Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, today the Senate will be in a period of morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m., with Senators to speak up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of three Senators. Under a previous consent agreement, from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. the Senate will be in recess to allow the weekly policy luncheons to meet. At 2:30 today, it is the hope of the majority that the Senate will be able to discharge from the Labor Committee and begin consideration of S. 419, the Birth Defects Prevention Act. This legislation is not controversial. It is hoped that the Senate will be able to consider and pass this important bill in a short period of time. Senators can therefore expect rollcall votes during today's session of the Senate. As always, Members will be notified accordingly as any votes are ordered with respect to any legislation or executive matters cleared for action. I thank the Members for their attention.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I understand there are two bills, Mr. President, due for their second reading, and I would ask that they be read consecutively.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the June 12, 1997, hearing to review the preliminary findings of the General Accounting Office concerning a study on the health, condition, and viability of the range and wildlife populations in Yellowstone National Park which is scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has been rescheduled. The hearing will now take place on Thursday, July 10, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, instead of on June 12, as previously scheduled. For further information, please contact Jim O'Toole of the subcommittee staff at (202) 224-5161.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. There is an objection. I object.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the Senators both know there are negotiations going on now. This performance on the floor does not help at all. Our leaders are talking to your leaders. They are working toward doing it. As a matter of fact, if you want to carry on this thing, there may be some time where you can do it this evening. The fact is, this is not the way to solve the issue. The leaders are meeting, and I object to the request. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank my colleague for arranging this special order. It seems to me that this is something that is very important. I have watched this discussion with great interest, having had some experience in small business, and, I must confess, I have been very surprised by it. It seems to me that over the years, particularly the last 2\1/2\ years, we have spent in this body a great deal of time talking about making things more family friendly. We have talked about how we could provide more time for families to share in the schooling of their youngsters, to share in their communities, to share in the things that make communities strong, and to work that in to our professional lives. Then comes a proposal to do that which allows for flextime, which allows for comptime, and we find suddenly a great deal of opposition. That is a puzzle to me. As I mentioned, I have been in a small business where you don't have many employees, and I recognize from the employer side that there has to be some communication, because you may not be able to spare someone for a certain length of time. On the other side, I think it is equally or perhaps even more important that the employee is not forced by the employer to take the time differently than they would like to. But it is my understanding and my belief that in this bill those things are protected, that it is a cooperative agreement between the employer and the employee, to come to these conclusions. So I was very disappointed. Even though I haven't spoken a great deal on it, I was very disappointed last week when we didn't get enough votes to vote cloture. There certainly are enough votes to pass the bill. I am disappointed that the White House has apparently indicated the President will not sign the bill, largely as a result of the labor unions to which the White House is so sensitive. This Family Friendly Workplace Act would help working Americans do the things--the very things--that the President has been talking about and made an issue of in the last election and since. And then we find there is opposition to it. Most Americans, I believe--the Americans that I have talked to--do, in fact, want flexibility in the workplace, would like to have the opportunity to be able to make some adjustments. We have a business in our town of Cheyenne. It is called Unicover. They are the ones who put out first-day stamps, first-day covers. The owner testified before the Senate Labor Committee a few months ago. His employees came to him and asked for comptime/flextime so there could be some arrangements. He wants to offer that to his employees but cannot, of course, until S. 4 is passed. I suppose this has been said--in fact, when you are discussing an issue like this, everything has been said --but the May 1997 survey from Money magazine found 68 percent of working women would prefer comptime to overtime pay. The Labor Department has indicated that it would help in balancing work and attention to the family, which is the No. 1 issue for working American women. So I am truly puzzled by the opposition to it, and I can only imagine that it is simply a political opposition brought on by the opposition of the labor unions to it, which surprises me as well, because certainly union leaders and union members want to do something with their families as well. Americans need the flexibility in the workplace if we are to accomplish the things that we want to, if we are to accommodate the fact that more and more women, more and more mothers are in the workplace and, therefore, since both family members often are working that there does need to be flexibility. Our current laws go back to 1938. Most jobs were in manufacturing; very strict. One-payroll families were the norm. That has obviously changed to where now two-payroll families are, indeed, the norm. In 1938, 16 percent of the women with children worked outside the home; in 1997, more than 70 percent work outside the home. This Family Friendly Workplace Act creates new choices for employees and employers. By mutual agreement, they can agree to substitute some alternatives for overtime, some alternatives to the 40-hour operation. They can take time off to do the things that they need to do or bank some hours with comptime. Federal workers, I understand, have enjoyed this flexibility scheduling now for nearly 20 years, and they can do that. Why not the rest of the working community? S. 4 protects workers' rights, and that is important, very important. Penalties for direct or indirect employer coercion are doubled from current law. Accumulated comptime may be paid in cash by year's end. So, Mr. President, I hope that we intend to continue to push, continue to address S. 4 in this Congress and, hopefully, get the bill passed. It meets the realities of the modern-day workplace, it meets the needs of modern-day families, and is something that I think is very favored among people in this country. It is a little frustrating sometimes to find this kind of dilemma that we are caught up in this week, quite frankly, a situation where if a bill doesn't suit the President, it has to bring us to a standstill. After all, the President is not a king; the President doesn't run the country. He has to give as well as the Congress. That is what this is about. Here we find another that is very similar. I hope that we find some areas of agreement that will allow us to put into place S. 4 and protect the rights of workers, protect the opportunity for options, protect the opportunity for families to have a friendly workplace. I hope we do it very soon. Mr. President, I thank my friend for this time and for his work and that of the Senator from Missouri on this bill. It has been exemplary. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Sure.

Mr. THOMAS. I say to the Senator, I think that is curious. If you have an issue where you are on different sides of the issue and opposed to one another, then you get this kind of thing. But here is one where, if you went around and talked about opportunities to have some choices in the workplace, if you talked about a way to allow people to have some flextime with their families, everybody would agree, nobody would disagree with that. So it is strange that having that as the premise, having that as the basis that we find instead of searching for a way to make it work, as you say, it becomes an absolute stoppage of anything happening. It is curious, and I am surprised. I guess that is why I am here expressing some surprise in the way this has turned.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I appreciate very much the Senator from West Virginia yielding to give me the opportunity to do this.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to speak as if in morning business for about 5 minutes.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Unfortunately, this reinventing Government is not achieving its purpose. It is recreating big Government. The current A- 76 process, which is the system that is supposed to be used to decide if a function can be done more cost effectively and more efficiently in the private sector, may not even have been used by the FAA before awarding the contract to the Department of Agriculture. And when A-76 is used, it does not provide a level playing field for comparing Government and the private sector. Finally, the GAO has strongly criticized the Department of Agriculture's management of its current information technology. We shouldn't be giving them more work when they can't handle their current assignments. So my legislation would address these issues. The legislation would stop entrepreneurial Government dead in its tracks, create a best value comparison between Government and private enterprise based on fair accounting systems, based on qualifications, based on past performance. There are certainly activities within the Government that are inherently Government functions and should be done by the Government, but there are many others that are commercial in nature. They are as commercial as anything in the private sector could be. So this legislation will lead to more efficient Government, will inject fair competition into Government monopolies and continue to reserve a Government role for inherently governmental functions. It also will encourage more and more contracting with the private sector for more efficiency and giving American taxpayers more bang for their buck. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this good Government, common sense of reform. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. The FAA recently announced it was awarding a contract of about $150 million for data processing and information technology to the Department of Agriculture. The problem is that there are plenty of private-sector groups that are more efficient or more capable of doing that job. When you think of technology, do you think of the Department of Agriculture? I do not think so. When you talk about doing payrolls and managing the FAA's technology, do you think of the Department of Agriculture? I do not think so. That is because information technology is not part of the Department of Agriculture's core mission. The folks down at OMB and the Clinton administration will tell you it is a great thing; it is encouraging entrepreneurial Government. But I think we ought to be encouraging private business and entrepreneurial enterprise, not Government. By recruiting contracts from other agencies to offset budget cuts, we are maintaining big Government at the expense of businesses in the private sector, especially small businesses. We are also cheating the taxpayer. Studies have shown that outsourcing can save the Government up to 30 percent. Congressman Duncan and I wrote to the President the day this article appeared to protest his plans on reinventing Government. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about a problem that I think we have in this country in terms of the organization of Government, in terms of the future role of Government, in terms of where we want to be with respect to Government and the private sector, and specifically Government's competition with the private sector. This competition, of course, takes many forms, but the basic premise is that the Federal Government provides commercial goods and services in-house instead of going to the private sector and contracting out for these needs. This is called insourcing, and it leads to larger and larger Government. It is my view that given limited Federal resources we ought to set priorities as to where we spend money and find ways to meet these commercial needs more reasonably, more efficiently by contracting. Insourcing, of course, tends to stifle job creation in the private sector. It weakens economic growth. It erodes the tax base, of course. It hurts small businesses and costs taxpayers money. There is a great deal of talk that goes on in this country about downsizing, about reinventing Government, but the fact is very little of that actually goes on. The Clinton administration has talked some about how there are fewer employees in the Federal Government than there used to be, but almost all of that is a result of base closures in the Department of Defense and RTC when it finished its work with regard to the savings and loan scandal. The fact is that Government expenditures and Government continue to grow and will, indeed, continue to grow under the budget that was approved recently. But more specifically, I want to talk just a moment about legislation that I have introduced called the Freedom From Government Competition Act that would address this problem. Congressman Duncan from Tennessee has an identical bill in the House. I use an example that just happened that I think we ought to reevaluate, one that we ought to look at, one where we ought to say wait a minute, what is going on here? This is an example of unfair competition in the private sector, and in fact it was on the front page of the Washington Post on May 22, 1997. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for 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, June 19, 1997 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 regarding entrance and special use fees for units of the National Park System and the status of the Fee Demonstration Program implemented by the National Park Service in 1996. 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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for 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, June 26, 1997 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. 308, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study concerning grazing use of certain land within and adjacent to Grand Teton National Park, WY, and to extend temporarily certain grazing privileges; and S. 360, a bill to require adoption of a management plan for the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area that allows appropriate use of motorized and nonmotorized river craft in the recreation area. 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.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for 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, June 12, 1997, at 2 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to review the preliminary findings of the General Accounting Office concerning a study on the health, condition, and viability of the range and wildlife populations in Yellowstone National Park. 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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would return a family farm in Big Horn County, WY, to its rightful owners. The family of Fred Steffens lost ownership of the property where they lived and prospered for almost 70 years, as a result of a misrepresentation by the original property owners. Mr. Steffens' relatives have explored every avenue to regain the title to their property, and are left with no other option than to seek congressional assistance. I stand before you today, on behalf of my constituents, to request help in providing a timely solution to this problem. It is my hope that in doing so, this wrong can be righted. Upon the death of Fred Steffens on January 20, 1995, his sister, Marie Wambeke, was appointed personal representative of the 80-acre Steffens Estate. In February 1996, Ms. Wambeke learned from the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] that she did not have a clear title to her brother's property, and she submitted a color-of-title application. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Wambeke was informed that her brother's property was never patented, so her application was rejected. The injustice of this situation is that when Mr. Steffens purchased this property in 1928, he did receive a Warranty Deed with Release of Homestead from the former owners. Unfortunately, these individuals did not have a reclamation entry to assign to Mr. Steffens. In fact, 2 years before selling the property, the original owners had been informed that the land they occupied was withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation for the Shoshone Reclamation Project. At the same time, they were notified that they had never truly owned the property. Unethically, this did not stop them from selling the land to Mr. Steffens in 1928. In good faith Mr. Steffens purchased the property, paid taxes on the property from the time of purchase, and is on record at the Big Horn County Assessor's office as owner of this property. Due to the dishonesty of others, his family now faces the sobering reality of losing this land unless a title transfer can be effected legislatively. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would transfer the land from Fred Steffens' estate to his sister, Marie. This property has been in their family since 1928. Through no fault of their own, these folks are being forced to relinquish rights not only to their land, but to a part of their heritage and a legacy to their future generations. I hope we can expedite this matter by turning this land over to Marie Wambeke's ownership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would return a family farm in Big Horn County, WY, to its rightful owners. The family of Fred Steffens lost ownership of the property where they lived and prospered for almost 70 years, as a result of a misrepresentation by the original property owners. Mr. Steffens' relatives have explored every avenue to regain the title to their property, and are left with no other option than to seek congressional assistance. I stand before you today, on behalf of my constituents, to request help in providing a timely solution to this problem. It is my hope that in doing so, this wrong can be righted. Upon the death of Fred Steffens on January 20, 1995, his sister, Marie Wambeke, was appointed personal representative of the 80-acre Steffens Estate. In February 1996, Ms. Wambeke learned from the Bureau of Land Management [BLM] that she did not have a clear title to her brother's property, and she submitted a color-of-title application. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Wambeke was informed that her brother's property was never patented, so her application was rejected. The injustice of this situation is that when Mr. Steffens purchased this property in 1928, he did receive a Warranty Deed with Release of Homestead from the former owners. Unfortunately, these individuals did not have a reclamation entry to assign to Mr. Steffens. In fact, 2 years before selling the property, the original owners had been informed that the land they occupied was withdrawn by the Bureau of Reclamation for the Shoshone Reclamation Project. At the same time, they were notified that they had never truly owned the property. Unethically, this did not stop them from selling the land to Mr. Steffens in 1928. In good faith Mr. Steffens purchased the property, paid taxes on the property from the time of purchase, and is on record at the Big Horn County Assessor's office as owner of this property. Due to the dishonesty of others, his family now faces the sobering reality of losing this land unless a title transfer can be effected legislatively. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would transfer the land from Fred Steffens' estate to his sister, Marie. This property has been in their family since 1928. Through no fault of their own, these folks are being forced to relinquish rights not only to their land, but to a part of their heritage and a legacy to their future generations. I hope we can expedite this matter by turning this land over to Marie Wambeke's ownership. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Communications Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be authorized to meet on May 22, 1997, at 2 p.m. on S. 442--Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, May 22, at 4 p.m. for a markup.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, be authorized to hold an executive business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 22, 1997, at 10 a.m.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m., on Thursday, May 22, 1997, in open session, to receive testimony on the Quadrennial Defense Review.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 22, 1997, to conduct a hearing on the following nominees: Mr. James A. Harmon, of New York, to be the president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States; and Ms. Jackie M. Clegg, of Utah, to be the first vice president of the Export- Import Bank of the United States.