[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 121 (Monday, August 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT ON THE FEDERAL ACQUISITION STREAMLINING ACT

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today Senator Glenn and I are filing the 
conference agreement on the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act [S. 
1587]. This bill addresses many problems in the Federal buying system, 
a system plagued by multibillion-dollar cost overruns, programs that 
are years or even a decade behind schedule, incentives that encourage 
spending rather than cost-cutting, and top-heavy bureaucratic agencies 
that rely on detailed regulations rather than good judgment. The 
Government has trouble purchasing modern technologies that we can buy 
at the local WalMart or Kmart. Defense Department studies find that it 
takes 16 years and more than 840 steps to bring a technology to the 
battlefield. By then the technologies are out of date. Not 
surprisingly, a July 1993 Defense Science Board found that: ``without 
fundamental reform, DOD will be unable to afford the weapons, 
equipment, and services it needs to provide for our national 
security.''
  Early in this process, as the ranking member on the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, I asked the General Accounting Office to give me a 
report on its recent investigations of procurement horror stories. The 
GAO report identified hundreds of instances where procurement problems 
arose ranging from the way agencies determine their needs to poorly 
administered contracts; cost, schedule, and performance problems; 
funding and budgeting problems; and weaknesses in the acquisition work 
force. Clearly, the GAO report underscored the need for comprehensive 
reform.
  Mr. President, I have long maintained that Congress must be bold if 
it is to make significant improvements in the Government's buying 
system--a system I have worked for more than a decade to reform. Over 
the years my conclusion has not changed: Without major cultural and 
structural change, Americans won't get the results they deserve. Cost 
and schedule overruns will continue, the Government will pay more than 
it should for goods and services; and the taxpayer will pick up the 
inflation tab.
  Real procurement reform must be comprehensive. It must hold 
Government employees and contractors accountable for results. It must 
remove impediments to efficiency, such as the maze of specifications 
and regulations that hinder the purchase of commercial items. It must 
reward those who produce and penalize those who do not.
  As the ranking Senate Republican conferee, I am pleased that the 
conference report on the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act contains 
comprehensive reforms. In achieving this agreement, we had good 
bipartisan cooperation from both House and Senate conferees. The 
conference agreement represents an appropriate balance between 
oversight and streamlining.
  In a nutshell, the agreement makes it easier for the Government to 
rely on the commercial marketplace to develop and refine its needs. It 
allows broad use of commercial practices when the Government buys 
commercial items. It repeals or substantially modifies 225 statutes 
that provide little or no value to the Government's purchases of goods 
and services. It establishes significantly streamlined procurement 
procedures for small dollar purchases and commercial items. For small 
purchases, it also will transform the paper-intensive procedures into a 
computer-based paperless system. With respect to acquisition 
management, the agreement changes the incentive structure for the 
acquisition work force, rewarding those who save time and money and 
improve quality, while penalizing those who perform poorly. It also 
requires agencies to establish procedures that focus on results when 
those agencies choose to develop government-unique items.
  I want to highlight several key provisions in the conference 
agreement. First, the bill establishes a top-level measure of how well 
agencies are managing acquisition programs. This will help Congress 
determine whether horror stories are unique events or systemic 
problems. It requires agencies to achieve 90 percent of budget, 
schedule, and performance requirements; and requires the Defense 
Department to reduce by 50 percent the time it takes to field new 
weapons. If programs are significantly behind schedule or over budget, 
the agency must terminate them or justify continued funding. This will 
enable Congress to hold agencies accountable for their performance in 
managing purchases.
  Second, the agreement requires that decisions to fund items developed 
uniquely for the Government be based on results. Today, these decisions 
are based on a consensus among interested parties. When the bill is 
implemented, the decisions will be made on whether an item meets 
requirements, is within budget, and is available when needed.
  Third, the conference agreement directs agencies to tie pay and other 
incentives to program performance rather than the size of a manager's 
budget. The pay-for-performance provisions are extremely important to 
the overall success of the bill because they provide an incentive for 
members of the acquisition work force who find ways to fulfill needs at 
the lower prices and shortened time lines associated with buying 
commercial items. The pay-for-performance language will restore 
accountability to the Federal buying system.
  Fourth, the legislation reverses the preference for buying 
government-unique items. It requires use of commercial items, unless it 
is shown that they do not meet actual Government needs. It also 
streamlines the purchase of commercial items by exempting them from 
government-unique certifications and accounting requirements. Coupled 
with the new incentive system, this bill provides a real opportunity 
for overcoming the so-called not-invented-here syndrome that has 
prevented Government from buying commercial items to do its work.
  Fifth, the bill implements pay for performance for contractors, 
including use of contractor's past performance in decisions for future 
work, tying profits to results instead of costs, and tying payments to 
achievement of measurable results.
  Sixth, the conference agreement improves the use of operational and 
live fire testing as an objective check and balance on the Defense 
buying system. In a system where bureaucratic interests carry more 
weight than results, realistic tests are vital to making sure weapons 
work before they are given to those who must depend on them in battle. 
If the Defense Department would embrace independent testing, it would 
reduce the cost and dissent associated with finding problems late in 
the acquisition process. The agreement ensures the independence of the 
testing function. Moreover, it requires the Defense Department to focus 
its acquisition decisions on results, and testing provides such 
objective data.
  Mr. President, I remain concerned about one aspect of the buying 
system that the Congress has not addressed. The organization is a large 
bureaucracy with layer upon layer of management and dozens of buying 
organizations. Many of the bureaucratic layers exist solely for the 
purpose of satisfying the needs of the bureaucracy and provide no value 
added.
  Quite frankly, Mr. President, I do believe that there should be a 
reduction in the layers of the buying bureaucracy. I am confident that 
the bill will result in efficiencies that will permit reducing this 
bureaucracy. But, the bill before us today does not require a reduction 
in the roughly 20 layers of management in the Federal buying system. I 
intend to pursue legislation in the future that will get rid of excess 
layers in the buying system.
  A decade ago, I sponsored the legislation to create a commission to 
fix the problems in the Defense buying system. That bill led to the 
creation of the Packard Commission. My colleagues may remember that I 
also sponsored legislation to implement several Packard Commission 
recommendations. Some proposals were enacted, but many were considered 
too bold. The conference report on the Federal Acquisition Streamlining 
Act contains key Packard Commission recommendations, and I am happy 
that, after 9 years, the Congress is acting. I am pleased to join with 
Senator Glenn and my fellow conferees in urging the passage of the 
conference agreement.

                          ____________________