[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 130 (Saturday, August 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11574-S11575]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT OF 1995

 Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the amendment just introduced by 
Senator Cohen, myself and others will make a big step toward reforming 
the way the Government buys and uses information technology. The 
Federal Government will spend $27 billion this year on information 
technology, and the GAO has reported to me that much of it will be 
wasted unless significant reforms are made. I want to congratulate 
Senator Cohen for his leadership in investigating the problems in the 
Government's acquisition of information technology. I also want to 
recognize Senator Cohen for the clarity of his vision and for his 
cooperation in working with me to develop this important amendment.
  Mr. President, there is no disagreement about the compelling need for 
reform in this area. The heart of this issue is that the Federal 
Government is not using computers to fix its outdated management 
practices. In January, the GAO reported to me that Federal managers do 
not have the essential information needed to do their jobs, despite 
spending more than $200 billion over the last 12 years on computers. 
The problem is that far too often, agencies buy computers just to have 
one on each person's desk. The agencies buy computers like a junk food 
junkie buys bacon double cheese burgers and candy bars. There's lots of 
fat and sugar, but little healthy substance.
  There is a more subtle issue here that needs to be highlighted. 
Modern organizations and management processes are required before 
computers can yield meaningful cost savings and capability 
improvements. If Government does not make the necessary structural and 
process changes, then the $27 billion in spending on computers will be 
for naught. All we will have achieved is inserting 1990's technology 
into a 1950's organization. We will have several hundred billion 
dollars of new computers but no corresponding increase in capability.
  Mr. President, instead of helping to solve problems, the Government 
process for buying and managing computer technology has become the 
problem. Its reliance on a tangle of redtape and bureaucracy strangles 
every effort to streamline and modernize Government operations. We must 
shift the bureaucracy from reliance on overburdened procedures and 
reports that no one reads; we must focus on results.
  Numerous reports have documented this fact. GAO, the General Services 
Administration, the Office of Management and Budget and others have all 
found that these computer buys are poorly planned, take far too long, 
cost too much money and all too often produce systems that simply don't 
work. Once delivered, these systems are managed using practices equally 
ineffective.
  Mr. President, GAO reported to me last January that developments in 
re-engineering and modern technology offer huge opportunities to reduce 
costs and improve services. Yet, the Federal sector has largely failed 
to seize upon the moment. For example, GAO has found that a veteran has 
to wait an average of 151 days, nearly 4 months, to get paid by the 
Veteran's Administration for an original compensation claim. After 
committing nearly
 $700 million for computers and equipment to fix this problem, the 
waiting time actually increased! It seems the agency failed to set 
performance goals for its new equipment and did not consider whether or 
not its claims process could be improved before being automated. By 
October 1994, claims processing time had gone up to 228 days. This is 
unbelievable and unconscionable!

  In a separate report provided to me just this past Monday, GAO 
advises that eleven federal agencies have problems with information 
management or systems development that are serious enough to be listed 
as high risk programs. GAO explained that ``[t]he major reason for 
these problems has 

[[Page S11575]]
been the lack of a sound process for selecting which IT initiatives to 
fund and for overseeing their development.'' It is precisely because of 
the great significance of this issue that I joined in developing this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, this amendment strikes at the heart of these problems 
by repealing the so-called Brooks Act which has controlled the way 
government buys and manages information technology for the last 30 
years. The Brooks Act never worked as it was intended. Its reliance 
upon the submission of reams of paperwork through layers of bureaucracy 
has not worked in the past. And, its tight bureaucratic controls are 
clearly not relevant to today, with information technology advancing 
exponentially in a highly competitive market.
  Our amendment re-engineers this process, replacing red tape with a 
reliance on thorough, up-front investment planning and hands-on 
management practices which focus on bottom line results. The new 
process is modeled on the best practices used by America's most 
successful businesses. That model requires Government managers to focus 
like a laser on anticipating difficulties and then fixing them before 
they become problems. The amendment enables government agencies to 
accomplish these goals without additional paperwork or bureaucracy. 
Yet, this new process preserves the advantages and safeguards embodied 
in the Competition in Contracting Act.
  Nevertheless, Mr. President, I have four major concerns that must be 
more fully addressed than the current amendment will permit. First, the 
amendment may be interpreted as consolidating bid protests affecting 
information technology along with those from all other procurement. I 
am not satisfied that the case for such dramatic change has been made. 
There is much debate about this kind of consolidation and several 
alternative approaches have been proposed. I intend to fully consider 
each of these and will keep an open mind during the next 2 months, as I 
work on a comprehensive procurement reform bill.
  Second, the current amendment does not address the excessive layers 
of bureaucracy in the Federal buying system which hang like a dead 
weight around the necks of Government program managers. This is a 
government-wide problem not unique to information technology and not 
addressed by this amendment.
  Third, I believe that we must do a better job of educating and 
training the entire acquisition workforce--not just those involved in 
information technology. I do not agree with those in the administration 
who believe that we can fix acquisition horror stories with an 
interagency review team. It is no replacement for well trained program 
managers, who have the skills and experience to prevent horror stories 
from occurring in the first place.
  Lastly, I am convinced that we must move boldly to dismantle the 
existing network of perverse personnel incentives which strangle the 
entrepreneurial spirit of Government program managers. We must move to 
paying people for good performance, rather than for growing the size of 
their program.
  Mr. President, while the current amendment highlights important 
issues of good management in Government, we know that most of these 
problems are not unique to information technology. They beg a broader 
solution. Happily, last year's acquisition reform bill established the 
framework for solving these matters. This framework simply needs to be 
strengthened. To achieve that purpose, Mr. President, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, in cooperation with the Armed Services and Small 
Business Committees, has reassembled the bi-partisan staff-level 
working group which produced last year's round of substantive 
acquisition reform. Our group has been charged with reviewing the 
entire spectrum of Government acquisition. We are assessing all 
acquisition reform legislation currently pending and have received 
input from many other sources. The end result of our efforts will be a 
broadly-gauged new bill which calls for major Governmentwide 
acquisition reform. We plan to move that bill forward in the fall with 
the intent of enacting a Governmentwide comprehensive acquisition 
reform bill in the next several months.


                          ____________________