend about half or more of our time dealing with appropriations, which leaves us very little time to do the other things that are very necessary--particularly oversight. Almost all legislative bodies in this country have biennial budgets, which gives an opportunity, first of all, for the agencies to have two years with which to know what their spending will be. Secondly, it allows the institution to have time to oversee the spending that is authorized. Rather than take more time to talk about it, I just raise the question again and urge the leadership to give some consideration to a biennial budget, where we would make a budget for two years and then have a chance for oversight, have a chance for the agencies to know what they are doing longer, and have a chance to do some of the other business that properly comes before this body.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 16, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 155, to redesignate General Grant National Memorial as Grant's Tomb National Monument, and for other purposes; S. 1408, to establish the Lower East Side Tenement National Historic Site, and for other purposes; S. 1718, to amend the Weir Farm National Historic Site Establishment Act of 1990 to authorize the acquisition of additional acreage for the historic site to permit the development of visitor and administrative facilities and to authorize the appropriation of additional amounts for the acquisition of real and personal property; and S. 1990, to authorize expansion of Fort Davis National Historic Site in Fort Davis, Texas. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 9, 1998 at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 1333, to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to allow national park units that cannot charge an entrance or admission fee to retain other fees and charges; S. 2129, to eliminate restrictions on the acquisition of certain land contiguous to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; S. 2232, to establish the Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site in the State of Arkansas, and for other purposes; S. 2106 and H.R. 2283, to expand the boundaries of Arches National Park, Utah, to include portions of certain drainages that are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and to include a portion of Fish Seep Draw owned by the State of Utah, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150 For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the Subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor briefly today to address the China-related amendments to the S. 2057, the DOD Authorization bill, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations--the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the subject matter of these amendments. Unfortunately, the proponents of these amendments chose a day to debate these provisions when it was clear that many of the amendments' detractors would be out of town. As a result, many of the latter are not here today to participate in this important discussion. While I strongly oppose these amendments, as I believe do a majority of the members of the full Foreign Relations Committee, I myself have commitments preventing me from spending any significant time today on the floor. So in order to express the thrust of my position on these amendments, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at this point a copy of a ``Dear Colleague'' letter dated June 15, 1998, of which I am the primary signatory; a copy of my opening statement from a hearing before my subcommittee dated June 18, 1998; and finally pages 1, 2 and 6 through 9 of a statement by Assistant Secretary Stanley Roth.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, first I just have to say to the Senator from Massachusetts that I am always sort of offended with the idea that if someone doesn't agree with him, they are suddenly a captive of special interests. I think that is very unfair. There are people who have different views, legitimate views, and I think they should be free to express those. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to debate only until 12 noon.

Mr. THOMAS. I absolutely have no objection to that. We are simply asking that the Senate proceed to debate until 12 o'clock.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will withhold for some debate, but not for the offering of an amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.