Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. THOMAS. I also ask unanimous consent I might proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight 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, September 11, 1997 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 review the Commemorative Works Act and the administrative and public process involved in the site selection of the World War II Memorial and the recently announced Air Force Memorial. 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. I will talk for just a few minutes on the bill before the Senate. Of course, we are talking about the Labor, HHS, Education bill, one of the largest bills before the Senate. As a matter of fact, a total of about $270 billion of expenditure. Only about $80 billion of that are we really discussing because that is discretionary. The rest are entitlements. However, I do think it is illustrative of one of the things I feel very strongly about, and that is the opportunity to have oversight on the expenditure of large amounts of tax money, or small amounts for that matter. I want to make it clear that I will support this bill. I think the appropriations folks have worked hard on it. I have no particular quarrel with what they have done, but I want to make a point that it seems to me this system needs to be reviewed. The system needs to be changed. I cannot think of another institution in the civilized world that spends $270 billion annually and has no more oversight than we do in the U.S. Congress. We have a remedy for that. We think we ought to go to a biannual budget so that we would do this on a 2-year basis, which has some advantages. It allows the agencies to know what their funds will be for a longer period of time. But more importantly, in this instance it allows the Congress to have some oversight of the efficiency of the spending of these dollars. For example, Mr. President, we are talking here about drug abuse prevention and treatment programs, $2.8 billion. I am for that. We certainly need drug abuse prevention and treatment programs. But how are they working? Is the $2.7 billion giving us the kind of results we hoped it would? I do not think we know that. Now, certainly there is some oversight. We are also talking about Head Start, $4.3 billion for Head Start. I am a fan of Head Start. I think it is a program that brings young people, in their early formative ages, into a position of having some hope, to help form their lives. Is it doing the job? Are we spending the money as efficiently as we might? Are the dollars going to the people that really need the help? I do not know that. I do not know that. Job Corps; I am not a particular fan of Job Corps. Nevertheless, we are spending $1.3 billion on Job Corps. What are the results? What are we doing? Who is being helped? Is the help getting there? What is the administrative cost and the overhead? It seems to me those are things that we ought to be as interested in as we are in providing funding for the programs, and I think taxpayers are entitled to have that kind of oversight. Individuals for Disabilities Education, IDEA. I am very, very impressed with that. My wife is a special ed teacher. I was chairman of the Disabilities Council in Wyoming. There is nothing more important. But the question is, are we spending the money as well as we might? I find some administrators in schools who say, ``Look, we have to change this or we will never be able to afford the kinds of services for the handicapped because we are always in court,'' and we do everything to avoid courts. If that is the case, it seems to me we ought to take a long look at what is happening to the bucks. Who are they going to? Are they as efficient as they possibly could be? Are the regulatory constraints something that disallow the efficient spending of this money? With respect to the Government Performance and Results Act, which I also support and think may have some merit, this is to improve the management of Federal agencies, to require emphasis on planning, hopefully on results. Planning, I hope has in it measurable activities so we can see if we are making progress. Here is what the committee says: ``We were encouraged the Federal agencies are making an effort to fulfill their requirements.'' Frankly, Mr. President, that is not good enough--we are hopeful they are making an effort to fulfill the requirements. Give me a break. We are spending $280 billion, $70 billion on the things we are talking about here in discretionary spending. Let me make it clear one more time that I am not opposed to these ideas. These are programs we need to have but we also need to have oversight. We need to make as sure as we can, as the U.S. Congress, that those dollars are producing the best results that we possibly can. I hope we will take a long look--I think we should--at the idea of biannual budgeting, and give us an opportunity to have oversight. The authorizing committee should, in fact, have the opportunity to do that.

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New York. I suspect there is nobody in this body who has the kind of background institutional knowledge about these programs as the Senator. I appreciate your comments. I yield the floor. (The remarks of Mr. Moynihan and Mr. D'Amato pertaining to the introduction of S. 1144 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has dedicated his time, efforts and immeasurable talents to Wyoming politics. I am speaking of Byra Kite, whom I have known and respected for many years, and have had the pleasure of having as a member of my staff since I joined the Senate in 1994. Byra is retiring, and I would like to take this time to publicly thank him for all his hard work. He has served Wyoming well, and I am not alone in saying he is one of our State's finest sons. In 1965, Byra came to the Cowboy State from California to play football for the University of Wyoming. During that time, he was an All-Conference and All-American member of three conference champion teams, including the undefeated 1967 Cowboy team that played in the Sugar Bowl. Later this year, that team will be inducted into the University of Wyoming Hall of Fame. Following graduation he decided to stay in Wyoming. In Laramie he found his home, and his passion for politics. He made his first foray into the national political arena in 1976 when he managed Malcolm Wallop's initial run for the Senate. Malcolm won, defeating a three term incumbent senator, and Byra began a 20 year career of helping Wyoming Republicans shape their campaigns and win elections. His tireless work, dedication and vision broke new ground in terms of modern campaigning. In 1977 Byra began 18 years of service as Senator Wallop's State Director. During that time he helped hundreds of Wyoming folks in their dealings with the federal government. Following Malcolm's retirement, Byra joined our staff, and continued his outstanding brand of public service to Wyoming people. He, and his talents, will truly be missed. And so, Mr. President, I am joined by Senators Wallop, Simpson, Enzi and Representative Barbara Cubin--all of whom have been touched by Byra's hard work and dedication--in saying not only thank you, but good luck to a trusted advisor and friend.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support and, as an original cosponsor, of Senate Resolution 98, the Byrd-Hagel global warming resolution. I want to thank the Senate leadership and Senators Byrd and Hagel, for scheduling floor time for this important initiative before negotiators begin talks in Bonn, Germany. The administration's current go-at-it-alone plan regarding global climate change is grossly unfair to the United States. I am opposed to setting legally binding targets and timetables on the United States and other developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while at the same time exempting China, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, and India from those identical regulations. This will only worsen the problem the administration claims it wants to fix. Developing countries are projected to continue increasing their use of fossil fuels. And by the year 2015, China alone is expected to surpass the United States in total carbon emissions. The Clinton administration's plan will also drive the economy down and send jobs overseas. The AFL-CIO estimates that between 1.25 and 1.5 million American jobs would go overseas. And the plan would put the United States at a severe competitive disadvantage and reduce our GDP by $200 billion. Nevertheless, the administration--led by Under Secretary of State Tim Wirth--is on a mad rush to sign a legally binding treaty in Kyoto, Japan, this December. This is in spite of: Uncertain global warming science; The administration's unwillingness to reveal its final targets and timetables for emissions reductions; and The fact that they have now thrown out their economic analysis models, which were supposed to help guide policy makers. The Byrd-Hagel resolution addresses these discrepancies. It would direct the United States not to sign any agreement that would: ``Mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, unless it also mandates specific scheduled commitments to reduce gas emissions for developing countries within the same compliance period''; and ``Result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.'' Sixty-four of my colleagues have cosponsored this initiative and I urge their support of this resolution. Mr. President, I strongly encourage the administration to listen to the concerns being expressed by this Chamber. Be honest with us and the American people, and realize that we will not ratify any treaty which commits the United States to one set of standards to reduce gas emissions, but will let China, India, Mexico, and other developing countries off the hook. We ought to focus on bringing all of the countries of the world to the table. Everyone ought to contribute to the cause. Asking all nations to contribute--within the same compliance period-- will help the environment and help U.S. industries stay competitive.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I know time has expired. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Pennsylvania be given 5 minutes to continue.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I intend between now and 11 to be joined by several of my colleagues to talk about, I think, two of the issues the Senator from Georgia has talked about. One of them that is most important for us, tax relief--I appreciate his comments. The other currently is the hearings that are being held with respect to the illegal contributions for campaigns. These, I think, at least at the moment, are two of the most important issues that face the Congress, two of the most important issues, obviously, that face the American people. Tax Relief First, in terms of tax relief, which has been talked about, it just seems to me that we have the opportunity for the first time in 16 years to have meaningful tax relief for Americans who are the ones who pay the taxes that support the Government. That is fairly simple. That is a fairly simple concept. And I wish, frankly, we could make it a little more simple. Obviously, in this place whenever there are issues, the technique is to make them as difficult as possible, to make them as detailed as possible, to make them kind of hard to identify. This one really isn't very hard to identify. The issue here is between having more Government and more revenue and more spending as opposed to the idea of seeking to reduce the size of Government, to reduce the spending, to reduce the burden on the taxpayers. And those things do go together. We talk a lot, importantly, about the idea of balancing the budget. But I think we have to keep in mind you can balance the budget in a couple of ways. One of them is to have the highest tax increase in the history of the world and continue to grow in spending. The other is to seek to reduce spending, to seek to involve the States, to seek to return more government to local government and, therefore, reduce the size of government and the demands on taxpayers. Frankly, I think that is what we have tried to do in the last couple of years. I am very proud of the record of the Congress in the last 2 or 3 years, simply because we have changed the debate 180 degrees. Three years ago we were talking about not how to reduce spending, not how to balance the budget, but simply, what new programs do we need? What do we need to do to continue spending? We were talking, then, about increasing taxes and did, in fact, increase taxes--the largest that has ever been done. Now we are talking about how do you reduce the size of Government. There is no debate about balancing the budget. It is just, how do you do it? When do you do it? That is a complete turnaround. That is a complete change. We are talking, now, more about how do you block-grant to the States so they can make the decisions as to how best spend the money that goes there. Surely, the concept of the closer to the people served that government is, the more effective it will be, is correct--is correct. So I am very delighted that we have turned that thing around. Even though we continue to hassle, even though there will continue, always, to be debate about it, because, frankly, there is a legitimate difference of point of view. There are those who believe more Government is better. That is a legitimate point of view. It is not one that I subscribe to and I think, fortunately, not one that is subscribed to by the majority of the Members of Congress, but it is a legitimate viewpoint and it will continue to be argued--and it should be. Illegal Campaign Contributions The other thing, it seems to me, that is very important currently is the debate that goes on about illegal campaign contributions. Here again, it seems to me when you are out in Wyoming and you are listening to the TV or you listen to radio, you kind of get the notion that the whole thing is about campaign finance reform. In the broad sense, it is. But the fact is, there is a difference between reforming campaign finances on the one hand and talking about illegal contributions on the other. Those are two different things. I think the Congress has a responsibility to have oversight hearings. The Congress has a responsibility to look into allegations of illegal contributions, and that is what the Thompson committee is primarily assigned to do. There is a difficulty in doing it, as we have seen take place here. The idea of having the Justice Department involved makes it more difficult. Their unwillingness to give immunity to witnesses to testify so you can arrive at the facts has been a completely difficult issue. And I understand. One reason for the idea of the Congress doing this oversight is that, obviously, agencies have allegiance to the people who have appointed them and they become very edgy when you get into this whole wilderness of allegations of wrongdoing on the part of people who are affiliated to the people you work for. I understand that. That is the reason for having Congress do it. That is the reason for having independent counsels do it. As the Senator from Kentucky a few moments ago mentioned, it is clear there is a reluctance on the part of Justice to get into what they perceive to be a political kind of activity. That is their task. The way they do it is to appoint an independent counsel. For some reason, the Attorney General has refused to do that. So what we are talking about, then, is having a hearing in which the truth about those allegations can be determined. I think that is, indeed, a responsibility of the Congress. It is something that we ought to be responsible to the American people to do, and I am delighted that it is happening. I only wish that it were less inhibited. I wish there were less constraints being imposed by the minority in this particular committee, less constraints being imposed by the Justice Department. We ought to know what the truth is, in these instances. I happen to be chairman of the subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific rim. Yesterday, we had a hearing for the nomination of the Assistant Secretary for the Asia-Pacific area, which we need very much, and a very learned person has been nominated whom I am sure we will support. But just to give you some idea of the involvement there, with regard to this investigation, of course the activities with respect to China influencing elections, foreign policy, has been talked about. President Clinton has said: [I]t would be a very serious matter for the United States if any country were to attempt to funnel funds into one of our political parties for any reason whatsoever. Likewise, the Secretary of State said that, if true, the allegations that China had launched a major effort to illegally influence United States elections ``would be quite serious.'' I asked that question yesterday of the Secretary: Do you agree? And, of course, he said yes. The follow-up question, then, was both Republican and Democrat members of the Governmental Affairs Committee agree that there was Chinese involvement and a plan to move money into congressional elections. So I asked, I think quite legitimately, what is the plan, then? How does this affect our foreign policy with respect to China? And the answer was, well, we just don't know whether these are true. We don't know whether that's there. We haven't made any accommodation, which only leads me to believe that it is even more important for this committee to arrive at what the facts really are. If these allegations are true, what will it do to our policy? It ought to have some impact on policy, certainly. But, yet, the response from the administration is, well, we just don't know. We don't know either, but we ought to find out. And that is what the system is about. That is what the hearings are about. That is why there is such concern about the obstacles placed in the way of the committee by the Justice Department, by the Attorney General, by the administration--frankly, by our friends on the other side of the aisle, as to how we come to those decisions. So, I think we are involved in a very serious issue here. It is serious because it has to do with process. It has to do with the obligations of the Congress to determine if, in fact, in this case, there were illegal activities carried on. That's our job. Mr. President, I now am joined on the floor by the Senator from Arizona. I am very pleased to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I send to the desk a modification to amendment 929.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hagel be added as a sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. THOMAS. I will come back later and ask for the yeas and nays. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 929 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I bring to the floor and to this bill an amendment which was offered last year and adopted by a bipartisan vote of 59 to 39 but was trimmed out of the omnibus appropriations bill. It has to do with the question of the Federal Government competing unfairly with private firms; agencies performing commercial, rather than inherently governmental, activities for other agencies. My amendment requires Federal agencies to demonstrate that they can perform more efficiently and effectively than the private sector before providing commercially available goods and services to other agencies. It has been the Federal Government's policy for over 40 years that it should not compete with the private sector. In fact, the Government should rely on the private sector to supply commercially available goods and services. However, this policy is too often ignored. For example, the Defense Science Board calculates that out of 850,000 full-time positions needed to provide commercial services for the military, 640,000 are held by Federal employees instead of private sector contractors. The Clinton administration has taken this situation one step further. Last year, OMB came out with a policy that grandfathers existing interservice support agreements from cost-comparison requirements. This change permits one Federal agency to provide goods and services to another agency regardless of cost or performance. This new policy gives Federal agencies until October 1997 to go out and recruit business from other agencies without performing a cost comparison and cost analysis. The administration implicitly argues that this entrepreneurial approach to Government will save the taxpayers money. However, if they don't do a cost comparison, how do they know it saves money? Some examples of existing interservice support agreements are aerial photography, mapping services, laboratory services, printing services, all of which are often provided more efficiently and more cost-effectively in the private sector. For example, in Jacksonville, FL, the Navy Public Works Division recently completed a state-of-the-art environmental lab to provide routine hazardous waste characterizations. These services are already available in the private sector, and the Navy intends to offer their services to other agencies. In Alaska last year, the State struggled to contain a large wildfire. The CIA provided needed mapping and satellite imagery. A private company was available to do the work, but they were never asked. These are just a few of the examples of direct Government competition with the private sector without a cost comparison. I want to emphasize that I am not insisting that the Federal Government use the private sector. It simply needs to compare public and private sector production to ensure the American taxpayer gets the best value goods and services, the most bang for their buck. Encouraging the Federal Government to compete with the private sector is philosophically wrong. Almost all of us stand up here day after day and talk about let's have less Government, reduce the size of Government, reduce the cost of Government, strengthen the private sector and, yet, continually allow this to go on. It is philosophically wrong. It hurts small business. In fact, the three White House Conferences on Small Business rate this as a top concern, the ability to compete for public contracts. Unfair Government competition with the private sector costs the taxpayers money. Numerous studies have shown that outsourcing can save the Government up to $30 billion annually. It also circumvents the appropriations process. If an agency can do work for another agency, it is likely that its resources and employees are larger than it needs to be and needs to be cut back. On the other hand, if an agency's appropriation is cut, it recruits business. That also circumvents the appropriations' process and the idea of focusing on priorities. Most of all, the policy is contrary to current law. This policy is merely a rule from the OMB supplemental handbook A-76. But it violates the Economy Act, which specifically states that one agency can provide goods and services to another agency only when a commercial enterprise cannot provide the goods and services as conveniently or as cheaply. In other words, you do have to do a cost comparison. I think this is an unbelievable policy for a President that has said, ``The era of big Government is over,'' and then to turn around and implement a policy of this kind, which does not even provide for a cost comparison. This policy is another example of the administration expanding Government, not reinventing it. I recently introduced a bill, S. 314, which is called the Freedom From Government Competition Act, which addresses Government competition with the private sector. It encourages outsourcing and utilizing private sector capability. It provides exemptions for national security, inherently governmental functions, situations where the Government can provide better value goods and services, and when private sector capability is inadequate. I want to stress that this amendment addresses functions that are commercial activities within the Government. We need to take some action now to implement the rules and the policy that has been in place for 40 years but have not been followed. My amendment is exactly the same as that which the Senate passed last year. It merely reaffirms existing law and prohibits one agency providing commercial goods and services for another unless a comparison is done. More oversight of this problem is needed. This amendment will create private sector jobs, help small business, save taxpayer dollars, make the Government smaller and more efficient. That is a great idea. My bottom line is, I want the Government to cost less and be more effective. Most people here do. My amendment will ensure that. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense, good- Government, protaxpayer reform. Mr. President, I ask now for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Enzi and Senator Brownback be added as cosponsors.

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

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator if he is aware that the subcommittee is now in the process of seeking to put together a plan, a long-term plan? All of us who understand that parks and their resources are one of the most valuable resources that we have, that there are troublesome things happening and frankly there is no plan in place and we need to have one--we need to talk about finances. There needs to be some additional resources for finances in addition to the appropriations. We need to talk about how we do some bonding, how we do some private investment, how we do some other kinds of things. In addition, we need to talk about the concessionaires. We need to get that straightened out so it moves. We need to talk, frankly, about the management of the parks so we have a plan that has measurable results so the plans that are set for the Nation will also be applied in the parks. And we have invited the administration to participate. Fortunately, this morning we have a nominee for the Park Service. We have not had a Park Service Director. So I want to assure the Senator that there is underway an effort to basically reform and move forward and, also, I forgot to say, to have something that defines more clearly what kind of a park is appropriate to be part of the National System so we are not taking in what is more appropriately local recreation areas to be managed by the National Park Service. So I couldn't share more the concerns that people have, but I wanted to tell my colleague that we are moving forward with that and intend to have a plan before this Congress by the end of the year.

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 17, 1997, at 2 p.m., in room DS-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 895, to designate the reservoir created by Trinity Dam in the Central Valley Project, CA, as ``Trinity Lake''; S. 931, to designate the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness and the Ernest F. Coe Visitor Center; and, S. 871, to establish the Oklahoma City National Memorial as a unit of the National Park System; to designate the Oklahoma City Memorial Trust, 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, U.S. 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--subcommittee on national parks, historic preservation and recreation