[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 1587, FEDERAL ACQUISITION STREAMLINING ACT OF 
                                  1994

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I call up the conference report on the 
Senate bill (S. 1587) to revise and streamline the acquisition laws of 
the Federal Government, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
August 21, 1994, at page H8879.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Clinger] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].


                             general leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the conference report presently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I bring before the House the 
bipartisan conference report on S. 1587, the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act of 1994. I believe this conference report, if passed 
here today, will represent a major achievement of this Congress and an 
example of how bipartisanship works for the great benefit of the 
American people.
  This legislation makes sweeping reforms to the Federal Procurement 
System. Reforms that will make it easier for businesses, large and 
small, to work with the Government. And, reforms that will ultimately 
allow the Government to deliver services more professionally. It is the 
boldest modern-day attempt to revolutionize how the Government does 
business by greatly streamlining and simplifying its buying practices. 
It makes for smart Government.
  This bill repeals or substantially modifies over 225 provisions of 
law to reduce unnecessary bureaucratic paperwork, facilitate the 
acquisition of commercial products, enhance the use of simplified 
procedures for small purchases, strengthen the industrial base that 
supports national security objectives, and improve the accountability 
of Government decisionmaking.
  And apart from this streamlining, the bill also:
  Dramatically simplifies all procurements under $100,000 dollars and 
reserves them for small businesses;
  Reduces the instances in which contracting officials can hold up the 
process by demanding cost and pricing data from contractors;
  Strongly discourages unnecessary Government specifications that 
result in the $600 toilet seats, and instead encourages purchase of 
regular commercial products;
  Provides more openness with clear evaluation factors in solicitations 
and better debriefings for vendors who lose bids;
  Creates an ``electronic marketplace'' so that Government contracting 
can move with the speed and efficiency that technology now affords us.
  I am proud of the fact that this legislation makes these reforms 
without undermining key features of the current procurement statutes 
that protect the taxpayers. These features, such as full and open 
competition, help drive down costs. They help ensure that the 
taxpayers' dollar is spent, not on the basis of favoritism, but on the 
basis of fairness. They also allow small businesses to compete against 
large corporations, which is vital to the Nation's economy.
  I can tell you that a tremendous amount of hard work and energy has 
gone into this legislation, and it shows. In the House, members of the 
Government Operations Committee, and our staff, spent countless hours 
working out the details of each provision. It has been a bipartisan 
effort in every sense. Of course, many individuals have contributed to 
this success, and I want to thank them all.
  There are a few, however, who deserve special mention including, 
Representative Bill Clinger, our esteemed colleague from Pennsylvania, 
and the ranking minority member on the Government Operations Committee. 
He has been a true advocate of the need for procurement reform, and he 
deserves special praise for the counsel and support he has given the 
committee. Chuck Wheeler and Ellen Brown, respectively, on the majority 
and minority staffs deserve special praise for their long hours, 
diligence, and competence.
  Chairman Ron Dellums, ranking minority member Floyd Spence, and other 
members of the Armed Services Committee, have also worked superbly well 
with us. Their efforts have helped us to reform those portions of the 
procurement system that affect the defense establishment. We have also 
worked with members of the Committees on Small Business, Education and 
Labor, Judiciary, Public Works, and Energy and Commerce, to ensure that 
this legislation represents a truly comprehensive package of reforms.
  Through all this, we have worked side-by-side with our colleagues in 
the Senate. In characteristic fashion, my good friend, Senator John 
Glenn, has spearheaded the Senate's procurement reform initiative. I 
know firsthand his dedication to this effort and his commitment to 
seeing it through to the end. Also, Senators Levin, Roth, Nunn, 
Bingaman, Bumpers, Thurmond, and others have all played a vital role in 
shaping this legislation. I cannot say enough about the contribution 
that they have made.
  I should add that, while we have called for legislation for a few 
years now, this is no longer solely a legislative branch initiative. 
President Clinton and Vice President Gore deserve an enormous amount of 
credit for making procurement reform a centerpiece in their effort to 
reinvent the way government does business.
  So where does that leave us? This legislation enjoys bipartisan 
support from Members in both chambers. This legislation enjoys the full 
support of the administration. It is supported by businesses throughout 
the country. And, it addresses the public's desire to have a government 
that gets the most out of every tax dollar that is spent.
  It is time for final passage of this landmark legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report on the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in relieved support of the conference report on 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, happy that we have at 
least reached the end of a long and very arduous process.

                              {time}  1350

  Less than 3 months ago this House passed our version of procurement 
reform. That bill represented a coordinating effort of the majority and 
minority of both the Committee on Government Operations and the 
Committee on Armed Services which actually began over 3 years ago when 
we began this odyssey, this journey to today's final passage hopefully 
of this conference report.
  This conference report, which was passed by the other body in August, 
was negotiated over many, many weeks and by many people in this room 
and now represents the coordinated efforts of the majority and minority 
of several committees in both the House and the other body.
  I would join in commending the members of the staff who worked so 
very, very hard on this measure, particularly Chuck Wheeler and Ellen 
Brown who labored endlessly to achieve the result we have here today.
  Mr. Speaker, reforming the incredibly arcane and redtape-constricted 
Federal procurement system is an extremely difficult and complex task. 
Nevertheless, this is an issue clearly of vital importance to American 
businesses, both large and small, and to the American taxpayer.
  There is no doubt that the almost $200 billion spent each year by the 
Federal Government is done in an inefficient and Byzantine fashion. The 
conference report we are voting on today is a direct attack on a 
procurement system that really for too long has been going haywire. The 
current system costs too much, has too much redtape and ill serves both 
the taxpayer and industry.
  What we have done with this bill is to apply some common sense 
approaches to the bureaucracy to reduce the inefficiencies of the 
system and get some real cost savings for the taxpayer by encouraging 
competition and reducing the burdens on industry and others who do 
business with the Federal Government. At the same time, we are 
encouraging other businesses who have been discouraged from dealing 
with the Federal Government to return to the Federal procurement 
business and hopefully reduce the costs and provide more 
competitiveness in our Government procurement.
  The true impact of what we have done will not be realized fully until 
the regulations are written that implement this legislation. We have 
left the executive branch much of the hard work in seeing through the 
goals and purposes of this legislation, and we trust that the 
regulation writers will not only execute the letter of the law fully 
and promptly, but will also faithfully carry out the spirit of what we 
intended with this legislation. We look forward to working with them 
closely in this effort.
  This bill is by no means a perfect bill. I am not sure that any bill 
that we pass here is a perfect bill. But I had hoped that we could have 
done more.
  For example, in my view, it does not go far enough in the use of 
commercial practices, but it does take a giant step from where we are 
today. It does not totally remove Government-unique requirements from 
the purchase of commercial items, but it does alleviate much of the 
administrative burden of Government oversight.
  On the other hand, each of us who worked on this legislation probably 
has a problem with some part or another of this bill. Not all 
provisions streamline the procurement system. Some, I regret, add new 
requirements. Not all provisions are supported by every member of the 
conference committee. Some provisions, in my opinion, may actually be 
contrary to the purpose of the bill.
  Having said all of that, however, Mr. Speaker, this bill represents 
the best effort in more than a decade to legislate reforms advocated 
for years to enable the Government to act more like a business in the 
way it buys its goods and services.
  My primary goal and I think the primary goal of my chairman and the 
others is to make Government work smarter and cost less. It has been a 
long road to get even to this point, but we are closer to achieving 
that goal than ever before. So I am pleased to be a coauthor of this 
bipartisan bill that from my perspective recreates the procurement 
system into a better, simpler, and more efficient process.
  I particularly want to thank Chairman Conyers, my chairman, for his 
relentless commitment and dedication to this very worthwhile effort as 
well as the many other Representatives and Senators who participated in 
the process.
  Procurement reform is long overdue, Mr. Speaker. The American 
taxpayer deserves and should demand a procurement system that does not 
add cost without adding value, it does not impede the Government's 
access to the state of the art technology and does not force businesses 
to alter standard procedures and raise prices when dealing with the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this 
conference report on S. 1587, and I hope we might have a unanimous or 
at least near unanimous vote in favor of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California, Mr. Ron Dellums, chairman of 
the Committee on Armed Services, whose jurisdiction was heavily 
affected in the course of this acquisition act.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generosity in 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 1587, 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. This bill has been an 
extraordinary effort which could not have been accomplished without the 
extensive, bi-partisan cooperation between the Armed Services and 
Government Operations Committees in the House and with our colleagues 
in the Senate. Representatives Floyd Spence, John Conyers, and Bill 
Clinger particularly deserve special credit for their determination to 
enact meaningful acquisition reform.
  Mr. Speaker, the Government spends approximately $200 billion a year 
on the procurement of goods and services. Despite that huge expenditure 
of money, the present government buying system remains complicated and 
confusing, wasting billions of scarce taxpayer dollars.
  Two comprehensive reviews--the acquisition law advisory panel on 
streamlining and codifying defense acquisition law--the so called 
section 800 panel report--and the Vice President's National Performance 
Review--have documented the need to streamline procurement procedures 
to increase access and competition in Federal procurement and save the 
taxpayer's money. This is particularly critical in the defense sector 
where maintaining a dedicated defense industrial base is simply no 
longer a viable option.
  The acquisition reform efforts outlined in the more than 300 pages of 
S. 1587 takes those needed steps. S. 1587 is far-reaching reform which 
will push our procurement system into the 21st century. This bill 
removes a number of the barriers that have kept many companies out of 
the Government sector, while at the same time, putting more 
responsibility into the system to do the right thing by the taxpayer. 
This should lower the cost of a significant portion of the Pentagon's 
procurements while still retaining the current highly regulated 
procedures for those defense-unique items that will continue to require 
careful Government management and oversight. S. 1587 also removes many 
obsolete and redundant statutes. It also reinforces many existing 
authorities for DOD--and extends these to the civilian agencies, thus 
creating a more uniform system.

  Indeed, S. 1587 represents the most comprehensive Government-wide 
acquisition reform in over a decade. The principal objective behind 
this legislation is to strike a more equitable balance between the 
multitude of Government-unique policy requirements imposed on 
Government contractors and the need to lower the Government's cost of 
doing business, and save the taxpayer money. S. 1587 accomplishes this 
objective in several ways. For example, it creates a clear preference 
for the purchase of commercial products and services, instead of goods 
developed to Government unique specifications.
  S. 1587 also relaxes some of the policies that require Government 
contractors to provide cost and pricing data that they do not normally 
collect or provide in the private sector. And, it puts more sunshine in 
the system through the provision of better source selection information 
and more detailed post-award debriefings.
  The bill creates a new category of high-volume, low-value Federal 
procurements that can be accomplished with streamlined rules and 
regulations. It also establishes a Government-wide Federal acquisition 
computer network.
  Most importantly, S. 1587 maintains critical social policy goals 
aimed at improving access to contracting opportunities for small 
businesses and minority-owned small businesses.
  I would like to echo a comment made on several occasions that this is 
just a first step. I agree. Congress has taken the first step. The next 
and, perhaps far more significant, step must be taken by the 
administration. The second step involves fully implementing the 
authorities provided in S. 1587. I add my voice to my House and Senate 
colleagues in challenging the administration, and particularly the 
Department of Defense, to tackle its own rules and regulations; to 
provide the funding necessary to fully implement an electronic 
procurement system; to train its acquisition personnel--for DOD, This 
can be done through the tools provided in the Defense Acquisition 
Workforce Improvement Act; and, finally, to push for cultural 
acceptance among the acquisition workforce. Without this, our efforts 
today will reap few benefits or cost savings.
  In closing, I must thank the House and Senate conferees for their 
commitment to moving this bill forward, especially representative Jim 
Bilbray and Senators Nunn, Thurmond, and Glenn. In addition, the House 
and Senate legislative counsel staff, Sherry Chriss and Greg Scott 
deserve exceptional commendation for their simultaneous work on both 
this bill and the Defense authorization bill. Finally, special thanks 
must go to Cathy Garman, Robert Rangel, and Joe Drelicharz and Kevin 
Tansey of the House Armed Services Committee staff and Chuck Wheeler 
and Ellen Brown of the Government Operations Committee staff--these 
dedicated individuals worked long, hard hours over the last several 
months to help us make this bill a reality.
  Mr. Speaker, we need S. 1587 if we are serious about reforming and 
improving our acquisition system. I urge my colleagues to support the 
conference report on S. 1587.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Armed Services; as has been indicated, the Committee on 
Armed Services was a very, very vital and important part of this 
compromise and negotiated agreement.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2238, 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994.
  This legislation results from many months of hard work by committees 
in both the House and the Senate in an effort to bring a more sensible 
approach to the Federal procurement system.
  In particular, I want to note the bipartisan relationship of the 
Government Operations Committee and the Armed Services Committee which 
jointly crafted the principal elements of the legislation currently 
before the House.
  Chairman Dellums and Conyers and my colleague, Mr. Clinger, have 
outlined many of the features contained in this legislation that should 
bring a greater measure of efficiency to the day-to-day business of 
running this vast government. I join them in extolling the benefits of 
this legislation, especially for a defense and aerospace industry that 
is still reeling from this administration's drastic reductions in the 
defense budget.
  The provisions of this bill that lower existing barriers between 
government and commercial production lines, and encourage the 
integration of the government sector into the mainstream economy, will 
help many companies reduce unnecessary overhead and remain viable 
government vendors of critical defense technologies.
  However, while this bill takes many important steps in the right 
direction, it does not go as far as it should in turning the U.S. 
Government into a world class customer. For instance, this bill fails 
to tackle many of the socio-economic requirements imposed on Federal 
contracts--requirements that are poor fiscal policy due to the 
imposition of unique burdens on government vendors the costs of which 
are simply passed on to the taxpayer.
  In fact, this bill often takes away with one hand what is being 
provided by the other. For instance, while exempting a series of 
statutory requirements from low-value and commercial item purchases, it 
dramatically broadens the minority business price preference program, 
and provides for a new dedicated contracting goal for women-owned 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I also feel the need to observe that while the Clinton 
administration has made acquisition reform a high profile issue, the 
genesis of this legislative effort can be traced to congressional 
attempts to reform the acquisition system dating back to the late 
1980's. The rhetorical commitment of this administration certainly 
helped to accelerate the political momentum, but in the final analysis, 
the political ``heavy lifting'' was done here in the Congress.
  On critical reform issues such as Davis-Bacon, Walsh-Healy, Buy 
American, Contract Services Act, and subcontracting plans, the 
administration talked a good game, but ultimately invested little or no 
political capital in vigorously pursuing such reforms for fear of 
offending important special interests. Predictably, little or 
nothing was accomplished in making much needed changes in each of these 
key areas.

  For whatever reason, history had dictated that acquisition reform 
happen only once every decade. Such a trend makes this bill's lost 
opportunities all the more unfortunate since it is unlikely that we 
will get another crack at meaningful reform any time soon.
  In large measure, the success or failure of this bill will rest with 
how vigorously it is implemented in the various agencies of government. 
This bill provides a vast array of tools for government officials to 
cut back outdated and counterproductive rules and regulations. But 
there has to be a broad willingness and a commitment to utilize these 
tools if this legislation is going to have any significance beyond the 
rhetoric of a White House signing ceremony.
  Similarly, Congress bears a burden to resist the temptation to 
legislate a solution to every procurement scandal or media account. The 
Federal Government will always have pockets of inefficiency. They 
should not be tolerated and should be eliminated as rapidly as they 
surface. However, we must remain careful not to allow sound bite 
accounts of these problems to stampede us into legislative reforms that 
may cure the disease, but ultimately kill the patient.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the staff for their endless efforts 
over the past months, even years, on this difficult issue of 
acquisition reform. Without their work, quite simply there would be no 
bill. Accordingly, I want to thank the Government Operations staff of 
Chairman Conyers and Bill Clinger for their professionalism and 
bipartisanship. Closer to home, I want to make special mention of 
Robert Rangel and Cathy Garman of the Armed Services Committee staff. 
From my perspective on the Armed Services Committee, to the extent this 
bill is a success, it is their success.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset, on balance, this is a good 
bill. It is not a perfect bill. It is not a complete bill. But is a 
good bill nonetheless and deserves the strong support of my colleagues.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada [Mr. Bilbray], a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report on S. 1587, the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act.
  First, I would like to commend the work of Chairman Dellums and 
Chairman Conyers. Despite the responsibilities that their two 
committees have had over the last year and a half, they have been able 
to give this legislation the priority and consideration it deserves.
  Second, I want to commend them for the sensitivity they have shown to 
the role of the small business community and the effect that 
this legislation would have on them.

  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Procurement, Taxation, and 
Tourism, of the Small Business Committee, my staff and myself have also 
spent the better part of the last year and a half analyzing and 
discussing the impact this legislation would have on the small business 
community. Through countless negotiations sessions, and three hearings 
in which my subcommittee has held, it has become clear to me that the 
product that we see before us today will not only simplify our 
cumbersome and inefficient procurement system but more importantly it 
will provide new and more dynamic business opportunities for small 
businesses.
  There have been a number of misconceptions surrounding the impact 
this bill will have on small businesses. Let me state once and for all, 
this bill is good for small business.
  This legislation will ensure that small business gets access to 
contract opportunities--faster and more efficiently through the 
creation of an electronic commerce network. Second, it will increase 
the number of contracts available to small business by raising the 
small business reservation to $100,000. In addition, it will spread the 
benefits of programs such as the 1207, small business disadvantage 
program throughout the government.
  Finally, it will allow the government to enter the commercial 
marketplace, buy goods directly off the shelf, thereby removing the 
cumbersome requirements that have kept small businesses from 
participating in the government procurement system.
  I want to take a moment to thank the staffs of both Armed Services 
and Government Operations Committees, Cathy Garman, Robert Rangel, 
Chuck Wheeler, and Ellen Brown for cooperating so fully and openly with 
my subcommittee staff.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this conference report and 
look forward to seeing this bill signed into law this year.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], who is also the ranking Republican member on the 
Small Business Committee, which has played a very vital role in the 
construction of this legislation.
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of 
this bill.
  For too long the Federal procurement system has been cumbersome. The 
main provisions of this bill will increase the use of simplified 
acquisition procedures. It will permit commercial items acquisition and 
establish a Governmentwide computerized purchasing network.
  All of this is very good for small business. These are vital 
advances, and they will greatly benefit the taxpayers and the 
Government and large and small contractors. So all of this is very 
good.
  Unfortunately these advances are accompanied by omissions that 
continue to hamper small businesses. The best example is the failure to 
extend fast-pay procedures to small contracts, the contracts performed 
by small business.
  Mr. Speaker, I am inserting at this point in the Record a letter from 
Mrs. Julie Ivey, president of American Reporters, Inc., as follows:


                                      American Reporters, Inc.

                                   Newington, VA, August 22, 1994.
     Department of the Treasury,
     Internal Revenue Service, Philadelphia, PA.
       Dear Sir/Madam:  Enclosed is our check in the amount of 
     $202.67 representing penalty for our late payment for the tax 
     payment dates of May 15, 1994 (payment made on May 16, 1994) 
     and June 15, 1994 (payment made July 8, 1994).
       Our failure to make these payments on time resulted 
     directly from the failure of several federal agencies to pay 
     outstanding invoices within 30 days. During this period, 
     federal agencies carried over $25,000 worth of invoices for 
     two to three months which we made every attempt possible to 
     collect but could not, and since we all know that the Federal 
     Government doesn't pay anything in under 30 days, the $40,000 
     which was current we couldn't count on to come in on time.
       The delinquency of the Federal Government caused our 
     delinquency.
       The Federal Government represents 90 percent of our client 
     base. When the Federal Government does not pay its bills on 
     time, that causes us to pay our bills late. I realize that 
     this is no ``excuse'' for not having paid the payroll taxes 
     on time, after all a businessperson is supposed to 
     miraculously pull the money out of thin air to pay the 
     Internal Revenue Service.
       On the one hand, the Federal Government doesn't pay its 
     bills; on the other hand it heavily penalizes small 
     businesses for not paying their payroll taxes on time.
       It's the old Catch-22. But what is truly amazing is that at 
     the same time that this is going on the Federal Government is 
     carrying on about how much it wants to foster and encourage 
     small businesses.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Julie K. Ivey,
                                                        President.

  Mr. Speaker, in her letter, Mrs. Ivey, a small businesswoman, 
apologizes to the IRS for being late making her payroll tax deposits; 
unfortunately, Mrs. Ivey runs a court reporting company and her biggest 
client is the Federal Government, and they never pay her on time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a problem small business faces all the time. If 
fast pay was allowed for these contracts, then Mrs. Ivey would not be 
penalized by the IRS because other Federal agencies do not pay her on 
time.
  The amounts are not small. In her letter she says that the Federal 
Government, various agencies, are delinquent by $40,000 over a period 
of 2 to 3 months, and yet she is paying a $202 penalty for being late 
with her tax payments. That is totally unfair. This impacts small 
business frequently.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that I am strongly supportive 
of the 5-percent goal that is set in this bill for women business 
owners. We have never had a goal, a Government-wide goal, for women 
business owners. Women business owners own 30 percent of the businesses 
and have had less than 1 percent of the contracts from the Federal 
Government. It is time that we got a goal to kind of bring that up on 
everybody's radar screen.
  However, I do not like implementing goals with set-asides and bid 
preferences, and that is what we do in this bill for minority-owned 
business. I strongly support a goal for minority-owned businesses. I 
simply do not like implementing any goals with set-asides and bid 
preferences.
  A set-aside means there would have to be as few as two bidders, and a 
bid preference means a bid can be 10 percent over every other bid 
offering and still get the bid as long as that bidder is a minority 
builder. I simply do not think this is good fiscal policy to break the 
policy of small bids.

                              {time}  1410

  I think that is inappropriate. In the past, minority-owned businesses 
have had a governmentwide goal of 5 percent. I strongly supported that.
  They have been allowed to fulfill that goal by set-asides in bid 
preferences only in the Department of Defense and maybe one or two 
other agencies. However, with this bill that ability to implement the 
goal was with set-asides and bid preferences goes governmentwide.
  I think it is simply not good fiscal policy and, therefore I repeat 
my reluctant support for this bill. I support procurement reform 100 
percent, but I believe real reform must not forget small business, all 
small business. This bill makes great improvements, improvements that 
help small business, but there is still more that we could have done 
and some that we should not have done.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oregon [Mrs. Furse] who has worked with great dedication toward 
the Federal Acquisitions Streamlining Act.
  Ms. FURSE. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I was proud to serve as a conferee for the acquisition 
reform legislation that is before us today. This is the most 
comprehensive reform in a decade.
  Several businesses from my home State in Oregon came to me and said 
that the process of selling products to the Government is too 
complicated, it takes too much time and money to figure out how to jump 
through the proper hoops to conform with outdated regulations just to 
make a sale.
  And these arcane regulations also push up the price of goods when the 
Government finally does find a product to buy. This bureaucratic 
redtape also prevents small companies from doing business with the 
Government, even though they have terrific, affordable products to 
offer.
  This acquisition reform legislation means that businesses won't have 
to hire extra accountants and lawyers just to comply with arcane 
regulations that no one in the private sector ever deals with.
  This acquisition reform legislation is also about common sense. Right 
now the Federal Government is contemplating whether to buy a sparkplug 
connector for $544, when that same item costs about $20 at the local 
auto parts store. We must pass this bill so that the Federal Government 
will begin to go shopping like everybody else: you go to the store and 
buy items off the shelf, which are cheaper.
  I am particularly pleased that this conference report contains a 
provision that I insisted on including, which is the recoupment of a 
portion of the research and development costs of U.S. weapons systems 
when we sell them to foreign governments. This generates revenues to 
the U.S. Treasury worth tens of millions of dollars each year.
  I want to emphasize that this reform legislation is only a beginning. 
We have a long way to go to eliminate overly rigid bureaucratic 
procedures, improve Government efficiency, and save taxpayers millions 
of dollars. This valuable legislation deserves your support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Maloney] who has worked with great dedication on this 
measure since she has joined the Committee on Government Operations.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government spends over $200 billion on 
procurement every year. That is $800 for every American. There are few 
areas of the Federal Government that are more important for controlling 
spending, saving taxpayers' dollars, and better managing our limited 
resources.
  As cochair of the bipartisan Freshman Task Force on Procurement 
Reform and as a member of the conference committee, I strongly urge the 
passage of this conference report.
  This legislation will simplify and streamline the Federal procurement 
process while improving its fairness, accountability, and integrity. It 
will reduce paperwork by allowing the Government to buy commercial 
products off the shelf. In other words, there will be no more doctored 
specifications that allowed for $500 hammers and $600 toilet seats, 
outrageous examples of Federal procurement abuses.
  It raises the simplified acquisition threshhold from $25,000 to 
$100,000, thereby reducing paperwork significantly. Fifty-five percent 
of the Defense Department's contracts are under $100,000, yet it is 
only 5 percent of their expenditures. So this is a very important 
provision. It also strengthens the protest and oversight process, 
improves the integrity of the procurement process by standardizing the 
procurement code and by eliminating obsolete and redundant laws.
  The Federal Acquisition Improvement Act also incorporates several of 
Vice President Gore's National Performance Review recommendations, such 
as providing for multiyear contracts, promoting excellence in vendor 
performance and allowing State and local governments to use Federal 
supply services. Of the $108 billion in savings that they project, $22 
billion is projected to come from these changes in the procurement 
laws.
  This legislation also creates a separate 5 percent nonbinding 
procurement goal for women-owned business. Government purchasing from 
women-owned businesses has been unacceptably low for far too long. This 
will, hopefully, improve that.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member of the 
Committee on Government Operations and also the Committee Armed 
Services. Without the determination, intelligence and hard work of 
Chairman Conyers and Chairman Dellums and Representatives Clinger and 
Spence, this legislation would not have been possible.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Bobby Rush, another dedicated leader in 
helping small business across this country.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for the 
conference report on the ``Federal Acquisition Improvement Act of 
1994.'' As a freshman Member of Congress, I was honored to serve as a 
conferee for this important legislation.
  I would like to commend the distinguished chairmen of the Government 
Operations and Armed Services Committees for their hard work and their 
diligent efforts in producing the most comprehensive government wide 
acquisition reform measure in over a decade.
  This conference agreement strikes a more equitable balance between 
the multitude of Government-unique policy requirements imposed on 
Federal procurement and the need to lower our cost of doing business.
  This agreement increases the Government's reliance on the use of 
commercial products, goods and services, and improves the access of 
small business to Government contracting opportunities.
  Purchasing commercial products should abolish the current practice of 
buying expensive, specially designed products, when off-the-shelf, less 
expensive commercial products would suffice.
  Mr. Speaker, two other significant aspects of this agreement for 
which I had the opportunity to work with Chairman Conyers in 
developing, are the small purchase threshold increase and the training 
courses for Federal procurement personnel.
  The increase of the small purchase threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 
would allow use of simplified procedures for an estimated 45,000 
additional procurements. These procurements have an aggregate value of 
approximately $3 billion per year.
  The training courses for critical procurement officers are aimed at 
increasing the participation of small disadvantaged and women-owned 
businesses in the procurement process.
  Mr. Speaker, I again applaud the work of Chairman Conyers and 
Chairman Dellums. In creating a uniform governmentwide acquisition 
policy, I believe that this legislation is a significant step toward 
reforming the Federal procurement process.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  (Mr. WELDON asked was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer yet another 
endorsement of H.R. 2338, the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act. With 
the passage of this bill today, we will take a giant step forward in 
the effort to increase governmental efficiency and cost-savings.
  I have been working toward this goal for some time. In 1993, I 
offered an amendment to the Defense authorization which would have 
incorporated into Defense Department buying practices several of the 
reforms included in H.R. 2338. Unfortunately, that measure was scuttled 
to ensure that governmentwide procurement reform would not be 
sidetracked. Fortunately, H.R. 2338 includes the commercial buying 
practices, simplified acquisition threshold and reduced paperwork 
provisions that were contained in the Weldon amendment, and applies 
them to all Federal agencies.
  House passage of this measure today is critical. Although many 
Members may not realize it, this bill may well mean the difference 
between survival and elimination of key weapons systems over the next 
several years.
  Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch recently circulated a memo 
ordering the services to consider major delays or cancellation of most 
major weapons programs nearing the production stage. That list includes 
the Comanche Helicopter, the F-22 fighter, the V-22, DDG-51 destroyers, 
the new attack submarine, the advanced amphibious assault vehicle, 
JPATS trainer aircraft, precision guided munitions, and the advanced 
field artillery system. There is literally no weapons program in the 
budget that will be exempted from the rigors of this austere budget 
environment.
  Last, week, the Department of Defense validated the need for the V-22 
Osprey aircraft and endorsed limited production of it. At the same 
time, Pentagon officials called on the Marine Corps and the contractors 
to employ the commercial buying practices and innovative procurement 
practices allowed in this bill as a way to reduce V-22 costs. The V-22 
pilot acquisition effort, which will reduce the cost of each aircraft 
by several million dollars, will also be applied to future weapons 
acquisition programs.
  At a time when every major weapons modernization program remains 
under scrutiny, it is absolutely essential that we remove the nonvalue-
added requirements from major acquisition programs. H.R. 2338 will not 
solve all of our problems with respect to the declining defense budget, 
but it is one huge step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to 
put the final stamp of approval on this bipartisan bill and send it to 
the President for his signature.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I want to recognize how vitally important this legislation 
will be to the saving of our industrial base. By reforming the defense 
acquisition process, which is just a part of what this legislation will 
do, we assist all companies that are capable of doing business with the 
Defense Department. We will not only open up the process to small or 
disadvantaged firms, who currently are not able to do business with the 
Pentagon, but we will also help those larger firms that already do 
business with the Defense Department learn commercial practices.
  Why does this matter? It matters because the future for our defense 
industrial base is diversification, and to diversify these large firms 
must understand and be able to operate on a commercial level. They must 
be able to compete.
  So, I see in this legislation an enormous win across the board.
  The establishment of a simplified acquisition threshold up to 
$100,000--raised from $25,000--will allow a streamlined procurement 
process. This $100,000 threshold will apply to over 95 percent of all 
Government procurement actions.
  The revised contracting procedures and the new, accelerated notice of 
contract awards, contract debriefings, and bid protests are all 
designed to reduce staff time, lessen the amount of paperwork required, 
and shrink the bureaucracy.
  The bill also establishes a Government-wide electronic purchasing 
system. The use of electronic bulletin boards to offer contracts or 
list agency needs will speed up the system and open up more selling 
opportunities to more businesses around the country.
  Of the $108 billion in savings targeted through fiscal year 1999 by 
the Vice President Gore's National Performance Review, $22.5 million--
more than 20 percent would come from proposed changes in the Federal 
procurement system.
  With this reform, we will be spending scarce dollars more wisely. We 
will be opening up the acquisition process to small and minority 
businesses. We will be able to introduce technology to the Government 
in ways that are not possible in the current Government acquisition 
process. We will also be helping our larger firms, our traditional 
defense technology providers, to do business in a new way that will 
help ensure their survival and the survival of our industrial and 
intellectual base.
  In every sense, this is a major piece of the reinventing Government 
program that so many of us were elected to carry out. I commend the 
committee chairman and the bipartisan group of supporters for what we 
are about to do today.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith], chairman of the freshman Committee on Procurement 
Reform.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report on this bill. It is largely because of the hard work 
of ranking members and chairmen for the Committee on Government 
Operations and the Committee on Armed Services that I thank today. We 
have a real opportunity with the passage of this bill, changing for the 
better, the way we procure goods and services.
  The Federal Government spends $200 billion on procurement every year, 
$800 for every American. With 142,000 Federal employees to implement 
over 4,500 pages of Federal procurement regulations and agency 
supplementals the system has long needed an overhaul.
  When I first came to Congress 18 months ago, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped 
to make a difference in how government is run. I was honored to cochair 
the bipartisan freshman Procurement Task Force with the gentlewoman 
from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. We heard from suppliers of goods and 
services about the tremendous amount of bureaucracy they have to endure 
in order to offer a bid. We met with administration officials, 
committee staff. As a freshman group, we talked and met and discussed 
this issue together, and this conference report reflects much of what 
we agreed needs to be accomplished.
  This bill will encourage the dollar saving acquisition of commercial 
products off the shelf. It will increase the simplified acquisition 
threshold to $100,000 saving time and millions of dollars. It will 
exempt the micro purchases of less than $2,500 from a number of 
burdensome statutory requirements.
  I would like to tell this body some of the other areas that we talked 
about as a freshman class. Changes that might improve this conference 
report include increasing the Davis-Bacon threshold to 250,000.

                              {time}  1430

  So I think we need to continue to look at Davis-Bacon. In the future 
I hope we can accept more of the section 800 Commissioner's 
recommendations to reduce the paperwork and regulatory burdens in 
purchases of goods and services for defense. Defense acquisition, of 
course, represents 80 percent of total Federal acquisition, and needs 
continued scrutiny, for improvement in the future. Many of us suggested 
the micro-purchases and simplified acquisition thresholds, should be as 
high as $25,000 and $250,000 respectively to further increase 
efficiency.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this bill is still an excellent effort by 
this Congress to make Government run better, more efficiently and at 
less cost for the taxpayers of this nation. I urge my colleagues to 
support the conference report.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I would just 
say in closing, I think this measure that we are going to vote on is 
perhaps the single most important measure we will have this year to 
really effect efficiency in Government, reduce the cost of Government, 
and get much more productivity out of our Government. It is really a 
very, very significant bill.
  I would also say it is, in my view, a creature of the Congress. This 
is a product that has been in the works for 3 or 4 years. There has 
been a lot of time and effort put into it. Most of the concepts and 
ideas have come out of the Congress, in both the House and Senate side.
  We have been pleased to have the support of the previous 
administration and this administration in accomplishing this goal. But 
it really is uniquely a product of the Congress, and I have been proud 
to be a part of it, proud to have worked in harness with my chairman, 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], and all who have part of 
this day.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back the balance of my 
time, since there are no further speakers, I would like to single out 
the staff director of the Committee on Government Operations, Julian 
Epstein, who has worked along with Chuck Wheeler on this matter for 4 
years. The reason that I single him out is that he has been working on 
all the other matters in the Committee on Government Operations for 4 
years as well, and we could not have moved this to the success that is 
being reported here today without his continuing and untiring effort.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for S. 
1587, the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act of 1994. While the title 
seems innocuous, we expect this legislation to save taxpayers $22.5 
billion between now and 1999. This is 21 percent of Vice President 
Gore's targeted $108 billion in savings forecast in last year's 
National Performance Review. As a senior member of the two committees 
of jurisdiction, the House Armed Services Committee, and the House 
Government Operations Committee, I am pleased I could help draft this 
legislation.
  The acquisition process for the Federal Government has become so 
entangled that it cannot even respond to emergencies. For example, 
during the Persian Gulf war U.S. forces needed small radios for their 
troops in the field. Procurement regulations made it virtually 
impossible for Motorola to provide these radios quickly, even though 
they were widely available on the commercial market. To solve the 
problem, arrangements had to be made for the Japanese to buy the radios 
from Motorola and then donate them to United States forces. Mr. 
Speaker, this is a clear example of a bureaucracy run amok.
  With the enactment of the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act, we are 
cutting this tangled web of red procurement tape. This new legislation 
encourages Federal agencies to buy ``off the shelf'' commercial 
products whenever possible, and to avoid conducting elaborate 
negotiations to purchase items designed to meet unneeded or unique 
Government specifications. This will make it easier for our business 
people to deal with their own Government. Further, this agreement 
increases the simplified acquisition threshold, under which procurement 
regulations would be streamlined, from $25,000 to $100,000. 
Approximately 55 percent of the Department of Defense purchases would 
fall under this new threshold. This act also revises current 
contracting procedures and procurement law, strengthens the bid protest 
process, and establishes a Government-wide electronic purchasing 
system.
  Finally, the legislation establishes a Federal Acquisition Computer 
Network--known as FACNET--to enable Government agencies to conduct most 
of their procurement actions, from initial notification to award, 
electronically. Mr. Speaker, this action alone can save dozens and 
dozens of forms, unburden managers from approving routine procurement 
items, and allow Government employees to perform their jobs 
expeditiously. An added bonus of the new computer network is the 
potential to expand competition among many more businesses than ever 
before.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will improve the working relationship 
between the Federal Government and our business people and put our tax 
dollars to more efficient use. I urge my colleagues to support S. 1587.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers the conference report 
on the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, I would like to 
comment on section 7204 of the report. This provision, regarding the 
maximum practicable opportunities for apprentices on Federal 
construction projects, was taken from the House version of the 
legislation--it was not included in the Senate version, S. 1587.
  Section 7204 provides a sense of the House that contractors 
performing Federal construction contracts should, to the maximum extent 
practicable, give preference in the selection of subcontractors to 
those participating in apprenticeship programs registered with the 
Department of Labor or with a State apprenticeship agency recognized by 
DOL. Although this provision appears to promote training, it could, in 
fact, decrease training opportunities and make this a discriminatory 
preference.
  I am a strong advocate of apprenticeship and other training programs 
to help young people, women, and minorities obtain highly skilled jobs. 
However, in some States such as Washington, California, and Nevada, the 
State apprenticeship agencies have blatantly discriminated against the 
approval of qualified apprenticeship programs. They have done this by 
denying approval to any parallel apprenticeship programs, which 
essentially means a denial of any competing programs. The result has 
been that open shop or union programs that attempted to compete with 
the programs already in existence were not allowed to train individuals 
who wanted to join their programs.
  This situation has been remedied in the past few years because many 
construction groups and companies have been forced to file numerous 
court cases in Washington, California, and Nevada in order to train 
individuals in their qualified apprenticeship programs. The courts have 
continuously upheld ERISA preemption and said that union-dominated 
State apprenticeship councils could not deny recognition to federally 
recognized apprenticeship programs just because they represented 
healthy competition to the entrenched union programs.
  Because of these court cases there are additional apprenticeship 
programs being approved in Washington and many more people are being 
trained. Unfortunately, the House passed H.R. 1036 on November 9, 1993, 
seeking to overturn these properly decided court cases. If this 
legislation passes the Senate and is signed into law, the State 
apprenticeship agencies will be given carte blanche to once again 
discriminate against the approval of qualified apprenticeship and other 
training programs.
  This preference language could, in effect, result in the approval of 
those State apprenticeship programs which discriminate against nonunion 
or other competing union programs. For these reasons, I strongly oppose 
section 7204 of the conference report. While this is only a sense-of-
the-House and is nonbinding, it is nonetheless a discriminatory 
preference which will hinder training instead of providing much needed 
training opportunities.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 2238, the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act. This 
legislation reforms Federal procurement practices, and in particular, 
raises the simplified acquisition threshold under which procurement 
paperwork requirements would be streamlined--from a current threshold 
of $25,000 to $100,000. This reform will be particularly important to 
the Department of Defense where some 55 percent of all purchases will 
fall under the higher threshold.
  In addition, small businesses will benefit from the legislation due 
to the fact that these businesses will be able to bid on numerous 
Federal contracts without having to comply with the burdensome 
paperwork and bookkeeping requirements under the previous procurement 
regulations.
  I am especially pleased that this legislation includes section 7014 
of the House-passed version of H.R. 2238, the Federal Acquisition 
Improvement Act. These provisions would prohibit agencies from 
requesting pricing data from private contractors for the purchase of 
competitively priced, commercial products.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been very interested in procurement reform as a 
means of reducing Federal spending. In 1993, Vice President Albert Gore 
released his National Performance Review which included recommendations 
for changing Federal procurement procedures in order to streamline 
Government purchasing of goods and services--saving an estimated $22.5 
billion over the next 5 years. I applaud these, and other efforts, to 
reduce Federal spending and regulations.
  I urge Members of Congress to support the conference report on H.R. 
2238, the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act.
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this conference report 
because it represents hard compromises worked out among widely 
divergent groups. Also, I believe that some provisions in the bill will 
help the Federal procurement system.
  Nonetheless, I am troubled by the direction of the bill, which pushes 
the Government toward goods and services like a commercial firm buys 
goods and services; in other words, toward commercial buying practices.
  We all agree that the Government should buy off-the-shelf, commercial 
products whenever possible, instead of always having things built to 
Government specifications. But adopting commercial buying practices is 
an entirely different matter. The Government is not a commercial firm 
and has different interests and goals than commercial firms. In 
reinventing Government, we are not supposed to be destroying the 
mission of Government. That mission includes:
  The Government answering to the voters and taxpayers; commercial 
firms answer to the stockholders.
  The Government being concerned with the welfare of all Americans; 
commercial firms are concerned chiefly with profit.
  The Government treating all potential sellers fairly; commercial 
firms need only be concerned with efficiency.
  The Government assuring fair treatment for all Americans--including 
small businesses, minorities, women, and the handicapped; commercial 
firms have an interest in the bottom line.
  There is no debate over whether we need an efficient Federal 
procurement system. But we cannot permit efficiency to be achieved at 
any cost by permitting an unsupervised raid on the Federal Treasury. I 
agree that procurement procedures should be made simpler. But the price 
of that simplicity cannot be a system in which the same monolithic 
corporations win contracts with tiresome predictability, at the expense 
of competitive, innovative smaller companies.
  When I hear complaints about the procurement system and calls for 
repeal of laws such as the Competition in Contracting Act, the 
Procurement Integrity law, the Brooks A.D.P. Act, and other laws 
enacted to protect the taxpayers, I think of an inscription found in 
one of John F. Kennedy's notebooks, ``Don't ever take down a fence, 
until you know the reason why it was put up.'' This bill leans hard on 
several important fences. Before Congress moves any farther in this 
direction, we should step back, take a hard look, and be sure that the 
direction we are moving is in the best interests of the Government and 
all the people the Government serves.
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support House adoption of the 
conference report on S. 1587, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
of 1994, more commonly known as the procurement reform bill. This is 
the most significant reform of the Government's overly-complicated and 
burdensome procurement system in a decade and, as a House conferee on 
the measure, I am gratified to have been a part of this important 
Federal streamlining initiative. Implementation of the reforms in this 
bill will save the taxpayers billions of dollars a year. As important, 
it will make our procurement system far more efficient and user-
friendly for those who do business with the Federal Government--and 
this is especially true for thousands of smaller businesses who are 
ready, willing and able to supply the Government with billions of 
dollars in off-the-shelf goods.
  The Federal Government spends $180 to $200 billion every year on the 
purchase of goods and services. As everyone knows, the Government's 
current procurement system is confusing and overly burdensome on 
businesses and the bureaucracy alike. The current system also 
needlessly encourages agency reliance on Government-unique, rather than 
off-the-shelf, products. As a result, billions of dollars a year are 
wasted on more costly goods. The bill before us fixes these defects in 
the current system.
  The measure is the result of two comprehensive reviews of the Federal 
procurement system, including Vice President Gore's National 
Performance Review effort. The Vice President and others in the 
administration should take justifiable pride in doing so much to 
advance this major reform initiative, which really will ``make 
Government work better and cost less''.
  While the legislation reforms virtually every facet of the existing 
procurements system, several reforms are especially important:
  The legislation promotes uniform treatment of agency procurements 
throughout the Government. This will go a long way toward simplifying 
the Government procurement process. In particular, I am pleased the 
bill maintains the language we included on ``unallowable'' costs. We 
know from hearings held by my own oversight subcommittee and others 
that certain types of costs--including ``employee morale'' expenses 
such as Rolex watches, liquor and entertainment costs, and spouse 
travel, as well as expenses for lobbying, advertising, and golden 
parachute payments and similar expenses--are now commonly paid to 
contractors by civilian Government agencies. Department of Defense 
procurement regulations already prohibit payment for such outrageous 
expenses, and the legislation before us would, for the first time, 
generally extend that prohibition to all civilian agencies as well.
  The legislation establishes a clear preference for the use of 
commercial items, rather than Government-unique products. These 
provisions will make it much easier for companies offering off-the-
shelf products to aggressively compete for Government contracts. We 
have all read the horror stories about the current procurement system, 
which entails thousands and thousands of pages of silly Government 
specifications for products that can easily be purchased in the 
marketplace. The current practice doesn't benefit the Government or 
businesses and it needs to be overhauled. This legislation will do that 
by making it clear that wherever possible commercially available 
products should be the norm, not the exception. The bill will further 
reduce impediments to direct purchase of commercial items by exempting 
such purchases from numerous statutory requirements that are unique to 
the Government.
  In the procurement area, one of the biggest burdens now on companies 
wanting to do business with the Government is the amount of financial 
information--so-called specialized cost and pricing data--that is 
required of them under the Truth in Negotiations Act. The bill before 
us would lift a great deal of this burden, by permanently increasing 
the threshold to $500,000, below which specific cost or pricing data 
will not be required. Moreover, it addresses the complaints of 
businesses in this area by creating exceptions for commercial items: in 
short, when a commercial item is purchased competitively and adequate 
market pricing information is therefore already available, no cost and 
pricing data will be required.
  Also very important to smaller businesses, the bill provides Federal 
contracting officers with various contract financing options including 
the option, where appropriate, to provide the company with an advance 
payment of up to 15 percent prior to contract performance on commercial 
item purchases.
  The legislation would raise the threshold for small purchases from 
the $25,000 currently in effect to $100,000. This step will vastly 
simplify and expedite about 45,000 Government procurements every year. 
Like the waiver for commercial items, this bill would also exempt 
purchases under this new threshold from certain statutory requirements 
unique to the Government, and a new ``micro'' purchase threshold of 
$2,500 would establish the simplest and most efficient procurement 
procedures of all.
  Businesses, and particularly smaller businesses, have long complained 
about the bid protest process and the lack of information they receive 
about why a bid is rejected. This lack of information virtually forces 
protests by disappointed offerers, just to get information. The bill 
addresses this problem, and in turn will reduce the number of costly 
bid protests, by injecting some mandatory ``sunshine'' into the 
procurement process. For example, it requires agencies to provide more 
detail about the factors which will be considered in awarding contracts 
and requires contractor debriefings whenever requested.
  Finally, the legislation recognizes that other, more innovative 
methods exist for procuring better goods and services for less. Thus, 
it authorizes several alternative procurement ``test programs in 
specific areas.
  Mr. Speaker, when so much attention is being focused on issues like 
health care reform and foreign policy, I'm sure that procurement reform 
legislation doesn't sound very exciting to a lot of people. But make no 
mistake: this effort was a major undertaking for the executive branch 
and Congress, and the resulting legislation now before us is a 
significant boon to taxpayers and businesses alike. I am especially 
glad we made so much progress in making the procurement system more 
efficient for the tens of thousands of smaller businesses around the 
Nation who can and will help supply the Government with high quality, 
competitively priced goods and services, if we will just make the 
procurement system more user-friendly.
  Certainly there will be some contractors or organizations out there 
who want to maintain their special contracting status or perks, and 
they will undoubtedly oppose some provisions of the bill. But I urge my 
colleagues to reject the criticisms of those with a vested interest in 
maintaining the status quo. Taxpayers and businesses alike deserve the 
benefits of this procurement system overhaul and I urge all my 
colleagues to support the conference report on S. 1587.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pete Geren of Texas). The question is on 
the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 425, 
nays 0, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 425]

                               YEAS--425

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Gallo
     Green
     Inhofe
     Michel
     Sundquist
     Synar
     Washington
     Wheat
     Wilson

                              {time}  1455

  Mr. BAKER of California and Mrs. SCHROEDER changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________