[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 146 (Saturday, October 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
      SIGNING INTO LAW OF THE FEDERAL ACQUISITION STREAMLINING ACT

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act is 
scheduled to be signed into law on Thursday, October 13. If the 
administration follows through on implementation, the impact on the 
Government acquisition system will be revolutionary. The cost savings 
alone to the taxpayers will be in the tens of billions of dollars.
  Mr. President, as I have stated many times in the past, today's 
Federal buying system is not in good shape. Multibillion-dollar cost 
overruns on acquisition programs that are years behind schedule now are 
standard practice. Technology that needs to be brought to the 
battlefield in a timely manner is, instead, mired in a burdensome, 
convoluted process that delivers technology when it is outdated. For 
example, it takes 16 years for a Defense Department program manager to 
follow the more than 840 steps needed to get a weapon system concept 
into production. Meanwhile, that same technology is delivered by 
industry four times faster and many times cheaper. While industry is 
shedding its fat, Government buying organizations remain huge 
bureaucracies with about 20 layers of management that studies show has 
little if any value. According to the General Accounting Office, this 
all results in a buying system that costs the taxpayer billions in 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  The GAO reported that program cost increases on the order of 20 to 40 
percent are common. Even common sense actions to save a few hundred 
bucks or get a better deal for the taxpayer are beyond the buying 
bureaucracy. Nothing exemplifies this inefficiency better than what 
recently happened to a Delaware box manufacturer named Allied Container 
Corp., Delaware. On July 11, Allied Container delivered 6,000 boxes to 
a prime manufacturer to fulfill an urgent Government need for spare 
parts. That same day, those 6,000 boxes worth $1,800 were returned to 
Allied Container simply because a government inspector determined that 
the boxes did not meet the specification. The Government said they 
would take the boxes if the prime contractor could wait 6 weeks and 
spend $500 to get a waiver approved. Ironically, Allied Container gave 
the Government a slightly better quality box at the lower grade price 
because it has that material on hand and the requirement was urgent. By 
using what they had in stock, they saved the cost of buying and storing 
material, and they were willing to pass that to the Government. But, in 
the end, it simply didn't matter and the box manufacturer was forced to 
produce another 6,000 of inferior quality boxes to satisfy the 
Government buyers. This all occurred after Secretary Perry directed the 
Buying System to stop doing such stupid things.
  Mr. President, the bill that the Congress has sent to the President 
offers needed revamping of the Federal buying system. It will work only 
if the administration follows through on its implementation. The bill 
requires that the government's needs be met by using available 
commercial technology rather than creating that technology to meet a 
unique need. The situation that I spoke of earlier involving the box 
manufacturer should not be repeated. The Government should be able to 
do something that's obviously in its interest without increasing its 
cost 30 percent and the schedule 600 percent. When you consider that 
the buying system makes millions of transactions annually, the savings 
to the American taxpayer easily will go into the billions of dollars.
  The bill also should resolve many of the chronic acquisition 
management problems plaguing the buying system today, if the 
administration follows thorough on its implementation. It makes both 
the acquisition work force and Government contractors accountable for 
their work. It establishes top-level measures of how well agencies are 
managing their acquisition programs and requires that they terminate 
poorly performing programs. It requires that the Defense Department 
reduce by 50 percent the time it takes to field new weapons. 
Procurement horror stories should no longer capriciously take their 
toll on the American taxpayer. The bill requires all Federal agencies 
to publicly identify bad programs and put to kill those that are no 
longer worthwhile.
  With so much at stake, I call upon the President of the United States 
to sign into law the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act as planned 
next Thursday. I have worked for more than a decade to fix the problems 
in the Federal buying system, and have worked long and hard with my 
colleagues over the past 2 years to produce this legislation. Even so, 
the job is only half done, and now it's up to the administration to 
finish it.
  Mr. President, the buying organizations also must be streamlined as 
the acquisition process is streamlined. Past attempts to streamline 
have been fought by the bureaucracy. For example, when the Goldwater-
Nichols bill enacted the Packard Commission proposal to streamline the 
buying bureaucracy to three layers and a handful of commands, the 
Defense Department added a second multi-layer bureaucracy to the old 
structure. As a result, the American taxpayer is now paying for two 
bureaucracies in each of the three military departments.
  Mr. President, make no mistake about it. Bureaucracies are inherently 
unable to reform themselves. I intend to watch closely how the 
administration implements this law, particularly when it comes time to 
remove many of the 20 layers of the buying bureaucracy. If necessary, I 
will push for hearings and pursue additional reforms.

                          ____________________