[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.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, today I rise in support of S. 1587. This 
is the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act. As a member of the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee I am very proud to say this afternoon 
that this very, very important initiative, if enacted, I think will go 
a long way in changing the way our Government does business.
  I commend this administration. I also want to commend my colleagues, 
the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from 
Ohio [Mr. Glenn], and many others in this body for making it possible 
for this very complex piece of legislative achievement to come to the 
floor of the U.S. Senate at this time; the Committee on Armed Services, 
the Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Small Business Committee of 
the Senate--for their leadership, I think, should draw special 
attention and special commendation, to bring this bill to fruition.
  I am especially grateful, though, Madam President, for the assistance 
that the managers of this bill provided to Senator Roth of Delaware and 
myself in the area of independent weapons testing in the Department of 
Defense.
  For over a decade, Senator Roth and myself have been very, very 
outspoken about the importance of conducting independent testing on our 
expensive military programs. Our proudest accomplishment was in 1983 
when the Congress finally passed legislation, sponsored by the Senator 
from Delaware and myself, that actually created an independent testing 
office in the Pentagon and boosted the role of operational weapons 
testing in military procurement.
  Let me say, Madam President, that that legislation would have never 
been enacted, in my opinion, had it not been for the support of the 
Senator from Georgia, the extremely powerful and most influential 
chairman today of the Armed Services Committee. We deeply appreciated 
his help at that time and at this time.
  But since that time, in 1983, we have worked together and diligently, 
I think, in a truly bipartisan fashion, to help this testing office 
make a useful impact on DOD acquisition.
  A special commendation, once again, to my friend and my colleague 
from the State of Delaware, Senator Roth, for his persistence, his 
dedication, and his commitment to this very, very important effort in 
procurement and also in weapons testing.
  Together we have fought strong resistance in the past from a very 
entrenched Pentagon acquisition bureaucracy. I should note that 
throughout some 15 years in the U.S. Senate, I have never once --never 
once--been approached or lobbied by individuals asking me to make sure 
that weapons work before we send them to our troops. This is a 
commentary on our present situation. I am afraid that the forces of 
military procurement continue to pull in that direction of unchecked 
spending and premature weapons production.
  Senator Roth has always spoken out against these wasteful practices 
and in favor of independent testing and the integrity of DOD 
acquisitions. I rise this afternoon to applaud him for his strong 
leadership in this regard.
  Madam President, I must admit that I did not intend to come to the 
floor to address weapons testing in this bill. However, I was deeply 
disturbed upon learning that the original version of this legislation 
contained a very dangerous provision designed to substantially weaken 
the independent testing laws of the Department of Defense. This 
proposal, which is now being pushed by the acquisition community within 
the Department of Defense, would have created gigantic loopholes 
through which the military services could actually avoid testing their 
new weapons if they felt the tests were inconvenient or unnecessary.
  In my opinion, such a change would have opened a loophole large 
enough to drive a Mack truck through and would have contributed, once 
again, to the wasteful and irresponsible practice of buying unproven, 
unreliable weapons for our troops to use in combat.
  I thank the distinguished managers of this bill for agreeing to 
remove what we finally came to know as the Mack-truck loophole from S. 
1587. It is not--and I repeat, it is not--in this legislation. I also 
thank the committees for agreeing to replace the Pentagon's proposal 
with language sponsored by Senator Roth and myself that, in our 
opinion, will actually strengthen independent weapons testing in the 
Department of Defense.
  Madam President, I wish I could stand here today and eulogize the 
Mack truck testing loophole provision, but I have been informed that 
this proposal is, once again, trying to rear its ugly head in the House 
of Representatives and, who knows, even perhaps in a subsequent piece 
of legislation that might come before this body.
  Recently, the House of Representatives passed its version of the 
fiscal 1995 Defense authorization bill and tucked away--tucked away, 
Madam President--deep in this bill is language very similar to the 
provisions that were removed, thank goodness, from S. 1587 by the 
Senate committees of jurisdiction.
  This proposal to weaken independent weapons testing is opposed by the 
Pentagon's own weapons testing office. It should not be enacted on this 
or any other legislation, and I appeal to the chairman and to the 
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee today to block 
its enactment in the DOD authorization bill just as they have assisted 
in removing it from this acquisition reform legislation that at this 
moment is before the U.S. Senate.
  Once again, I strongly support the quick passage of S. 1587, and I 
thank those Senators and those staff members who have worked so 
diligently and so ably in their commitment to bring this bill before 
the U.S. Senate this afternoon.
  Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I yield 
the floor. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, live-fire and operational testing are keys 
to the Congress' fly-before-buy policy. The policy states that a weapon 
should not be produced until testing shows that it works. Independent 
operational and live-fire testing are objective checks and balances on 
the defense buying system. In a system where bureaucratic interests 
carry more weight than results, realistic tests are vital to make sure 
weapons work before they are given to those who must depend upon them 
in battle.
  The original version of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
included provisions which would have given the Defense Department more 
discretion to decide whether and what kind of weapons testing is 
necessary. Fortunately, that language has been deleted.
  Madam President, I am concerned about the Pentagon's attempt to dodge 
the testing process. A recent defense news interview with the Defense 
Department comptroller revealed that the Defense Department leadership 
is more concerned about the vitality of the defense industry than 
whether or not weapons pass operational testing.
  In addition, the comptroller proposed that the Director report to 
someone in the acquisition management chain.
  Third, the Office of Operational Testing has not had a director since 
the Clinton administration took office.
  Without a director, there is no one in the Pentagon to fight against 
those who want to procure weapons even if they do not work.
  Fourth, weapons that have not proven their effectiveness in testing 
are being produced and fielded. Current Pentagon practice allows 
anywhere from 25 percent to 100 percent of the production to be 
completed before the Pentagon knows if a system actually works. This is 
clearly at odds with the congressional policy of flying before you buy. 
The condition of live fire tests is also disconcerting. All major 
aircraft being developed by the Pentagon are avoiding tests for 
survivability and vulnerability.
  It has been over 10 years since Senator Pryor and I first joined 
forces to convince our colleagues to adopt the policy of ``fly before 
buy.'' In March, Senator Pryor held a hearing on the testing provision 
contained in the original version of the Federal Streamlining Act. At 
that hearing, which I attended, we received testimony strongly opposing 
the provisions of the bill. In other hearings, the General Accounting 
Office and the Defense inspector general opposed the provisions 
relating to operational and live fire testing.
  I want to congratulate my good friend and colleague, Senator Pryor, 
for his work in our joint effort to remove the offensive language from 
the Federal Streamlining Act. His leadership on this issue has been 
crucial. And I appreciate his steadfastness in the last 10 years on 
this vital issue. We were happy to strike the language.
  Moreover, we were able to get language into the committee substitute 
that improves the independence of the testing process.
  Moreover, the substitute requires the Defense Department to focus its 
acquisition decisions on results, and testing provides quantifiable 
objective data on results.
  I still believe that live fire and operation testing are the keys to 
judging results. If the Defense Department would embrace these 
techniques, it would reduce the costs in a sense associated with 
finding problems late in the acquisition process.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleague from Arkansas 
on this vital issue. Again, I congratulate and thank him for his 
leadership on this important issue.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I want to thank my friend from Arkansas 
for his kind remarks. I also want to thank my friend from Delaware and 
my friend from Arkansas for their leadership in this area.
  There is no doubt about the fact that independent evaluation and 
testing is a valuable tool and a necessary tool to make sure that the 
weapons systems that are fielded are indeed weapons systems that work 
and that the taxpayers' money is wisely spent. But the bottom line is, 
you want the weapons to work, not because of simple efficiency, 
although that is a very important part. But also you want the troops to 
be protected and to make sure their lives are not in jeopardy when you 
have weapons systems that are fielded.
  That was one part of this provision that I believe we will have to 
revisit at some point. I hope that our colleagues will start looking at 
that and determining how we can best fashion it when that happens so 
that we do not lose the original thrust of their intent in this 
legislation that has been developed over the years. And that is the use 
of simulation because what they are trying to do is save money and make 
the systems work.
  With the new methods and technologies of simulation, we are now using 
simulation for training. When I was at Fort Knox the other day with 
Senator Ford, they were simulating tanks. They were having people train 
on simulated tanks, including in the field. They are simulating firing 
weapons with computers so that they do not use live ammunition. They 
say they are saving lots of money there.
  We are beginning to develop systems where we are simulating training 
with National Guard units where units can be in their home town and 
actually participate in a larger exercise going on all over the United 
States. That is the wave of the future in technology. What we are going 
to have to do is find ways in this independent testing for the careful 
use of simulation where substantial amounts of money can be saved. I 
believe that will greatly accelerate the procurement process and 
thereby save money on accelerated methods.
  It is not going to be easy to do that and to fashion that kind of 
solution and still maintain the total integrity of the independence of 
this evaluation. Yet, I think it has to be done. Otherwise, what has 
started off as a form that will save money, and is saving money in my 
view in terms of independent evaluation, could end up--if it blocks 
simulation and if it blocks new technology--basically being 
counterproductive to the original purposes of the legislation.
  So I will ask my colleagues not for anything at this point. But I 
will ask them to begin looking and having our staffs take a look at 
what we are already doing in leaning forward towards simulation. It is 
capable of saving huge amounts of money, and it is already doing so, I 
think beginning to do so, in weapons, training, and in an awful lot of 
exercises that are, I think, going to make our forces much more 
effective and efficient. So we want to make sure that we do not block 
the new methods and technology of the future in this area.
  So I simply call that to their attention and, again, thank them for 
their diligent effort both in initiating this overall procedure and 
making sure that it is implemented and workable.
  Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, if I may respond to my good friend from 
Georgia, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in 
no way--I repeat, in no way--would the Senator from Arkansas or the 
Senator from Delaware desire to block any progress that we are making 
in the field of simulation. We strongly support simulation.
  I think I can speak for the Senator from Delaware when I say this. We 
just do not want to allow simulation by itself to be a total substitute 
for the creation of that environment by which we have the operational 
testing in the truest form of testing against a particular weapons 
system.
  In other words, we do not want anything short of the most rigid of 
tests against a weapons system. We go back, for example, to the B-1 
bomber. Had that particular bomber been operationally tested, Madam 
President, at every phase before we were ordering 8, 10, 12, and 15 
more of the bombers, we think that we would have completed a family of 
bombers that would today be working and flying and serving the armed 
services, serving our country, and helping to keep peace in the world. 
The operational testing came far too late. We know the end result.
  Today, we come once again to a major decision in the field of 
acquisition as to how we create that environment that will give us 
operational testing that is the most rigid, the most truthful, and the 
most realistic in terms of combat and actual and ultimate usage.
  Once again, Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, and we look forward to working with him and 
his staff. I know that he is perhaps now even in markup with the Armed 
Services Committee legislation that we will be looking at, the 
authorization bill that we will be looking at very soon.
  I plan to support simulation, and I hope that we will all support the 
strictest testing. All of the results, of course, will truly inure to 
the betterment of our troops in the combat field and all of our Armed 
Services personnel in every branch of our Government here and around 
the world and certainly in the cause of peace.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Arkansas. As he 
well knows, there are different kinds of testing. Developmental testing 
is one kind that I do not believe the same rigor is required in terms 
of independence there as on operational testing. So simulation is going 
to have to be worked carefully in those areas.
  In the B-1 case, I think a great deal of what went wrong there was in 
the developmental testing. But also it is my view, and has been from 
the very beginning of this program, that the main thing that went wrong 
is we were ready with a much greater state of technology with the 
potential of the B-2. And the B-1 should never have been built, period, 
because it was outmoded in terms of comparison with the B-2 before we 
ever really got it into operation.
  So that was a mistaken concept. The B-1 when it was originally 
envisioned was the right move, but by the time it was built, it was the 
wrong move.
  So I would certainly be glad to and will work with my friends from 
Arkansas and Delaware as they develop this further and find out where 
they are going in it and try to work carefully to fashion the solution 
in the original intent but also move forward with technology.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I want to commend my colleagues on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, particularly the distinguished 
chairman, Senator Glenn, and the ranking Republican, Senator Roth, as 
well as their counterparts on the Armed Services Committee, for their 
efforts to streamline the Federal Government's impractical and 
inefficient acquisition laws. This is a critically important 
undertaking, and I appreciate their careful and thoughtful crafting of 
this legislation.
  While this legislation seeks to establish procedures for both the 
Department of Defense and the civilian agencies, reform is especially 
important to the Armed Services. As the administration continues to 
slash the defense budget, we must ensure that defense acquisition 
dollars are used to buy the weapons systems and equipment our military 
personnel need--not to justify layer after layer of bureaucratic red 
tape. Additionally, a military force which has been reduced in size 
will have to rely on more sophisticated weaponry. Our military 
personnel must be equipped with the most modern weapons and equipment 
available. Acquisition reform will allow us to field technologically 
advanced systems more rapidly, giving a necessary advantage to our war 
fighters.
  Government-unique requirements not only add to the costs and time 
associated with procuring items, but also discourage some commercial 
companies from even participating in Government acquisition programs. 
The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 will exempt 
commercial, off-the-shelf items from such government-unique 
requirements, encouraging the acquisition of more commercial items. By 
buying items already produced in the commercial sector, Government 
agencies can eliminate the need for research and development, minimize 
acquisition lead time, and reduce the need for detailed design 
specifications or expensive product testing. Finally, this act will 
raise the threshold for the use of simplified acquisition procedures 
from $25,000 to $100,000. Although purchases under $100,000 account for 
only about 16 percent of the Government's procurement expenditures, 
they account for more than 95 percent of the Government's procurement 
actions.
  Let me point out that there will be some growing pains associated 
with the reforms initiated in this legislation. However, it is our 
intent that this legislation be implemented in such a way as to ensure 
the broadest participation by all segments of the business community, 
including small and disadvantaged businesses. We will be watching to 
ensure that this desired affect is achieved and stand ready to 
implement changes to protect small and disadvantaged business should 
the need arise.
  In summary, Madam President, this bill is a step in the right 
direction. It will allow the Department of Defense to acquire equipment 
and weapons systems more rapidly and efficiently. It will lessen the 
burden of Government bureaucracy and strip away red tape. It will allow 
more business, large, small, and disadvantaged, to compete for 
procurement programs. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting 
this legislation.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam 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 (Mr. Conrad). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1759

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the two amendments of Senator Harkin have 
now been revised and are cleared on both sides. I thought we would 
dispose of those. So I send the first of these two amendments to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration in behalf of Senator 
Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1759.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert:

     UNIFORM SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT.

       (a) Within six months after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, regulations shall be issued providing that provisions 
     for the debarment, suspension, or other exclusion of a 
     participant in a procurement activity under the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation, or in a nonprocurement activity under 
     regulations issued pursuant to Executive Order No. 12549, 
     shall have government-wide effect. No agency shall allow a 
     party to participate in any procurement or nonprocurement 
     activity if any agency has debarred, suspended, or otherwise 
     excluded (to the extent specified in the exclusion agreement) 
     that party from participation in a procurement or 
     nonprocurement activity.
       (b) The regulations issued pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
     provide that an agency may grant an exception permitting a 
     debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded party to 
     participate in procurement activities of that agency to the 
     extent exceptions are authorized under the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation, or to participate in nonprocurement 
     activities of that agency to the extent exceptions are 
     authorized under regulations issued pursuant to Executive 
     Order No. 12549.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this Part:
       (1) ``Procurement activities'' refers to all acquisition 
     programs and activities of the Federal Government, as defined 
     in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       (2) ``Nonprocurement activities'' refers to all programs 
     and activities involving Federal financial and nonfinancial 
     assistance and benefits, as covered by Executive Order No. 
     12549 and the Office of Management and Budget guidelines 
     implementing that order.
       (3) ``Agency'' refers to executive departments and 
     agencies.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide a uniform 
requirement for suspension and debarment for both procurement 
activities and nonprocurement activities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Iowa.
  The amendment (No. 1759) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1760

         (Purpose: Prompt resolution of audit recommendations)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for Mr. Harkin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1760.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:

     SEC.   . PROMPT RESOLUTION OF AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS.

       Federal agencies shall resolve or take corrective action on 
     all Office of Inspector General audit report findings within 
     a maximum of six months after their issuance, or, in the case 
     of audits performed by non-federal auditors, six months after 
     receipt of the report by the Federal Government.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, both of these amendments will assist us in 
trying to provide strengthening of the debarment and suspension laws 
and make them uniform. I think this has been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Iowa.
  The amendment (No. 1760) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for 
these two amendments. They are very constructive amendments. They make 
a real contribution to the bill. We are grateful to him for his 
involvement and his concern in the area of debarment and suspension.
  There are a number of other amendments which we are seeking to clear, 
and we are trying to work out modifications where appropriate. We have 
an amendment by Senator Hutchison, Senator Grassley, and Senator 
Domenici which we are trying to work out, and I believe that we are 
close on.
  There are two amendments by Senator Wellstone which we are also 
trying to work out.
  Those are the only amendments that we know of at the moment. We are 
hoping to finish this bill this evening.
  So that is the status report which we would provide to the Chair and 
to the Senate.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1754

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
rollcall vote on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would now ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendment is 
withdrawn.
  So the amendment (No. 1754) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 1761

 (Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to 
 review the quality of the legal services being provided to Inspectors 
                                General)

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1761.

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

       Strike out the heading of title IX and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

                    TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

     SEC. 9001. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF THE PROVISION OF 
                   LEGAL ADVICE FOR INSPECTORS GENERAL.

       (a) Review and Report Required.--Not later than March 1, 
     1995 the Comptroller General of the United States shall--
       (1) conduct a review of the independence of the legal 
     services being provided to Inspectors General appointed under 
     the Inspector General Act of 1978; and
       (2) submit to Congress a report on the results of the 
     review.
       (b) Matters Required for Report.--The report shall include 
     the following matters:
       (1) With respect to each department or agency of the 
     Federal Government that has an Inspector General appointed in 
     accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978 whose only 
     or principal source of legal advice is the general counsel or 
     other chief legal officer of the department or agency, an 
     assessment of the extent of the independence of the legal 
     advisors providing advice to the Inspector General.
       (2) A comparison of the findings under the assessment 
     referred to in paragraph (1) with findings on the same 
     matters with respect to each Inspector General whose source 
     of legal advice is legal counsel accountable solely to the 
     Inspector General.

              TITLE X--EFFECTIVE DATES AND IMPLEMENTATION

       In the table of contents in section 2, strike out the item 
     relating to the heading of title IX and insert in lieu 
     thereof the following:

                    TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

Sec. 9001. Comptroller General review of the provision of legal advice 
              for inspectors general.

              TITLE X--EFFECTIVE DATES AND IMPLEMENTATION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. This is a modified version of my pending amendment 
pertaining to the need for independent legal counsel at five inspectors 
general or IG offices.
  This is a compromise agreement worked out with the Armed Services and 
Governmental Affairs Committees.
  I can see the handwriting on the wall, Mr. President.
  The chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, Senator Glenn, is 
opposed to my amendment as originally written.
  The chairman and ranking Republican of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senators Nunn and Thurmond, are also opposed to my amendment.
  We had an excellent debate this morning. I wish to thank everyone 
involved for that. We were able to get the problem out on the table for 
examination. That is an accomplishment in and of itself.
  But that is just about as far as we can go today.
  I think everyone agrees that there is a problem. The only question is 
how do we fix it. Well, my proposed fix is not acceptable at this time.
  So what we have agreed to do is ask the Comptroller General to assess 
the quality of legal advice being provided to the inspectors general. 
That study is supposed to be conducted over the next 6 months.
  Does the problem really exist? Would independent legal counsel make 
those five IG's more effective? Would that make them better watchdogs? 
That is what we need to know.
  Well, when that study is done, and if it shows there is a problem--as 
I think there is--then I intend to return to the issue next year.
  Under those circumstances, I hope my friend from Ohio, Senator Glenn, 
and all the others involved, will help me craft a more acceptable yet 
effective solution.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I think this is a good solution to our 
problem. What we were discussing this morning is, in agencies where the 
IG does not have his own independent counsel, whether those agencies 
are being run as efficiently and doing as good a job as the ones that 
do have their own independent counsel.
  The IGs directly involved with this, particularly those in HSS and 
DOD, the big ones out of the five that do not have independent counsel, 
seem to think that they are working OK and doing an efficient job. They 
have worked out their memorandum of understanding with the agencies 
that they are in.
  And so this would be a good solution to it, to find out whether there 
are problems or not.
  As I pointed out this morning, we have a couple of variables here. 
One is the number of people required for investigations would go up and 
down in some agencies. The other is attaining people within an 
independent IG counsel staff that have the broad experience within that 
agency to deal with a number of different areas. We do not want to 
build up a huge IG staff that would have some of their people that have 
an expertise in a certain area sitting around half the time. This is 
one way to determine whether that is occurring or not occurring.
  I think this is a good solution. It requires a study. We look forward 
to GAO getting this information back to us to see whether we should 
address this further.
  With that, I am happy to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1761.
  The amendment (No. 1761) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GLENN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment heretofore 
that has to do with how the savings are going to be allocated. I want 
to say to the manager and the ranking Republican, and to other 
Senators, Senator Nunn and his staff and others who have been working 
with me on this, I am not going to offer the amendment, but I am going 
to talk about what the amendment would have done and suggest another 
way to solve the problem rather than putting it on this procurement 
bill.
  First of all, I do not want to talk too much in budget language, but 
let me try to explain what has happened. The President sent us a 
budget. There is a great deal of restraint in that budget because there 
is a propensity to spend more than this budget cap permits. So the 
budget process works its way through the executive branch, and they 
decide to add here and cut here and put some more money in this program 
and, in some cases, to create whole new programs. When you finish 
adding them all up, they had to go back through and say they will not 
all fit.
   But what happened was they anticipated in the budget that this bill 
would pass. They anticipated for next year's budget that this bill 
would be law. And they further anticipated that there would be $10.6 
billion in savings over the next 5 years attributable to this bill's 
passing.
  Obviously, when you take a budget and you assume that you are going 
to save $10.6 billion over 5 years through procurement savings, it is 
very difficult to be precise about where the savings are coming from. 
But if we are not careful, it is tantamount to another across-the-board 
cut on the appropriated accounts to save this $10.6 billion. I am not 
saying that is what is intended. And, in fact, the administration sees 
the problem and suggests there be certain language in the 
appropriations bills that speaks to this issue.
   That language is now showing up in appropriations bills that are 
passing the House. There are already four. And I am going to just read 
into the Record what the language is. While it is not precise, the 
language says something like this: Of the budgetary resources available 
to the Department during fiscal year 1995, a certain number of 
dollars--x dollars--is permanently canceled. The Secretary shall 
allocate the amount of the budgetary resources canceled among the 
Department's accountants available for procurement.
  If you put that language in an appropriations bill, we do not have 
any way of knowing where these cuts actually came from. It merely says 
of the budgetary resources available, x amount is permanently canceled, 
allocating the amount of budgetary resources that are canceled among 
all the accounts for procurement. That could mean that certain 
procurement is actually canceled, in the name of savings in 
procurement, which should be coming from spending less to procure what 
is being ordered.
  I was trying to write into this bill, the new procurement bill, a 
process of notification to the Congress, that is, to the Appropriations 
Committee and the committee of jurisdiction, where these savings came 
from. But I cannot really write it in this bill. I have to write it in 
the appropriations bill itself when the language of cancellation is 
included. So, if our chairman of Appropriations and the Appropriations 
Committee chooses to write this kind of cancellation language in--
meaning we are reducing a department's account by canceling and taking 
that for all the procurement accounts--if we choose to do it that way, 
then rather than submit an amendment here today, I will ask the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee to consider an amendment 
requiring that.
  Let me give an example: That the cancellation not be effective for 90 
days and that 45 days into that cancellation, they would report on how 
and where the savings came from. I think that will be a better way to 
do it than to try to write in advance in this bill what will be done in 
the appropriations bill. But I think everybody should understand that 
when you have tight budget caps on appropriated accounts and you are 
trying to spend more money, you will take anything that saves money and 
you will put it in that budget. In this case they put in $10.6 billion 
representing the savings from this bill, which permitted them to spend 
$10.6 billion that they would not otherwise be able to spend because it 
lowers the amount spent. They fill the gap right back up to the cap, 
and I would like to know that we are not just using this for an across-
the-board cut for whatever amount in total dollars it is.
  If it turns out to be that, Congress should know that. If it does, it 
is a pretty slick way to have an across-the-board cut worth $1 billion, 
or in some of these years maybe $2 billion, in the name of savings in 
procurement.
  So I think we can fix this if, indeed, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee wants to accommodate the administration and 
puts in this kind of language in the Appropriations Committee, which 
takes credit in advance for the good work this bill is going to do, 
even before we ever know it really works. That is essentially what my 
amendment was going to try to fix.
  I thank the various staff members who worked this afternoon for a few 
minutes here and there trying to help me draft it. The more we work on 
it, the more it seems to me we have another way to do it. We ought to 
do it on each bill.
  I thank the chairman and I thank Senator Roth for their indulgence 
and patience.
  I yield the floor.
  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. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________