[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 70 (Wednesday, June 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              FEDERAL ACQUISITION STREAMLINING ACT OF 1994

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 1756

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the amendment offered 
by Senator Moseley-Braun, amendment No. 1756 to Senate bill 1587, which 
is under consideration.
  Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Michigan 
[Mr. Levin].
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I will in a moment send a 
modification of the pending amendment to the desk. But in the meantime, 
I would like to add, as the primary cosponsor of this amendment, 
Senator Hutchison of Texas. I would also like to add, as an additional 
cosponsor later on, Senator Patty Murray of Washington.
  But, in the meantime, Mr. President, I understand that Senator 
Hutchison, who has worked in this area, who has been obviously as 
concerned about this area as any Member of this Chamber, would like to 
speak to the amendment and to speak to this issue.
  I would like to yield to Senator Hutchison for purposes of discussion 
of the amendment in chief as it will be modified.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. President, I am pleased to be the primary cosponsor of this 
amendment. I had an amendment in the hopper that was the same 
amendment. I am pleased to be working with the Senator from Illinois on 
this.
  I would like to ask one question of the Senator from Illinois; that 
is, is it her understanding that our amendment will deal with 
governmentwide contracting and not just the Department of Defense?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That is correct.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator.
  I am pleased to be cosponsoring this amendment because I think that 
we have fallen into an area in the last few years where there has been 
competition between minorities and women, and sometimes that 
competition has been resolved by not allowing women to have the same 
opportunities.
  That is a concern, because many women-owned businesses have been 
started from scratch and have had many of the same problems in startup 
that minority or disadvantaged businesses have had. I think this will 
clarify the Government situation as regards to minority businesses and 
women-owned businesses.
  I want to make it clear that these are not set-asides. We must always 
maintain the ability for Government to have the flexibility to accept 
the best contracts. I do think goals are very important, because it 
does say that it is important that we try to spread our Government 
contracts among women and minority-owned businesses, because they do 
sometimes have a disadvantage in being small, not having the 
wherewithal to bid many times. But this will give, I think, a more 
level playing field, and I think that is very important as we go down 
the road.
  So I am pleased to be working with the Senator from Illinois on 
something that has been a concern of mine for a long time, and I know a 
concern of hers and something I think will be a positive consideration 
to give our small businesses owned by women and minorities an 
opportunity to compete. As I said, these are not set-asides, but a 
fairer opportunity, and that is what we are all after.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Illinois.


                    Amendment No. 1756, as Modified

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify her 
amendment, and the amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 518, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 4105. PROCUREMENT GOALS FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS 
                   OWNED BY WOMEN.

       (a) Goals.--Section 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     644) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and small business concerns owned and 
     controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals'' each place it appears in the first sentence and 
     fourth sentences of subsection (g)(1), the second sentence of 
     subsection (g)(2), and paragraphs (1), (2)(A), (2)(D), and 
     (2)(E) of subsection (h) and inserting in lieu thereof ``, 
     small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals, and small business 
     concerns owned and controlled by women'';
       (2) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by inserting after the third sentence of paragraph (1) 
     the following: ``The Government-wide goal for participation 
     by small business concerns owned and controlled by women 
     shall be established at not less than 5 percent of the total 
     value of all prime contract and subcontract awards for each 
     fiscal year.'';
       (B) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), by striking out 
     ``and by small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals,'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``, by small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals, and by small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by women''; and
       (C) in the fourth sentence of paragraph (2), by inserting 
     after ``including participation by small business concerns 
     owned and controlled by socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals'' the following: ``and by 
     participation small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     women''; and
       (3) in subsection (h)(2)(F), by striking out ``women-owned 
     small business enterprises'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``small business concerns owned and controlled by women''.
       (b) Subcontract Participation.--Section 8(d) of such Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 637(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``and small business concerns owned and 
     controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals'' both places it appears in paragraph (1), both 
     places it appears in paragraph (3)(A), in paragraph (4)(D), 
     in subparagraphs (A), (C), and (F) of paragraph (6), and in 
     paragraph (10)(B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``, small 
     business concerns owned and controlled by socially and 
     economically disadvantaged individuals, and small business 
     concerns owned and controlled by women'';
       (2) by striking out subparagraph (D) in paragraph (3) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(E) Contractors acting in good faith may rely on written 
     representations by their subcontractors regarding their 
     status as either a small business concern, a small business 
     concern owned and controlled by socially and economically 
     disadvantaged individuals, or a small business concern owned 
     and controlled by women.'';
       (3) in paragraph (3), by inserting after subparagraph (C) 
     the following new subparagraph (D):
       ``(D) The term `small business concern owned and controlled 
     by women' shall mean a small business concern--
       ``(i) which is at least 51 per centum owned by one or more 
     women; or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at 
     least 51 per centum of the stock of which is owned by one or 
     more women; and
       ``(ii) whose management and daily business operations are 
     controlled by one or more women.''; and
       (4) in paragraph (4)(E), by inserting ``and for small 
     business concerns owned and controlled by women'' after ``as 
     defined in paragraph (3) of this subsection''.
       (c) Misrepresentations of Status.--(1) Subsection (d)(1) of 
     section 16 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 645) is amended by striking 
     out ``or `small business concern owned and controlled by 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals''' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``, a `small business concern owned 
     and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals', or a `small business concern owned and 
     controlled by women'''.
       (2) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by striking 
     out ``or `small business concern owned and controlled by 
     socially and economically disadvantaged individuals''' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``, a `small business concern owned 
     and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals', or a `small business concerns owned and 
     controlled by women'''.
       (d) Definition.--Section 3 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 632) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(n) For the purposes of this Act, a small business 
     concern is a small business concern owned and controlled by 
     women if--
       ``(1) at least 51 percent of small business concern is 
     owned by one or more women or, in the case of any publicly 
     owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is 
     owned by one or more women; and
       ``(2) the management and daily business operations of the 
     business are controlled by one or more women.''.

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, interestingly, Senator Hutchison 
mentioned the guiding interest for this amendment and that the goals 
for women-owned businesses were required because of competition between 
the minority and disadvantaged business communities. I daresay I do not 
necessarily agree with that as a motivation. I think, if anything, we 
are all on the same team in terms of wanting to make certain that 
women, minorities, and other disadvantaged groups that have 
historically been outside of the economic mainstream in doing business 
with the Federal Government be given a fair shake, a fair opportunity 
to participate.
  So, if anything, I appreciate Senator Hutchison's advocacy and 
leadership in this area, because we really are on the same page of the 
choir book trying to do the same thing. We have both tried sufficiently 
and diligently to do the same thing. I think we may have bumped into 
each other a little bit on this amendment. For that, I am very grateful 
to Senator Hutchison for her graciousness and for her willingness to 
work cooperatively and collaboratively with regard to the pending 
amendment, as modified.
  So this amendment is an amendment from myself and Senator Hutchison 
as chief sponsors, if you will, and others who have indicated an 
interest in cosponsorship of this legislation have been added.
  Again, this amendment establishes goals in order to give the small 
women-owned businesses an opportunity to participate as equal partners 
in the Federal procurement process.
  I urge support of this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will a voice vote be acceptable?
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. It would.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am wondering if the Chair would withhold. I understand 
that my friend from Delaware wants to speak, in any event. We are 
trying to make doubly sure there is a copy at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Delaware, [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, first of all, I congratulate the junior 
Senator from Texas, as well as the junior Senator from Illinois, for 
offering this amendment. I know that the junior Senator from Texas has 
been working long and hard on developing the amendment, which I think 
is very appropriate to this legislation. I congratulate her. In fact, I 
congratulate both of them for their leadership in this most important 
matter.
  Today, women entrepreneurs are starting businesses at twice the rate 
of men. A recent special report in Business Week calls this a tidal 
wave that is literally reshaping the American small business landscape.
  According to statistics, there are some 6.5 million businesses with 
fewer than 500 employees that are owned or controlled by women in the 
United States. One in 10 American workers owes his or her livelihood to 
a woman entrepreneur. These are positive trends that underscore an 
increasing opportunity or what the Wall Street Journal recently called 
a managerial phenomenon in American business.
  Our focus must be to secure this opportunity, turn this phenomenon 
into the norm by promoting the right kinds of policies and programs.
  I want to commend, again, the Senator from Texas and the Senator from 
Illinois for their efforts in bringing an amendment forward to address 
the Federal Government's support for women entrepreneurs. This 
amendment will enhance opportunities for the Government to do business 
with women-owned businesses. I support this amendment and their effort 
in this regard.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the amendment is cleared on this side. 
Indeed, it is a very excellent amendment for which we commend the 
Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Texas. They have taken 
important leadership in this area, and they have an awful lot of 
support in this Chamber. We are glad they are doing what they are 
doing.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan 
for his kind words, and the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from 
Ohio for their support and for their assistance in working this 
through.
  Sometimes things are easy and sometimes things are hard; and there 
are times when hard things are made easy because nice people help work 
through them.
  In that regard, I am grateful for their leadership on this 
legislation and for their support of my efforts, along with the efforts 
of Senator Hutchison, to reach consensus and again have a collaborative 
effort in this very important area for the future of women-owned 
businesses in the Federal procurement process.
  With that, Mr. President, I ask for a vote and the adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there others who wish to be heard on this 
amendment? Is there further debate?
  If none, the vote is on the amendment. The question is on agreeing to 
the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1756), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to make a statement on behalf of 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, which is the bill currently 
pending before the Senate.
  I wish to commend Senator Glenn, Senator Bingaman, Senator Nunn, 
Senator Bumpers, and others, who have worked for so many years to bring 
this legislation before the Senate.
  This legislation affects all Federal agencies in their procurement 
practices. It has as its goal to streamline procurement laws so that 
the Government may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the way 
in which it obtains goods and services.
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am particularly 
concerned about the ways we can assist the Defense Department in its 
procurement processes.
  The Defense Department procures almost 75 percent of all Government 
acquisitions. Thus, it makes sense to try to find savings in the 
Defense procurement process, particularly in light of the tight Defense 
budgets with which we are currently--and likely to be in the 
foreseeable future--dealing.
  This legislation achieves those goals. It eases the burdens on both 
Government and industry when it comes to Defense procurement. It 
particularly facilitates commercial or so-called off-the-shelf 
products.
  By encouraging greater use of commercial technology, this legislation 
would, in fact, increase the opportunity of our military to benefit 
from leading technological developments and products.
  Currently, procurement laws and regulations make such commercial off-
the-shelf products too expensive, or difficult to secure, for the 
Government to purchase because of their restrictions and burdensome 
procurement requirements.
  This legislation will address those problems. It will encourage the 
purchase and use of these off-the-shelf goods. It will help to 
strengthen the industrial base that supports our economy and our common 
defense.
  Mr. President, if I could just cite a personal example. I have had a 
practice for the last 20 years of attracting different jobs, 
businesses, and industries in my State. Two of those jobs were with 
companies that manufactured simulators for aviation purposes. In both 
cases they manufacture simulators that are used for civilian and 
military applications. I was struck, in my association with those two 
firms, by the fact that there were quite different procedures--in fact, 
physically a separation between those areas of the plant that were 
producing simulators for military purposes and those that were doing it 
for civilian purposes. I thought that it had to do with some 
confidentiality or national security information basis.
  That was not the reason. The reason was that the standards of 
production for the military were required to be substantially 
different, substantially more difficult to comply with and 
substantially more expensive than were the production standards that 
were used for equivalent civilian aircraft.
  There are a number of aircraft which are, for all practical purposes, 
dual use. For instance, the Lockheed Electra is also the Navy P-3 Orion 
antisubmarine patrol aircraft. The military flies the military version 
of the civilian Boeing 707 and DC-9. There are other commercial-type 
aircraft which are used for military applications.
  In these instances, instead of purchasing commercial simulators which 
are used to train pilots and other crew members, we spend millions more 
than we have to by procuring special simulators to conform to current 
procurement laws and regulations because they are going to be used in a 
military application.
  The Department of Defense is required to use special military 
specifications which direct not only the performance standards of the 
end product, but also how the product is made, and in some cases by 
whom the product is made.
  The Department of Defense cannot simply purchase aircraft simulators 
which are commercially available; but instead must spend years 
gathering data, negotiating contracts, generating enormous amounts of 
paperwork to make its purchases according to its procurement rules.
  On average, the impact of military specifications on a typical 
military simulator procurement, which on average would cost 
approximately $20 million, is between 25 and 35 percent greater.
  That is, Mr. President, that a simulator for the same aircraft which 
is used for civilian purposes will run $5 million to $7 million more 
when it is secured for a military application.
  These laws and regulations similarly burden private companies with 
extensive paperwork and data requirements.
  Together, this adds a tremendous administrative burden on both the 
Government and industry, which ultimately adds to product cost and to 
delivery schedule extensions.
  On account of this, many private companies which have much to offer 
the military, in terms of technology or service, choose simply not to 
compete for the military's business.
  There is no doubt that there will always be military unique items for 
which there are legitimate needs to go through a rigorous acquisition 
scheme, and even building a product from bottom-up. And in those cases, 
particularly when it involves national security issues such additional 
requirements are appropriate.
  However, in the absence of such a requirement, we cannot afford to 
continue to throw our money down the drain on an inefficient system.
  This system, in effect, forces our industries to maintain two 
production lines--one for the military and one for civilian customers.
  It burdens our Government and industry with inefficient procedures, 
and costs many American industries their competitive edge in the 
international market arena.
  By sharing military and civilian technologies, American companies can 
become more competitive in the world market, since they won't need to 
waste valuable resources merely to conform to laws and regulations that 
don't make sense.
  By not operating dual production lines, per-unit costs are reduced, 
thus making U.S. products more economically competitive domestically 
and abroad.
  That is why I believe the time has come for the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support and pass 
this sensible and much needed legislation.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I rise today to commend Chairman Glenn 
and Chairman Nunn, the ranking members of both the Governmental Affairs 
and the Armed Services Committees, for the work they have done in 
crafting the Federal Acquisitions Streamlining Act. This is a bill that 
would not be considered on the top of the list for most exciting 
reading. It is a rather thick, voluminous package of changes that will 
not mean much to many people, but will mean, I think, significant 
savings to the American people.
  If you take a look at some of the testimony we heard at hearings held 
by the Governmental Affairs Committee--in which we confirmed what we 
suspected, that the Government must reform its procurement rules--you 
see what is happening to the Federal procurement system. We had 
testimony about the procurement of ant bait--that is right, ant bait, 
the thing that you sprinkle around to kill ants. The Department of 
Defense wanted to buy ant bait, and they wanted to buy $27,000 worth of 
ant bait. The proposal to buy this stuff ran on for 29 pages. The 
actual purchase took 270 days. Think of that. You want to buy a little 
ant bait and it takes you 270 days and somebody drafts up 29 pages.
  Over the years, during my work to cut Government waste, I have taken 
a look at regulations in procurement law dealing with the purchase of a 
fruitcake or the purchase of a cream-filled cookie. It would be, I 
guess, funny to take these things home and read them in a town meeting 
and say: Here is what happens. Somebody wants to buy some cookies for 
the Department of Defense and you get 16 pages describing what kind of 
cream content the cookie ought to have. It is just bizarre when you 
take a look at what is being done. You would expect these things to be 
common-sensical. But, as we all know, these things get involved. 
Somebody has a job to write regulations. They want to make sure they 
write them in the most precise way possible. Pretty soon, you have 16 
pages on how to buy a fruitcake or cream-filled cookies. And that is 
what has caused us so much waste and so many problems.
  I have served with a number of chairmen in the other body and here in 
the Senate. I did want to say, especially today, how much I admire 
Senator Glenn. We are a community of interests who try to work together 
on a lot of things, and we disagree and agree on various issues. But 
the work I have done with Senator Glenn on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee demonstrates to me that he is extraordinarily effective. He 
just accomplishes a great deal. So I did want, today, to commend him 
for his excellent work and tell him how pleased I am to work with him.
  I am very pleased today to support this bill. When we pass this piece 
of legislation, it is not going to simply change some abstract 
references in procurement. It is going to result in billions of dollars 
in savings to the American taxpayer. It is going to say to people in 
the Defense Department in certain areas: If you are going to buy 
something in these cases, do not go off and create a dozen or 2 dozen 
pages of specs; go buy it from the shelf. Buy it the way the rest of 
the American people buy it. Do not increase the cost; do not inflate 
the cost to the American taxpayer. Save some money and buy things that 
are available.
  In closing, most of my colleagues know that I led an analysis of 
Government waste. The Presiding Officer was involved with me, over in 
the House. We discovered the waste in Government inventory. It is not 
just what they buy, but how much they buy. They had 1.2 billion bottles 
of nasal spray in the Department of Defense. How many centuries of 
clogged noses will it take to use 1.2 billion bottles of nasal spray?
  We have all sorts of problems in procurement in the Department of 
Defense and the rest of the Federal Government. I think this is a 
step--not a baby step, a giant step--in moving forward to address them.
  As I said, I commend Chairmen Glenn and Nunn and the ranking members 
of both the Governmental Affairs and the Armed Services Committee for 
outstanding leadership in crafting the Federal Acquisition and 
Streamlining Act. They and their respective staffs have toiled for many 
months to ensure that S. 1587 is truly a substantive procurement reform 
bill.
  In September 1993, Vice President Gore's report of the National 
Performance Review [NPR] determined that significant procurement reform 
could save as much as $22.5 billion over a 5-year period. Just as 
important as the projected savings are the increased efficiencies that 
will result across the entire Federal Government. This bill will help 
achieve NPR's stated goal of creating a Government that works better 
and costs less.
  Every day the Federal Government is open for business, we spend 
approximately $800 million procurement dollars on everything from tooth 
paste to ant bait to the remarkable Patriot missile system that helped 
defeat Saddam Hussein during the Desert Storm conflict.
  Every year millions of dollars are wasted as a result of antiquated 
and obsolete procurement regulations that force contracting officials 
all over the Government to make purchases on behalf of the taxpayer 
that they would not make for themselves.
  Today we are taking bold new measures to increase the efficiency of 
procurement. These measures will substantially reduce waste while 
allowing Federal agencies to buy products faster and at lower cost.
  Perhaps the most important reform proposed in this bill is the 
simplified acquisition threshold, which will raise the small purchase 
threshold from $25,000 to $100,000. This action alone will permit 
approximately 90 percent of all Government purchases to be made outside 
of cumbersome procurement regulations. This reform will drastically 
reduce the amount of time and paperwork spent on procurement.
  The provision of a requirement to purchase commercial items whenever 
possible will ensure that we no longer maintain a 15-page set of 
Pentagon specifications for chocolate chip cookies. The new law allows 
the military to buy the same kind you and I purchase at the local 
Safeway, for less money than before.
  I do not want to oversimplify the true value of this bill. The 
changes proposed here are broad and far reaching and will guarantee 
that the Federal procurement process will operate the way the Congress 
originally intended. Federal procurement will no longer be a sinkhole.
  I also want to note that this bill retains essential safeguards to 
protect against contract fraud--particularly in defense contracting.
  In a word, the Federal Acquisition and Streamlining Act takes an 
important step in reinventing Government. Passing this bill will help 
Government work instead of waste.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam President.
  Madam President, I join my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs 
Committee and the Armed Services Committee in supporting the 
legislation before us: the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
1994. This bill represents a very important and a fundamental step 
toward a comprehensive reform in the manner in which the Federal 
Government purchases its goods and services. It is the first time we 
have attempted a broad revision of Federal acquisition law in over a 
decade.
  But in recent years, there has been a continuing sense of frustration 
with the Federal Government procurement process. Study after study has 
attempted to quantify the costs in money and time attendant to 
compliance with Government procurement regulations. One study recently 
completed by the Office of Technology Assessment concluded that 
complying with Government regulations adds about 10 to 15 percent to 
the cost of products purchased by the Department of Defense. That is 
simply unacceptable.
  In fact, some commercial companies have refused outright to even sell 
products to the Department of Defense because the paperwork and 
accounting burdens outweigh any benefit to the company. Again, this is 
simply unacceptable and intolerable and must be changed, and this 
legislation does change that.
  In my view, our inability to deal effectively with these problems has 
been rooted in the piecemeal approach that we have taken in Congress 
since 1985. We have added provisions to the Defense authorization bill 
each year to address individual problems, such as improper submission 
of unallowable costs for reimbursement by the Defense Department or 
conflicts of interest in the hiring of former Government officials by 
Defense contractors. But we have lacked the vision for a broader-based 
reform to cut through this vast body of law directing Government 
procurement. As a result, we have neglected, frankly, some of the 
larger and more fundamental issues of acquisition reform.
  Madam President, I would like my colleagues in the Senate to 
understand how very difficult it has been to develop a more 
comprehensive approach to the issue of acquisition reform. In looking 
through the U.S. Code, one finds hundreds of laws scattered throughout 
that directly influence the Federal acquisition process--hundreds. 
These laws form the basis for regulations and directives used by DOD 
and civilian agencies. Any meaningful blueprint for congressional 
action would necessarily entail a review of potential modifications and 
amendments or, frankly, the repeal of certain specific laws.
  In section 800 of the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1991, 
the Congress required the Defense Department to establish a Government 
industry advisory panel to review possible means to streamline and to 
codify acquisition law. I would like to commend my colleague, Senator 
Bingaman of New Mexico who, with Senator Coats of Indiana, spearheaded 
this effort in the face of great skepticism. It seems like any time 
there is a good idea, somebody is skeptical and makes the job that much 
more difficult. These two Senators did spearhead the effort. Following 
enactment, it required a great deal of prodding by these two Senators 
to convince the Defense Department to appoint panel members. Without 
this vision, without this persistence, we would not be debating this 
bill today.
  Fortunately, the panel included some of our Nation's foremost 
Government contract specialists. They also included legal scholars and 
acquisition managers. Under the leadership of Rear Admiral Vincent, 
then Commandant of the Defense Systems Management College, the panel 
members brought a strong sense of personal commitment to the review of 
laws and formulation of recommendations. The resulting document was 
1,800 pages in length and provided detailed legislative and regulatory 
histories of each of the covered laws. It is one of the most useful 
documents of its type submitted to Congress, unlike many which are not 
all that useful.
  The so-called section 800 report represented a solid basis for 
congressional action. Our staffs spent the better part of last year 
reviewing it line by line in order to put the substance into draft 
legislation. The review was totally bipartisan and involved the Senate 
Governmental Affairs, Armed Services, and Small Business Committees. 
Alarmingly, this process was almost derailed last October when the 
administration pulled an about-face on the issue of raising the 
threshold for application of the Davis-Bacon Act to contracts above 
$100,000. But, again, bipartisanship and a strong commitment to reform 
allowed members of the three jurisdictional committees to weather the 
storm and develop a constructive piece of legislation.
  Madam President, I have made a point of chronicling the developmental 
history of this bill to underscore the need for prompt action on the 
legislation. It has taken many years to reach the point we are now at 
with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. The climate is 
favorable, and senior representatives of the Defense Department and 
civilian agencies are receptive to the initiatives that are now before 
us. If we delay or if we try to pick it apart and focus on little 
differences that we have, it can take years to recreate this window of 
opportunity that we now have.
  This bill has been criticized for not including every provision 
everyone in industry or everyone in the executive branch would like to 
see. That is true. If anybody can find a bill that everyone likes, I 
would like to know what it is.
  I am not entirely satisfied either. But the bill before us does not 
increase the Davis-Bacon threshold, as the Vice President specifically 
recommended in the National Performance Review last September. I happen 
to believe this is a mistake, but, again, it is not such a mistake that 
we cannot move on with a piece of legislation which will improve the 
process. As the recent votes on the Safe Drinking Water Act indicate, 
support for meaningful Davis-Bacon reform is growing and it is growing 
rapidly. I believe that Congress should set, for the moment, these 
politics aside and take appropriate action to correct what is an 
outdated and an inefficient law.
  While this legislation does not include every provision I or others 
would like to see, it represents a major step in the process of 
comprehensive--and I emphasize comprehensive--acquisition reform and 
one that will hopefully provide an impetus for the executive branch to 
undertake further internal changes in the coming years. It is for that 
reason that I urge its adoption, in spite of some of the differences 
that I have.
  In closing, I certainly would like to thank Jon Etherton and Andy 
Effron of the Senate Armed Services Committee staff for their tireless 
efforts to develop this legislation and, frankly, to explain it from 
time to time. This has been a long and tedious process, but throughout 
these many months, they have served our committee in a bipartisan way 
with great distinction in the truest sense of bipartisan cooperation. 
The quality of this legislation is a credit to their diligence and to 
their professionalism.
  Madam President, I urge my colleagues to act expeditiously to adopt 
this legislation. I know that is the wish of Senator Glenn, and I do 
not choose to delay the debate here. I do have an amendment that I will 
ask to have considered. It has been cleared by both sides.


                           Amendment No. 1758

     (Purpose: To exempt construction contracts from the two-phase 
                    contractor selection authority)

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, on behalf of myself and Senator Roth, I 
send that amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself and 
     Mr. Roth, proposes an amendment numbered 1758.

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 316, line 1, insert ``(other than a construction 
     contract)'' after ``property or services''.
       On page 342, line 17, insert ``(other than a construction 
     contract)'' after ``property or services''.

  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, the amendment that I have just sent to 
the desk would amend sections 1017 and 1067 of the bill. These sections 
provide new authority for the Department of Defense and the civilian 
agencies to use so-called two-phase selection procedures for contracts 
that require the contractor both to design and to produce or construct 
the property being acquired.
  The two-phase approach involves the head of an agency issuing a 
solicitation, selecting at least three offerors on the basis of 
qualifications other than price-related factors and then, in the second 
phase, requiring each of the three to submit detailed proposals, 
including cost information. An award would then be made using regular 
procedures.
  This amendment, which I have offered on behalf of myself and Senator 
Roth, would exempt from the procedure under this section the award of 
contracts for construction projects. Our amendment is intended to 
preserve the concept of the two-phase process but, at the same time, 
giving the architect and the engineering industry a chance to engage in 
discussions with the administration on the best approach to take with 
the two-phase or design/build procurement process. It is my 
understanding that the industry was not party to the details of the 
process authorized in sections 1017 and 1067, although the industry has 
been involved in discussions with the executive branch on these issues 
for some time.
  Industry is concerned that the existing language in the bill will 
undermine key tenets of the current qualifications-based selection 
process. However, by exempting construction from the new authority, as 
our amendment does, we will be encouraging the administration and 
industry to join with us in working to resolve this situation and to 
develop a consensus position for incorporation in conference.
  It is my understanding that this process is beginning to work and 
that some time next week there will be a meeting between industry and 
Government to work out language differences. So perhaps we are making 
progress.
  It is my understanding that the amendment has been cleared. If that 
is the case, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, we accept it on this side. We do not 
quite know all the ramifications of what the change in the bill would 
mean in this particular area. The General Accounting Office is doing a 
study of this on the whole construction issue for the House as I 
understand it. So perhaps the change that we had in the bill was a bit 
premature.
  So I think the Senator is correct in proposing this. We will accept 
it and perhaps at a later time look at this again as an item to be 
brought up. I know he feels strongly about it, and Senator Roth, I 
believe, is a cosponsor of this proposal. As of now, we are glad to 
accept this.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
New Hampshire.
  The amendment (No. 1758) was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized to speak as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator have a specific period of 
time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Probably about 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the Senator from California is recognized for 8 
minutes as if in morning business.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam President.

                          ____________________