[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 142 (Wednesday, September 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8852-H8887]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 FEDERAL ACQUISITION REFORM ACT OF 1995

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 219

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1670) to revise and steamline the acquisition 
     laws of the Federal Government, to reorganize the mechanisms 
     for resolving Federal procurement disputes, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with section 302(f) or 308(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered by title 
     rather than by section. The first two sections and each title 
     shall be considered as read. Points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure 
     to comply with clause 5(a) of rule XXI or section 302(f) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a 
     time during further consideration in the Committee of the 
     Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment. The 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
     than five minutes the time for voting by electronic device on 
     any postponed question that immediately follows another vote 
     by electronic device without intervening business: Provided, 
     That the time for voting by electronic device on the first in 
     any series of questions shall be not less than fifteen 
     minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 


[[Page H 8853]]
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instruction.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. McInnis] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 219 is a noncontroversial resolution. 
The proposed rule is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general 
debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. After general 
debate, the bill shall be considered as read for amendment under the 5 
minutes rule.
  The resolution provides that the bill be considered by title rather 
than by section, and it provides that the first two sections and each 
title shall be considered as read. The rule waives points of order 
against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with section 
302(f) and 308(a). Additionally, points of order against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for the failure to comply with 
clause 5(a) of rule 21 or section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974 are waived. The chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform and Oversight, Mr. Clinger, was kind enough to provide the 
Committee on Rules with a explanation of the waivers that has been 
included in the Rules Committee report. The resolution allows the Chair 
to accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record, and the Chair may postpone 
votes in the Committee of the Whole and reduce votes to 5 minutes, if 
those votes follow a 15-minute vote. Furthermore, at the conclusion of 
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and 
report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, Chairman Clinger, requested an open rule for this 
legislation. This open rule was reported out of the Committee on Rules 
by voice vote, without any opposition. Under the proposed rule, each 
Member has an opportunity to have their concerns addressed, debated, 
and ultimately voted up or down by this body.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Federal Acquisition 
Reform Act of 1995 is critical legislation. Each year the Federal 
Government spends about $200 billion on goods and services, ranging 
from weapons systems to cleaning supplies. The current system costs too 
much and is blanketed with redtape. The Secretary of Defense has found 
that, on average, the Government pays an additional 18 percent on what 
it buys solely because of requirements it imposes on its contractors. 
Additionally, the Government's own administrative costs are 
astronomical. The Government's contracting officials are often mandated 
to follow step-by-step prescriptions that increase staff and equipment 
needs. In today's tight budgetary climate we need to get the most for 
each dollar we spend. I believe this legislation is a step in the right 
direction. I urge my colleagues to support the rule as well as the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I sumbit for the Record the following material from the 
Committee on Rules.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                           [As of September 13, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\..............                 46                 44                 45                 74
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 14                 23
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  2                  3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 61                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             


                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                           [As of September 13, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/2/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote (4/6/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               


                                                                                                                

[[Page H 8854]]
                    SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS--Continued                    
                                           [As of September 13, 1995]                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  A: 414-4 (5/10/95) 
H. Res. 144 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ: 223-180 A: 245-
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      PQ: 221-178 A: 217-
 95).                                                              1996.                      175 (6/22/95)     
H. Res. 171 (6/22/    O...................  H.R. 1905...........  Energy & Water Approps.    A: voice vote (7/12/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 173 (6/27/    C...................  H.J. Res. 79........  Flag Constitutional        PQ: 258-170 A: 271-
 95).                                                              Amendment.                 152 (6/28/95)     
H. Res. 176 (6/28/    MC..................  H.R. 1944...........  Emer. Supp. Approps......  PQ: 236-194 A: 234-
 95).                                                                                         192 (6/29/95)     
H. Res. 185 (7/11/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 235-193 D: 192-
 95).                                                                                         238 (7/12/95)     
H. Res. 187 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1977...........  Interior Approps. FY 1996  PQ: 230-194 A: 229-
 95).                                                              #2.                        195 (7/13/95)     
H. Res. 188 (7/12/    O...................  H.R. 1976...........  Agriculture Approps. FY    PQ: 242-185 A:     
 95).                                                              1996.                      voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 190 (7/17/    O...................  H.R. 2020...........  Treasury/Postal Approps.   PQ: 232-192 A:     
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   voice vote (7/18/ 
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 193 (7/19/    C...................  H.J. Res. 96........  Disapproval of MFN to      A: voice vote (7/20/
 95).                                                              China.                     95)               
H. Res. 194 (7/19/    O...................  H.R. 2002...........  Transportation Approps.    PQ: 217-202 (7/21/ 
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 197 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 70.............  Exports of Alaskan Crude   A: voice vote (7/24/
 95).                                                              Oil.                       95)               
H. Res. 198 (7/21/    O...................  H.R. 2076...........  Commerce, State Approps.   A: voice vote (7/25/
 95).                                                              FY 1996.                   95)               
H. Res. 201 (7/25/    O...................  H.R. 2099...........  VA/HUD Approps. FY 1996..  A: 230-189 (7/25/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 204 (7/28/    MC..................  S. 21...............  Terminating U.S. Arms      A: voice vote (8/1/
 95).                                                              Embargo on Bosnia.         95)               
H. Res. 205 (7/28/    O...................  H.R. 2126...........  Defense Approps. FY 1996.  A: 409-1 (7/31/95) 
 95).                                                                                                           
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1555...........  Communications Act of      A: 255-156 (8/2/95)
                                                                   1995.                                        
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 2127...........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY     A: 323-104 (8/2/95)
                                                                   1996.                                        
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)  O...................  H.R. 1594...........  Economically Targeted      A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Investments.               95)               
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1655...........  Intelligence               A: voice vote (9/12/
                                                                   Authorization FY 1996.     95)               
H. Res. 218 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1162...........  Deficit Reduction Lockbox  A: voice vote (9/13/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 219 (9/12/    O...................  H.R. 1670...........  Federal Acquisition        ...................
 95).                                                              Reform Act.                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated; 
  PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.               


  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we support this rule, and the bill it makes in order, 
the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995. As the gentleman has said, 
this is an open rule, so Members may offer any amendment that is 
otherwise in order under the standing Rules of the House. The rule 
permits the chair to accord priority in recognition to Members whose 
amendments have been printed in the Congressional Record.
  This rule also provides for several waivers of sections 302(f) and 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. Although we are normally 
reluctant to waive the Budget Act--and particularly section 302(f), 
which prohibits spending in excess of a committee's allocation, and is 
one of the most important safeguards we have to control spending--we 
understand and accept the necessity of waiving the Budget Act in the 
cases provided for by this rule.
  The rule also waives clause 5(a) of rule XXI, which prohibits 
appropriations in an authorization bill. Just as we do not normally 
approve of waiving the Budget Act, we are also reluctant to waive this 
important rule. However, here, also, we accept the need for the 
waivers.
  All of these waivers are necessary because the bill consolidates a 
number of Federal contract boards of appeals into one civilian board, 
and one defense board. Because they authorize pay for board members, 
they provide for a relatively modest amount of spending--thus, they 
require Budget Act and rule XXI waivers. However, the consolidation 
will result in a net savings to the Government.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1670 builds upon the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act that Congress approved last year, further 
incorporating many of the reforms proposed by Vice President Gore's 
National Performance Review. This legislation would encourage the 
substitution of commercial items for goods developed according to 
unique government specifications, relax reporting requirements for 
Federal contractors, centralize the bid protest system, and develop 
better trained procurement personnel. Although the Congressional Budget 
Office was unable to estimate the amount of savings that this 
legislation would produce, CBO believes that many of the bill's 
provisions are likely to reduce costs to the taxpayers.
  This is a bill that enjoys broad, bipartisan support in the House. 
However, significant controversy has emerged over the issue of whether 
every potential seller will have the opportunity to compete for a 
government contract, particularly small businesses. That issue is 
likely to be resolved through consideration of an amendment to be 
offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and the 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  Mr. Speaker, to repeat: This is an open rule, which we support. We 
urge adoption of the resolution so that we can proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 1670.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the chairman of the 
committee, and I appreciate his involvement.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the rule 
and, obviously, in support of the bill, which as has been indicated, 
has very broad bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill represents, I think, a dramatic improvement in 
the way we go about buying our goods and services at the Federal level. 
The best that we could do, Mr. Speaker, in terms of lowering the 
deficit, cutting Federal spending, would be to pass this dramatic 
improvement in the way we buy goods and services.
  It is estimated that we spend 20 percent more for everything we buy 
at the Federal level, because of the arcane and convoluted and 
unnecessarily prolix regulations that we have that surround the 
procurement process.
  It is an antiquated process, Mr. Speaker, that results in such 
outrageous situations where we have an FAA which is charged with 
protecting the safety of the flying public, so hamstrung by the 
requirements that they are obliged to deal with to buy new, updated, 
state-of-the-art technology to ensure the protection of the flying 
public, it is so outdated that we are at least a generation of 
technology behind and probably two
 or three generations behind.

  Mr. Speaker, we still operate the entire air traffic control system 
using vaccum tubes, which we cannot even make in this country and have 
to purchase abroad. That says there is something seriously wrong with 
the way we go about buying goods and services.
  We made significant progress last year on a very bipartisan basis to 
reform those procedures. This is the next step. This is an addition to, 
not in lieu of. It really does build with respect to what we 
accomplished in the last Congress.
  It is also a bipartisan effort and I think it will have, when we get 
to the final analysis, a very broad bipartisan support, because I think 
we all recognize that this is one area where there should not be 
partisan differences in terms of how we go about buying things and how 
we go about trying to do it in the most efficient way.
  Mr. Speaker, there will be amendments offered and that is why I think 
we need to have an open rule. These amendments deserve a full and open 

[[Page H 8855]]
debate, just as we continue to provide for full and open competition.
  I want to express the fact that we think that since this matter was 
considered some months ago in connection with the Defense Department 
authorization bill, that we have gone a long distance in meeting the 
concerns of those who felt that this was somehow going to be harmful to 
or work against the interests of small business. We have really made a 
number of significant changes in trying to reach accommodation with the 
concerns that were legitimately expressed.

                              {time}  1630

  I think we have addressed many of those concerns. There are still 
some concerns out there. There may be amendments that would be offered 
in this regard, and I would urge resistance to those amendments, Mr. 
Speaker, not because they are certainly not well-intended. They are. 
But I think that they are unnecessarily concerned about what this is 
going to do to the small-business interests.
  I think that this will, in effect, really improve the opportunities 
for small business and, frankly, the community is divided. Some are for 
this bill. Some are opposed to it. But I think, as the debate develops, 
we will be able to persuade them, in fact, this bill is going to be 
very small-business-friendly. In fact, it is going to be much 
friendlier to business of all persuasions across the board.
  Right now, every businessman who wants to sell to the Federal 
Government has to go through an incredible maze, if you will, and jump 
over hurdle after hurdle to even become a player in the system. We are 
trying to eliminate all of that. At the same time, we are
 trying to make the Government a little more like a business in the way 
we buy things, and to do that we have to provide a measure, a modicum, 
not unlimited, but some measure of flexibility and some measure of 
discretion to the people who are out there on the lines doing the 
purchasing, doing the buying.

  What we have tried to do in this bill is strike a balance between the 
needs for full and open competition. Nobody is going to be shut out of 
the door, but also to give the Government the opportunity to define 
what do we need to ensure that we have full and open competition, 
enough competition in this particular procurement.
  We have procurements that go everywhere from No. 2 pencils to jet 
engines to massive, huge defense contracts. Those procurements differ 
from one to the other, and I think there needs to be a measure of 
flexibility provided to the procurement people who have universally 
come to us and said, ``Let us do our job. Do not wrap us up like Atlas 
in all kinds of red tape and all kinds of requirements that prevent us 
from doing our job. Let us do our job. Trust our judgment to some 
extent to say we can be reasonable, we can be responsible in how we 
deal with this.'' I think we achieve enormous savings if we give that 
modicum, measure, of flexibility to our procurement regime.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule. I urge support of the bill. 
Hopefully, we can avoid having any amendments that I think will 
seriously undermine the ability we are trying to achieve to give that 
kind of a flexibility or achieve those kinds of savings.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the distinguished ranking member of the full 
committee.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in 
support of the rule on which the chairman and I have worked 
cooperatively on procurement legislation. I have some mixed feelings 
about bringing this bill to the floor at this time.
  As you all know, the House considered a bill virtually identical to 
H.R. 1670 on June 14, as an amendment to the National Defense 
Authorization Act. That amendment passed on a bipartisan basis with 
vote of 420 to 1.
  The fundamental difference between the House-passed procurement 
amendment and H.R. 1670 is that H.R. 1670 does not include my amendment 
which passed the House to preserve the current full and open 
competition standard. The failure to include my amendment as a part of 
this bill is to ignore the will of the House, and to ignore the stated 
concerns of the small business community.
  Small business organizations, which supported my amendment in June, 
continue to believe that H.R. 1670 will significantly limit the ability 
of small businesses to fairly compete for Government contracts. An open 
rule will allow the best opportunity for the House to once again 
correct this major defect with H.R. 1670.
  I intend to offer the same amendment to H.R. 1670, which I offered to 
the DOD authorization bill and which passed the House. That amendment 
will protect small businesses by retaining the current procurement 
standard of full and open competition.
  Since the House adopted my amendment to retain full and open 
competition as part of the Defense authorization bill, Chairman Clinger 
has made an effort to move H.R. 1670 closer to the House position. The 
version of H.R. 1670 which passed the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee, does at least state full and open competition as a Federal 
policy. However, in subsequent provisions, the bill creates large 
loopholes through which bureaucrats can limit the ability of small 
businesses to compete for Government contracts. This is the basis for 
the opposition to title I by the Chamber of Commerce and the small 
business community.
  I am pleased that I have been able to work with Chairman Clinger on 
all of the other parts of this bill, and have no amendments to those 
titles. The bill makes about eight fundamental changes in procurement 
procedures that Chairman Clinger has described to you, and I support 
them.
  When we considered this bill in committee, we were in the midst of 
the Waco hearings, and had little time to work out this one difference. 
While I respect Chairman Clinger for pledging to ensure my right to 
offer the full and open competition amendment to the bill, I believe it 
is unfortunate that the House will be required to essentially revote on 
my amendment, which the House endorsed.
  Nonetheless, I am prepared to return to the House floor to once again 
keep the procurement process open to all businesses, small and large. 
Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economic system, and they 
deserve a level procurement playing field.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I commend the chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], for coming to the 
Committee on Rules and asking for an open rule.
  Second of all, I do not think we can overstate the importance of this 
legislation. This Federal Government spends $600 million, over $600 
million a day in acquisitions, $600 million a day. We have got to have 
a system that minimizes the waste and maximizes the efficiency of the 
system to acquire or to make those type of acquisitions. So I think 
that it is extremely important that we continue to support this kind of 
legislation, and I look forward to some of the amendments that we are 
going to debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\2/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to first of all compliment the chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], and the chairman, the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence], for putting this bill together, putting a broad 
coalition of groups interested in expediting the procurement process, 
making it better for American taxpayers and bringing this through 
committee and now bringing this to the floor.
  I want to address just a couple of issues that will be coming up in 
this bill that it does that, I think, helps the American people and is 
going to help that current process, which right now is a very lengthy 
process. It is a process that, as the chairman noted in his previous 
remarks, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, adds almost 20 percent to the 
costs of goods that American taxpayers pay for that are obtained 
through the procurement process.
  First of all, let me talk to you about the procurement integrity 
certifications part of the current law that are stricken here. In lieu, 
we have planted some tougher penalties, but instead of the lengthier 
certification contractors have to go through today, there will be 

[[Page H 8856]]
stricter and more succinct penalties in this current bill.
  Today, if a contractor, when they submit a bid to the Government for 
a Government procurement, has to sign a certification saying that they 
have no insider knowledge about this procurement, that nobody in the 
organization has obtained this. Now, how does this work? This means 
that the organization, the company, the bidder has got to go through 
every person in that organization who has worked on that particular 
procurement and have them sign an individual certification saying they 
have no insider information, and obtain that. After looking at all of 
those, it is only then that the officer for that corporation can sign 
that procurement integrity certification to the Federal Government. In 
turn, the Federal Government contracting officers have to sign 
certifications based on these other certifications and on their own 
notes and experiences in that procurement.
  The end result is that many times hours are wasted. Reams of 
paperwork are wasted. To my knowledge, not one person has been 
prosecuted under these procurement integrity certifications put in as
 an over-reaction, if you will, to the Ill Wind scandals of the 1980's. 
So this does away with that but keeps even stricter penalties in place 
so that prosecutors and the Federal Government will be able to police 
these but at the same time not add layers and layers of costs on 
contractors.

  The recoupment provision that currently exists under foreign military 
sales contracts will be eliminated. What does this mean? This means the 
surcharge now put on American companies selling abroad under FMS 
contracts will be stricken. We will be more competitive in the 
international arena as we compete with companies from other countries 
who are going after foreign procurements under FMS contracts. This will 
bring us, if you will, into the 21st century and make us more 
competitive as we move toward the borderless economy and into 
international trade.
  Finally, the consolidation of bid protest appeals, I think, is going 
to help expedite the process for everybody. Right now, there is a lot 
of gaming that goes on in terms of if a contractor loses a bid and they 
are the incumbent contractor and they lose their recompete, many times 
they can file a bid protest, tie that protest up and keep on performing 
that work, often at a higher price than somebody who has beaten them in 
fair competition, simply because of the entanglements and the 
opportunities they have to game the process through agency protests, 
GAO process, board of contract appeals, whatever. This expedites that 
flow procedure. It allows postbid discovery and, I think, will help the 
process and speed it up.
  Finally, if I can briefly address the Collins-Meyers amendment that 
may be offered to this, I think one of the major problems we have in 
the process today in procurement is the fact that many very dedicated 
public servants who are dedicated to save the public money, dedicated 
to getting the best costs they can for the Government, and they are 
working very hard, but in many cases they are performing tasks that do 
not need to be performed. They are operating under regulations that 
never should have been written, rules that never should have been 
written. They are filling out forms that should never have been 
printed. This is make-work, and it is a waste in many cases.
  What this legislation does is it takes 7 pages of the United States 
Code, of a basically cook book, and allows the buyers, the Government 
procurement officer in charge at that point, to move through and, of 
course, full and open competition standard remains of the amendment 
that the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] put through during 
the authorization schedule. We now get rid of those seven pages of 
authorization and will allow that buyer the appropriate discretion they 
have so they can expedite that procedure.
  I urge support of this bill and rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 9 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], the vice chairman of the 
committee, my good friend.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, within the first 9 seconds I want to thank 
the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first, I hope the House realizes how much 
H.R. 1670 is needed. The fact of the matter is that procurement is just 
one of many areas where our Government is operating years, if not, in 
fact, decades behind where private enterprise is now functioning.
  The provisions contained in H.R. 1670 are needed to bring the 
Government's processes more current so that the Government can better 
serve itself, that is the taxpayers who are funding it, and better 
serve those businesses who wish to do business with the Government.
  Specifically with respect to small business, we believe that if H.R. 
1670 becomes law, that procurement will become easier so that more 
small businesses will be enticed to offer to do business with the 
Government, when many small businesses might not do so today because of 
the cumbersome nature of the whole procurement process.
  But I want to take an additional moment to address specifically the 
concerns raised by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] who, of 
course, is the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], who is the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. There are, in fact, no two Members in Congress who are more 
vigilant in looking at small-business interests than these two Members. 
When they express concerns, it is of concern to me.
  The concern, I believe, though, is misapplied. I hope we can work 
something out between now and the time this bill might become law.

                              {time}  1645

  But the concern is that there is no longer going to be free and fair, 
equal, competition. The fact of the matter is there will continue to be 
free and fair competition for small business, for all business, under 
H.R. 1670. The fact is that all businesses could submit bids just like 
they do now.
  Here is the difference. Earlier in the procurement process Government 
procurement officials can make a decision that certain bids, for 
whatever reason, maybe a lack of ability to perform in a certain area 
that is desired by the Government in this particular contract, whatever 
it might be, that the offerer, the business, is not qualified to 
proceed further in this bid process.
  Now, first of all the suspicion is that there might be some 
malfeasance on the part of Government officials that will discriminate 
against small business. Malfeasance is an issue for oversight, and, if 
H.R. 1670 becomes law as it is, then I think the Committee on Small 
Business and the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight should 
pay very close attention to its implementation. But the fact is that 
denial at the beginning of the process of a bid is still appealable. 
The Government official must state why a particular bid is not to 
proceed further in the process, and the business that does not agree 
with that can appeal that and still have a remedy.
  The point is that by allowing Government officials the discretion 
that private business has to start filtering through offers at the 
beginning of the process we can save a great deal of time and money not 
only for the Government in terms of its procurement process of having 
to review the same bids over and over again, if they qualify, but to 
the businesses, too.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 50 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. I will make sure we do that accurately, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform 
Act of 1995, and it is, to my colleagues I would say, very interesting. 
It is not every bill that we have that the Americans for Tax Reform and 
the National Taxpayers Union have both come together to support this 
legislation. The Government spends over $200 billion each year in goods 
and services and pays a 20-percent premium. If H.R. 1670 removes even 
one-half of the red tape and paperwork, then we can easily save $20 
billion a year.
  The National Taxpayers Union has been very clear on its support of 
this 

[[Page H 8857]]
legislation. H.R. 1670; according to them they said this legislation 
will reform the Federal procurement system, which is a critical 
component of fiscal discipline. As my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, the 
system currently is riddled with bureaucratic red tape and outdated 
procedures, and this antiquated system is in desperate need of 
fundamental reform. Each year the Government spends over $2 billion. 
Taxpayers have long been saddled with the excess costs of maintaining 
this expensive program, and by some estimates today the system forces 
taxpayers to pay over a 20-percent premium on all Federal purchases.
  Enabling the procurement process, Mr. Speaker, to open up to both 
large and small businesses will save taxpayers billions of dollars not 
only this year, but in the future. Reaching the goal of a balanced 
budget by the year 2002 will require implementation of more efficient 
and more cost-effective programs in every area of Government.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we are leading by example with this bill because it 
will bring a more rational approach to the management of these 
programs. The Federal Acquisition Reform Act will prove to be the key 
to a new era of Federal acquisition policy that benefits taxpayers and 
simplifies the rules for contractors.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support 1670 and to remind them 
the Americans for Tax Reform and the National Taxpayers Union have 
endorsed this legislation.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the legislation. It is time to move 
on to the legislation in regards to that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McINNIS. 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 414, 
nays 0, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 659]

                               YEAS--414

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Becerra
     Chenoweth
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Doolittle
     Ensign
     Frost
     Gibbons
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Reynolds
     Schaefer
     Sisisky
     Torkildsen
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Wilson

                              {time}  1708

  Mr. NADLER and Mr. HILLIARD changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
219 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 1670.

                              {time}  1711


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1670) to revise and streamline the acquisition laws of the Federal 
Government, to reorganize the mechanisms for resolving Federal 
procurement disputes, and for other purposes, with Mr. Weller in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995, 
is an important piece of legislation, which the gentleman from South 
Carolina 

[[Page H 8858]]
[Mr. Spence], chairman of the Committee on National Security, and I 
introduced along with several other members of our committees.
  The bill which we bring before you today represents the efforts of 
many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined us in 
rejecting the status quo and who are prepared to lead the way toward 
reforming a system which for years has become increasingly more arcane, 
more convoluted, more difficult to deal with, and therefore, more 
costly, both to business, who wants to be a participant in bidding for 
projects with the Federal Government, and certainly for the Government.
  Members have heard it mentioned here today that the cost to the 
Federal Government is about a 20 percent premium that we pay for all 
goods and all services that we purchase. So we are trying to seek 
fiscal discipline, and this is the surest and best way we can go about 
reducing Federal spending and moving us toward a balanced budget.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill sends a message to our employer, the American 
taxpayer, who frankly has been paying an extraordinary premium for the 
services that he has been receiving from the Federal Government. The 
message is that we are serious about changing the way the Government 
operates. We have to ensure that this country's resources are allocated 
properly, and this bill provides the answer.
  The bill has been very thoughtfully crafted. It does a number of 
things, Mr. Chairman. First of all, it makes us more like a business. I 
mean, why should the Federal Government be involved in processes that 
add cost to the taxpayer? Why can we not seek goods and services and 
seek competition the way businesses do?
                              {time}  1715

  Second, it dramatically reduces the amount of paperwork and the 
incredible amount of regulatory overkill which we have imposed upon all 
of our businesses.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, what we have seen is fewer and fewer people 
are willing to participate in the process, are willing to really get 
into the competition, because the process is so complex and so costly 
to them that they do not want to do it. We are trying to make that a 
simpler process. We are trying to say Government should be more like 
business. We should not have $500 hammers. We should be able to come 
into the 20th century because of our technology, which we are not able 
to do because of the restrictions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge support for the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, with the exception of the limitation on open 
competition, a change that will hurt small business, I support H.R. 
1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995. Chairman Clinger and 
I have worked cooperatively on this bill and he is to be commended for 
his leadership in attempting to modernize and streamline the Federal 
acquisition process. I also appreciate his ongoing efforts to reach a 
consensus with Democratic members of the Government Reform and 
Oversight Committee on procurement reform legislation, including his 
incorporation into H.R. 1670 most of my suggestions as well as those 
offered by the ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on 
Government Information and Technology, Representative Maloney.
  In brief, the bill represents meaningful reform and enhancement of 
Federal procurement policy. It allows for the increasing 
decentralization of procurement authority, and elicits greater 
costeffectiveness for the Federal Government and the taxpayer.
  Let me begin by describing some of the positive features of this 
bill. First, H.R. 1670 includes my provision that improves Government 
procurement management practices by requiring Federal agencies to make 
more effective use of the cost-management tools and procedures known 
generally as value engineering. Value engineering is a longstanding and 
widely accepted technique in both the public and private sectors that, 
despite its proven capabilities, remains severely underutilized in the 
Federal acquisition process.
  Numerous General Accounting Office and Inspectors General reports, 
independent studies, and even the Presidentially appointed Grace 
Commission, have demonstrated that the under utilization of value 
engineering by Federal agencies has resulted in billions of dollars in 
lost opportunities to reduce costs to the Federal Government.
 This provision will ensure greater use of value engineering 
procedures, and will thereby reduce capital and operation costs, and 
improve and maintain optimum quality of construction, administrative, 
program, acquisition and grant projects.

  Second, H.R. 1670 now incorporates my language retaining the 
``knowing'' standard for criminal violations of our procurement 
integrity laws, and increases the maximum criminal penalty from 5 to 15 
years. This provision will facilitate the Justice Department's ability 
to prosecute criminal and civil procurement fraud cases.
  Third, H.R. 1670 includes important provisions regarding 
accountability on sole-source contracting for commercial products. 
While I still believe that the complete elimination of the simplified 
acquisition threshold contained in this bill will raise problems, this 
provision will place limits on its use and will help to ensure that an 
adequate level of competition is maintained with the expanded use of 
commercial items.
  Finally, H.R. 1670 includes a provision authored by Representative 
Maloney, the Subcommittee ranking Democratic member, that improves the 
performance capability of the frontline contracting personnel. The bill 
requires civilian agency heads to adopt education, training and 
incentive features that raise the level of excellence and 
professionalism of the acquisition work force. It is this work force 
that will have to respond properly to the increasing decentralization 
of authority.
  The inclusion of those provisions in H.R. 1670 substantially improves 
this legislation, and again, I applaud Chairman Clinger for approaching 
this matter in the bipartisan spirit with which any acquisition reform 
effort should be undertaken. However, despite our efforts to reconcile 
our differences on title I of the bill, Chairman Clinger and I remain 
far apart on its revision of the ``full and open competition'' 
standard.
  Title I would change the meaning of the current ``full and open 
competition'' standard mandated in the Competition in Contracting Act 
of 1984 [CICA] by adding the words ``open access'' to its definition 
and by adding new exceptions to the standard. The substitution of clear 
statutory standards for this unknown hybrid is unnecessary, potentially 
harmful, and flies in the face of reform, modernization and 
streamlining goals that we all share.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree that Federal procurement procedures should be 
streamlined and made more cost-efficient for both the Government buyer 
and the vendor. It is no secret that many vendors are spending large 
sums of money bidding on Government contracts for which they have 
absolutely no chance to win, and that Government contracting officers 
are overburdened evaluating bids that are essentially noncompetitive. 
However, the hearing record on H.R. 1670 does not establish that the 
revision of the current ``full and open'' competition standard is 
necessary to resolve these problems.
  Title I, as it stands, represents a fundamental departure from 
longstanding Federal procurement philosophy and will undermine the 
basic principles of free enterprise. This is a serious defect in H.R. 
1670 that I intend to correct with an amendment.
  On June 14, when the House considered a nearly identical procurement 
reform measure on the DOD Authorization bill, the House supported my 
amendment to retain the full and open competition standard for 
procurement. That amendment was passed with bi-partisan support, and I 
particularly want to commend the chairwoman of the Small Business 
Committee, Jan Meyers, who worked so hard on behalf of the amendment.
  My amendment had the strong support of the small business community, 
as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The bill before us today, 
unfortunately, does not include my amendment, and instead would grant a 
broad new authority to procurement officials 

[[Page H 8859]]
on limit competition. Therefore, I will once again be offering an 
amendment to restore the full and open standard which the House 
endorsed in June.
  While I maintain reservations about other portions of the bill, I 
believe that H.R. 1670 can provide a substantially improved legislative 
structure for Government procurement if the current statutory 
interpretation of the full and open competition standard is preserved 
in title I.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Chrysler], a very active member of the committee.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, as a person with 25 years of private sector business 
experience and as an entrepreneur, I am pleased that the committee is 
taking up this bipartisan legislation, and I want to declare my strong 
support for H.R. 1670. It is unfortunate that some have portrayed this 
legislation as an anti-small business bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am small business. I have firsthand experience with 
the Federal procurement system, and I can tell you from my personal 
experience that this bill that we are offering is better. There is 
misinformation circulating on this bill that is simply incorrect, and 
it is the type of misinformation and rumors that can undermine valuable 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to emphasize that this bill will help 
all businesses, both small and large, to participate more fully in the 
Federal contracting process. H.R. 1670 will increase the use of 
commercial practices, cut redtape, streamline dispute resolutions, 
protect against sole source contracting, while at the same time 
maintaining the necessary safeguards for small business.
  H.R. 1670 removes the cost accounting standards from the commercial 
item purchases, which require an immense amount of information for 
reporting costs. The elimination of this government-unique requirement 
will save companies millions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone agrees the system is outdated. It is time that 
the Government start operating its procurement system as a business 
would. The time is now for reforming the system and moving it into the 
21st century. We should take this opportunity to make a difference and 
vote for H.R. 1670 without any weakening amendments.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], the chair of the Committee on 
Small Business.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins] and I both are offering an amendment which would restore 
full and open competition to bidding. Now, I know that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] says that there is full and open 
competition in this bill, but it is defined as open access, which is 
then further defined, which then says that the regulators will really 
define what is full and open competition, and we can get into that more 
a little later.
  But to say that this bill has full and open competition is simply not 
accurate. The gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] will be offering 
an amendment that just restores full and open competition, and I will 
be offering an amendment that restores full and open competition but, 
in addition to that, seeks to set forth some processes to answer some 
of the very real concerns that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] has.
  We want to give him some processes to screen out people early in the 
process that do not have a chance of winning the bid. After all, it is 
not to small business' benefit to put a lot of money into a bid they 
cannot win, and that is not to the benefit of the Government either, 
because it costs us time and money. So what we are trying to do is 
preserve real opportunity in the procurement process.
  Right now small business is a player in Federal procurement. Ninety 
percent of the firms providing supplies, services and construction for 
the Government are small businesses. But while they dominate 
numerically, these small businesses account for about 18 to 20 percent 
of the dollars awarded.
  Mr. Chairman, over half of these awards are through full and open 
competition, and that number is growing. We heard regular testimony in 
the Committee on Small Business that half of all Government procurement 
dollars are awarded for large contracts, too big for small business. 
That means that 90 percent of the contractors are competing for half of 
the shrinking Federal purchasing pie.
  Mr. Chairman, the biggest concern among the small business community 
is access. All they want is a chance to compete, to show that they can 
do the job. But H.R. 1670, under the guise of procurement reform, will 
take away that chance to compete by allowing faceless bureaucrats to 
take a small businessman or woman's opportunity away with the stroke of 
a pen.
  Mr. Chairman, small business supports procurement reform, but, more 
important, small business supports competition. H.R. 1670 is supposed 
to simplify the procurement by weeding out bids from firms that have no 
chance at winning a contract. Fair enough, but how?
  In title I, H.R. 1670 eliminates full and open competition in favor 
of competition whenever it is feasible or appropriate or efficient. Who 
decides feasibility? Some agency functionary. Who decides what is 
efficient? That same bureaucrat, the same people who gave us $600 
hammers and costly coffee pots.
  We will be submitting letters from the Inspector General of the 
Department of Defense, and from the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
saying ``Do not do away with full and open competition.'' We will 
submit letters from a dozen or more small business groups, among them 
the Chamber of Commerce and Small Business United, and the Small 
Business Legislative Council and Women's Business Owners, many of them 
seeking to retain full and open competition.
  I think my bill, with the processes set forth, responds more to what 
the concerns of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], are. But 
whatever we do, I think we must retain full and open competition.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Horn], chairman of the Subcommittee on Government 
Management.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this landmark 
procurement reform bill. I ask my colleagues to oppose any amendment 
offered which would weaken this bill.
  The current acquisition system saddles businesses, both small and 
large, with a daunting array of red tape and mandates. These 
restrictions make doing business with the Federal Government an 
administrative nightmare. H.R. 1670 would revolutionize government 
purchasing, something long overdue, in order to create a system that 
costs less and works better. It operates under a very simple proposal: 
streamline, standardize, and save.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 1670 has been the subject of a significant amount 
of misinformation concerning small business and its impact on small 
business. It is time to clear up these misunderstandings. H.R. 1670 is 
good for small business.
  At the heart of H.R. 1670's reforms is the empowerment of government 
purchasing officers. Instead of only shuffling the large reams of paper 
required to fulfill the unique government requirements, at the present 
time, purchasing officers will now evaluate the procurement proposals 
and make a decision. This reform streamlines the procurement process, 
empowers government workers, and creates a more efficient, more 
businesslike procurement process.
  Every business, both large and small, will still have access to the 
protest process if they think the procurement officer who made that 
decision chose incorrectly. In fact, we are also improving the 
efficiency of the protest process as well. The 11 current protest 
boards, each operating with their own rules, regulations, and 
bureaucratic hoops, will be consolidated into two boards: One for 
defense procurement and one for nondefense procurement. A small company 
will not have to learn 

[[Page H 8860]]
new rules for each and every government bid. The process is both 
streamlined and standardized.
  In short, H.R. 1670 provides the authority for government purchasers 
and industry providers to use sound business practices in acquiring and 
selling goods and services. H.R. 1670 provides the commonsense answers 
to the very real problems of an overly bureaucratic system without 
eliminating small business protections. With support for H.R. 1670, 
small business finally can participate in a Federal marketplace that 
uses sound business practices. And, finally, it saves the taxpayers 
money.
  I urge Members' vigorous support for H.R. 1670 and ask my colleagues 
to oppose any weakening amendments.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney], the ranking Democratic 
member.
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 
1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act, offered by the chairman of 
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Mr. Clinger.
  I share the chairman's goal to shake up the system, streamline it, 
and cut the red tape. I thank the chairman for his genuine hard work on 
this issue, and I thank him for his sincere efforts to reach a 
bipartisan consensus on this bill. We are very close to that consensus.
  Unfortunately, there are several unaddressed fundamental problems 
with the substance of this bill. This bill alters the longstanding 
principle of full and open competition for Federal contracts. Members 
will hear that it retains the words ``full and open competition,'' 
true. But the problem is, it adds new words, loopholes, blank checks, 
and qualifiers. The new language does not preserve the old standard, 
which is the best standard for saving taxpayers' dollars and allowing 
small businesses to compete in the procurement process.
  Under this bill, contracting personnel are authorized to use other 
than competitive procedures under two new and excessively broad 
exceptions to competition; namely, when the use of competitive 
procedure is not, and I quote, ``feasible or appropriate,'' under 
regulation to be prescribed, another blank check for agency contracting 
personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, I really do not understand the other party's support 
for this part of the bill. I join the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] in lauding, really, the chairman of the committee on many fine 
parts of the bill. But Members of that party are regularly pressing in 
this body for cost and risk assessment to control the bureaucrats in 
the area of health, security, and environment. But in this bill, they 
give blank checks to these bureaucrats for the procurement of over $200 
billion of taxpayers' money in Federal procurement.
  The case to replace full and open competition has not been made. In 
the hearings that were held, no one testified in support of removing 
full and open competition. In fact, many people, particularly small 
business, testified in support of it.
  I would like submit into the Record a letter from the deputy 
inspector general of the Department of Defense to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins] that very clearly states his belief that this
 fully and open standard must be maintained to protect taxpayers' 
dollars and to allow small businesses to compete in the process.

  Also the bill robs money from American taxpayers. Existing law says 
that, when a defense contractor sells weapons and technology to a 
foreign government, research and development funded by taxpayers, then 
the defense contractor must pay a portion of profit back to the 
Government to pay for that research and development The recovery of 
funds is called recoupment. The authors of this bill are eliminating 
recoupment, calling it a tax on American defense contractors.
  I say recoupment gives a fair return for the American taxpayers' 
investment in the research and development of new weapons and 
technology. I intend to offer an amendment to restore it, and it would 
mean well over a billion dollars to our Treasury over 5 years.
  Finally, the Clinger bill allows simplified acquisition procedures 
for the purchase of all so-called commercial products, no matter what 
the dollar value.
  Last year we passed the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, a 
landmark bill that raised the threshold for simplified procedures to 
$100,000 and $250,000 after the implementation of electronic bulletin 
boards and Federal procurement. This provision allows officials to 
purchase basic goods like salad dressing and small items without undue 
red tape.
  It is a good bill and I support it. However, this bill, H.R. 1670, 
would entirely eliminate any threshold. It would not cut red tape, 
since 90 percent of all purchases are under $100,000.
  In the name of simplifying the procurement statutes, this bill grants 
regulation writers sweeping authority to establish procedures and 
guidelines. That seems to me completely contrary to the professed 
Republican view that these regulators need to be restrained.
  With a few changes, H.R. 1670 could represent an excellent second 
step to follow the changes made last year and those made by Vice 
President Gore. Until those changes are made, I must oppose this bill.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], another freshman, a very valuable member 
of the committee.
  Mr. ERHLICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1670. I 
applaud the leadership and diligent work of the chairman. It is a 
pleasure to work with such a fine gentleman and members of the 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1670 proposes a procurement system that Government 
can manage more efficiently and effectively as well as a system that 
will benefit all American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, Federal procurement 
should be of interest to every American taxpayer. In the end, the $200 
billion--with a B--dollars the Federal Government spends every year on 
procurement functions is a nondiscriminating tax on every American 
citizen.
  Mr. Chairman, fundamental reform of how the Federal Government works 
has been the backbone behind just about everything we have debated and 
voted upon on this floor over the past 8 months. Business as usual is 
no longer the business at hand in this Congress. This Congress is 
changing the way Washington works.
  During the next few weeks, we will be deciding how to balance the 
Federal budget. But this fight will mean nothing, Mr. Chairman, if we 
perpetuate a Federal Government which saddles itself with the gross 
inefficiencies of an out-of-date procurement system. American taxpayers 
not only deserve a balanced budget, Mr. Chairman, but also a Federal 
Government cooperating to preserve our country's fiscal integrity.
  I have often remarked how our businesses are beset by excessive and 
burdensome regulations and how these costs are ultimately passed on to 
the consumer. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Federal procurement process is a 
perfect example of how the Government itself can become the victim of 
its own overregulation.
  I have said this before. It is a vicious cycle, Mr. Chairman. The 
least of our worries now is a shortage of laws regulating Federal 
procurement, Mr. Chairman. The thousands of pages I am holding here in 
my hand constitute the Federal acquisition regulations. They must be 
streamlined.
  H.R. 1670 assures the business community that competition in the 
Federal procurement process remains full and open. The Federal 
procurement system has been hampered by its own unnecessary government-
unique requirements. Its costs are escalated by its own rules and 
regulations, and its ability to promote free and open and full 
competition among the private sector is stifled by the red tape of its 
own bureaucracy. Please support H.R. 1670.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has 21 
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has 
12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht], another very 

[[Page H 8861]]
valuable and contributing member of our committee.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight for yielding time to me.
  We just heard from my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Ehrlich] about the amount of regulation that we have in terms of 
Government procurement. Let me see if I can explain what that really 
means ultimately to the taxpayers.
  Earlier this year I was visiting with the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] who chairs one of the committees or subcommittees that is 
responsible for buying items for the Department of Defense. He told me 
that in the Department of Defense we have something like 106,000 people 
who are listed as buyers. That is the bad news. The news gets worse. It 
is estimated they may have as many as 200,000 managers of those 106,000 
buyers.
  We buy approximately one F-16 fighter aircraft a week. To buy that 
fighter aircraft, we have something like 1,646 buyers. Just about one 
F-16 a week. And part of the reason it takes so many buyers and so many 
administrators and so many managers--and that is just the Department of 
Defense, that is repeated all throughout the Federal Government--is 
because of all of these rules and regulations that we have put upon the 
procurement process.
  Earlier this year I met with some electronics manufacturers. One of 
them gave me this little electronic disk, it is a little circuit board. 
This circuit board goes into an M-1 Abrams tank. It costs the 
manufacturer about $2 to manufacture this board. They sell it to the 
Department of Defense for $15, in part because they have to jump 
through all of these hoops to do business with the Federal Government.
  This is a very important bill, my colleagues. It will ultimately, I 
think, save the taxpayers billions of dollars. It makes common sense. 
As a matter of fact, one example, it is estimated that this could save 
in the purchase of each one of those F-16 fighter aircraft, we might be 
able to save as much as $2 million. That is real money.
  This makes common sense. This is the kind of thing I think the voters 
voted for back in November. So I strongly support H.R. 1670, and I 
thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Clinger-Spence 
procurement reform initiative to untangle the current mass of 
requirements that make up the Federal procurement system. These 
requirements lead simply to too much money being spent for too little 
product. In fact, studies show that such Government-specific mandates 
add a 20-percent premium to the $200 billion the Federal Government 
spends annually on the goods and services it needs to operate.
  It is particularly important during this time of declining Federal 
resources that we find ways to allocate our resources in a more 
thoughtful, meaningful and efficient manner. H.R. 1670 provides part of 
the solution by transforming the current complex web of rules into a 
more common sense approach to doing business with the Government, much 
like that used by worldclass commercial firms.
  This legislation before us represents a significant shift in the 
operation of our Federal procurement system to meet the needs of the 
American taxpayer. I wholeheartedly support this reform effort and urge 
my colleagues to support this measure and oppose any weakening 
amendments.
  Better Government does not mean bigger Government--it means more 
efficient Government. This is the message we will be sending today if 
we support this legislation. It is my pleasure to join with my 
colleagues in support of H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition Reform Act 
of 1995. This legislation effectively changes the way the Federal 
Government buys goods and services and revolutionizes the current 
procurement system.
  As chairman of the Budget Committee's National Security Working 
Group, I am pleased to note that H.R. 1670 incorporates some of the 
changes recommended in legislation developed by the Working Group--H.R. 
1368, the Department of Defense Acquisition Management Reform Act of 
1995.
  H.R. 1670 streamlines many of the unnecessary procedures in the 
current system which increases costs to the Department of Defense, the 
Government's largest single buyer, and therefore meets the needs of 
American taxpayers, who pay for our Nation's defense.
  The Federal Acquisition Reform Act rewards people in Government who 
can get the job done on time while holding down costs.
  I would like to thank Chairman Clinger and Chairman Spence for their 
diligence and perseverance in pursuing such bold reforms and urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 1670 without any weakening amendments.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Clinger-Spence 
procurement reform initiative to untangle the current mass of 
requirements that too often have our Federal managers tied up in knots. 
These managers have to select goods and services according to how easy 
they are to procure rather then how good the quality is.
  Would you buy a computer that way? How about medicine, or a new 
building? Every year Uncle Sam buys over $200 billion worth of goods 
and services, and he does it exactly that way. Whether we are buying 
paper clips or tanks, this tacks on a 20-percent premium to the price 
tag. Its Government-specific mandates and requirements leads to too 
much money being spent for too little product.
  The bottom line is we cannot, and even if we could we should not, 
indulge in such regulation. With declining Federal dollars, we have to 
find ways to allocate our resources in a more productive manner.
  We talk a lot in this Chamber about getting rid of Government waste. 
Today we can take and pass a vote for doing exactly that. I 
wholeheartedly support this reform effort. It is a big giveback to the 
American taxpayer with this effort. I urge my colleagues to support 
this measure and, frankly, to oppose any weakening amendments. It is an 
important step towards reforming and providing common sense towards the 
procurement efforts in Congress. It saves money for exactly the same 
bottom line. For that, I think we owe a great deal of gratitude to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence]. I believe we should all support this measure.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], a stalwart member of the 
committee.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us, H.R. 1670, the 
Federal Acquisition Reform Act, will enable businesses to compete much 
more effectively in the Federal marketplace. Each year our Government 
spends approximately $200 billion for goods and services ranging from 
weapons systems to everyday commodities. According to a report prepared 
by the Secretary of Defense, the Government pays an additional 20-
percent premium for the goods and services it acquires solely because 
of the requirements it imposes on its contractors, a 20-percent 
premium. Clearly, some requirements are needed. But taxpayers pay a 
premium for many unnecessary, duplicative procedures.
  H.R. 1670 streamlines these procedures without compromising any 
necessary safeguards. H.R. 1670 reaffirms the underpinnings of the 
Government's acquisition system by placing in statute the policy of 
Government reliance on the private sector to supply the products and 
services the Government needs. This has been a longstanding 
administrative policy of the Federal Government since the days of 
Eisenhower. It is particularly significant at this time, as we are 
reassessing the role of Government to reinforce our reliance on the 
free enterprise system as the source of goods and services to fulfill 
the public's needs.
  I commend the chairmen, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] 
and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for bringing forth 
this important and commonsense legislation. This is truly reinventing 
government. Even more, it 

[[Page H 8862]]
is entrepreneurial government at its best.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1670, without any weakening 
amendments, in order to let the system meet the needs of the 
Government, industry, and ultimately and importantly, the taxpayer.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a bit confused when I hear the other side of the 
aisle talking about weakening amendments. It seems to me the amendments 
that I have before me are all amendments that are going to be very, 
very helpful.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been my understanding that free and open 
competition is the American way, that it is something we have always 
wanted. There is no way that free and open competition is going to be 
harmful to the American people. There is no way that free and open 
competition is going to be more costly to those of us who are 
taxpayers, and we are all, in fact, taxpayers. I just do not understand 
the rationale when the other side of the aisle seems to be so 
thoroughly against free and open competition.
  No place have I seen at all where there is a disagreement by the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce which says that free and open competition is what 
we need. We have not been misguided by what their letter has said to 
us. It just seems to me it is something we ought to all keep in mind.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass], a member of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1670. Before my 
colleagues vote to considerably weaken this bill, I would ask them to 
consider the reforms being offered here today by the chairmen, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Spence].
  H.R. 1670 would enable businesses to compete effectively in both 
commercial and Government markets, and would eliminate many of the 
contracting requirements unique to the Government that increase the 
cost of doing business with it. We have heard this from prior speakers. 
The simplification of unwieldy requirements and procedures will also 
encourage more businesses to enter the Federal marketplace which may 
have been intimidated by the current system. These businesses just 
simply cannot deal with the system as it is today. These changes will 
enable the Government to take advantage of leading technology firms, 
the technology being supplied by these firms important to the 
Government.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Federal Acquisition 
Reform Act in the interests of efficiency, a strengthened supplier 
base, increased competition, and reduced procurement costs. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against any amendments that are offered that will 
weaken this bill and make the system work more slowly and more 
bureaucratically.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the cosponsor of this 
legislation and the very able and excellent chairman of the Committee 
on National Security.
  (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1670, the 
Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995.
  This legislation represents an important leap forward in reforming 
today's antiquated and inefficient Federal procurement system.
  Last year, Congress enacted comprehensive acquisition reform 
legislation that is just now beginning to work itself through the 
regulatory process. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act was a good 
start in making needed incremental changes to the system.
  I realize that some may wonder why we are launching yet another round 
of acquisition reform while the last one is still going through the 
implementation process. The answer is simple--we cannot afford to wait 
for last year's modest reforms to go into effect before fixing the 
fundamental problems ailing the current system.
  Mr. Chairman, what is required today is fundamental reform, not 
incremental reform. The American taxpayer pays too much for the goods 
and services bought by the Federal Government. The current system 
results in products that are too costly, many times outdated, and of 
questionable quality.
  This issue is of critical importance because how the Federal 
Government buys goods and services affects the budgets and programs 
under the jurisdiction of every single committee of the House. As we 
all contemplate the difficult fiscal reality of moving toward a 
balanced budget in 7 years, we must fix today's inefficient procurement 
system in order to maximize return on every single Federal tax dollar.
  As the Federal Government's largest single buyer, nowhere do these 
problems apply more than in the Department of Defense. While the 
concurrent budget resolution adopted by this House does increase 
Defense spending relative to the President's budget request, even this 
spending level will not adequately cover the many critical military 
capability, readiness, and quality-of-life shortfalls facing the 
military in the years ahead.
  I supported this budget as it struck a prudent balance between 
halting the 10-year slide in Defense spending and putting us on a track 
toward a balanced Federal budget. But I also realize that the 
shortfalls created by the drastic reductions in spending of the past 
few years will require that we aggressively find additional funds from 
within the Defense program.
  It makes necessary process reforms that will streamline procedures, 
reduce the costly overhead associated with Federal procurements, and 
allow the Government to buy commercially more often.
  Mr. Chairman, the House National Security Committee shares 
jurisdiction on these issues and received sequential referral of this 
legislation. In that capacity, we have been working with the Government 
Reform and Oversight Committee to iron out some last remaining 
differences. I am happy to report that we have reached an agreement on 
these differences and that I will be offering an amendment later on 
reflecting these changes. I want to commend Chairman Clinger and 
Representative Collins for the cooperative spirit in which they have 
dealt with our committee and for the willingness to work out these last 
remaining differences.
  Mr. Chairman, I am told that there may be some amendments from the 
minority or from the Small Business Committee that could have the 
effect of walking back many of the important provisions of H.R. 1670. 
These amendments, while well intentioned, would revert back to the same 
timid and ineffective reforms that we have engaged in for the past 10 
years. What is needed is fundamental reform. H.R. 1670 is such 
fundamental reform.
  In closing, I urge my colleagues to defeat any weakening amendments 
that may be offered by those seeking to protect the status quo system. 
While change is always unsettling to some, there is no aspect of the 
Federal Government that could stand more change than the Federal 
procurement system.
  H.R. 1670 represents such change, and I urge my colleagues to support 
the Government Reform and National Security Committees in pursuing this 
important objective.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe we can improve Government 
procurement. There are many provisions in this bill that were developed 
in a very bipartisan manner to reduce the number of steps in the 
procurement process. In fact, many of these changes were recommended by 
Vice President Gore. We have disagreed on just one item, the 
requirement that we have full and open competition.
  Full and open competition reduces the cost of the Government, it does 
not add to the burden of procurement. Full and open competition lets 
new business, small business, compete. Our amendment would also give 
necessary flexibility to Government officials to discuss with 
businesses whether they have a chance to win any kind of procurement 
opportunity, so that companies with hopeless causes can voluntarily 
withdraw.
  This is not adding anything, this is in fact helping to streamline 
the whole process while keeping full and open competition. Full and 
open competition actually keeps bureaucrats from using prejudice and an 
old boy network to exclude worthy businesses. That is all we are 
talking about. That is all we 

[[Page H 8863]]
are going to be talking about in my amendment. It just seems to me that 
we have to make a case for full and open competition. If it were not 
for this one hang-up that we have in this legislation, we would be on 
our way home right now. We could have probably voted for this piece of 
legislation and have been out of here.
  I have to repeat that nowhere has the case been made to change the 
competition standard. The procurement process can be streamlined, as I 
said just now, and I agree with many of the provisions that are here. 
It just seems to me that we ought to get about the business of taking 
care of full and open competition so we can be on our way, so small 
business, large business, megabusinesses can all have a fair shake at 
getting Federal Government contracts.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, just to indicate 
that I think that the gentlewoman said that we could have been out of 
here if we could resolve this one niggling little disagreement.
  I have to suggest that it is a little more than a minor disagreement. 
I think that in my view it really goes to the heart of this bill. We 
have a fundamental disagreement over the impact.
  I believe, and I hope a majority will believe, that what we have 
provided here is the kind of flexibility we need to really get the 
reforms that are necessary. The other side does not agree with that, so 
we will debate that in more detail later on, but it is not a minor 
disagreement, I would have to say.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Hunter], a very key and senior member of the Committee on National 
Security.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services and the chairman of the Committee on 
Government Operations for their great work. Let me give a dimension to 
this problem that has not been explored before.
  This year in the Department of Defense we are going to be spending 
about $40 billion for procurement of weapons systems. That is for 
aircraft, for ships, for submarines, and for all that equipment that 
our Armed Forces use, so we spend about $40 billion for equipment.
  Well, folks, we have about 300,000 Government shoppers buying that 
equipment. Those 300,000 Government shoppers, that is two U.S. Marine 
Corps of shoppers. I call them the 173rd Airborne shopping division, 
call them the Big Red One shopping division, but those shoppers are 
necessary because we have built a mountainous system of regulations 
that says if you buy a military airplane for $100 million, you will 
spend abut $40 million that you pay in salaries to the Pentagon for the 
service of buying it.
  If we do not start reducing the regulations, and this bill goes a 
long way toward doing that, we are going to continue to maintain two 
U.S. Marine Corps for the service of shopping for weapon systems. That 
is not in the interest of the taxpayers.
  I commend the gentlemen for their hard work. I just hope everybody in 
the House realizes the efficiencies that we can achieve if we will pass 
this bill.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], another member from the Committee on National 
Security, which is the cocommittee with our committee in bringing this 
legislation to the floor.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, the Clinger-Spence acquisition reform 
bill before you will finish the job begun by the Congress last year. 
Consider the changes proposed by the bill: Changing competition 
requirements so that they are reasonable in light of the need; 
establishing commercial-like procedures for Government procurement; 
reforming procurement integrity so that it no longer stifles the 
process; making American companies more competitive on the 
international market; streamlining the burdensome certification 
process; consolidating the many dispute resolution mechanisms into a 
single review board.
  These are all commonsense answers to the very real problem of redtape 
and an overly bureaucratic procurement process. This Congress is 
finally applying real-world family and business practices to our 
budgets and our administration of Federal programs. Why not apply these 
standards to Federal purchasers?
  When this bill was first put forward as an amendment to the Defense 
authorization, many business groups voiced their concern
 over the new approach to the process. They were concerned that this 
legislation would in some way limit their ability to freely and openly 
pursue contracts.

  Since that time, Chairmen Clinger and Spence have worked very hard to 
address these concerns. They have made very important changes that 
protect the rights of business while maintaining the commonsense 
approach that serves as the basis of the legislation.
  I commend Chairmen Spence and Clinger for working so hard to bring 
these needed changes to Government. The changes will be good for 
business, and ultimately they will be good for the taxpayers. Support 
the Clinger-Spence procurement reform bill and reject this amendment.
  However well-intentioned, the amendment of my colleague from Illinois 
would embrace the status quo and prevent the kind of reform that will 
get to the heart of this unruly process.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, if I may, just to 
indicate that as we near the end of this debate, I think it has been a 
very full and open debate, and I think we have touched on some of the 
issues that will be part of the debate that will follow this as we 
consider the bill title by title.
  It is a significant, I think, reform, a dramatic reform, if you will, 
of what we have had to live with and what procurement people have had 
to live with for so long in trying to do the people's business, what we 
heard in witness after witness from the procurement community. These 
are dedicated public servants who are really trying to do the job that 
we ask them to do but feel that they have been hamstrung, limited, 
wrapped up in redtape, and unable to really accomplish what we all want 
them to do, which is to get the best bargain that they can for the 
Federal Government.
  We preserve full and open competition, and that I think needs to be 
stressed. We do provide that the Federal Government has a role to play 
in determining what they need on any given procurement, how broad do 
they need to cast the net to get that, and making a winnowing process 
at the beginning of the process rather than well down the road.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor for me to yield the balance of our 
time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the 
House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say that I am very, very proud that we 
are bringing to the floor and giving our Members a chance to join in a 
very fundamental reform to fix the Federal procurement system. The 
Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995 is a step toward bringing us 
into the 21st century.
  The fact is Federal procurement is, I think, one of the most 
inefficient things the Federal Government does. One recent estimate is 
that taxpayers today pay basically a 20-percent premium on Federal 
purchases.
  That is, if you are to take a product and ask what would it cost you 
as a private citizen to go buy it, and that costs, say, $100, you would 
find that for the very same product it costs you $120 if your 
Government buys it. So you as a taxpayer are not just paying for the 
legitimate requirements but you are in fact paying more than you should 
be paying.
  But there is something deeper. Because our procurement system today 
is so slow and so cumbersome and so filled with redtape and is so time 
consuming, we end up buying products that are in fact obsolete by the 
time we can get around to procuring them. In fact, in computers, we 
actually take longer to figure out how to buy the 

[[Page H 8864]]
computer than the lifecycle of current computers.
  I use some examples. This is an FAA vacuum tube. If there is any 
single argument for this act, this is a Federal Aviation Administration 
vacuum tube which we are currently buying for the air traffic control 
system. This is an Intel Pentium chip, which is 3,100,000 of the vacuum 
tubes. In a period when you could be buying this, and instead you are 
buying this, you clearly have an opportunity for dramatic improvement.
  I commend my colleagues on the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. They have produced a bill which has the American Electronics 
Association, the Electronic Industry Association, the American Defense 
Preparedness Association, the Contract Services Association, the 
Professional Services Council, and the list goes on and on, group after 
group that knows that in the modern world, agile, lean, private 
corporations using the best information technologies are literally 
purchasing circles around a slow, cumbersome, redtape-ridden Federal 
Government.
  The National Taxpayers Union and the Americans for Tax Reform both 
recognize that the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995 will improve 
the lot of the taxpayer. They urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Let me say in closing that I commend my good friend, Chairman 
Clinger. I urge every Member of the House, on behalf of the taxpayers 
and on behalf of a better, more effective government that you can be 
proud of, I hope you will vote ``yes'' today on the Federal Acquistion 
Reform Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the Committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by titles as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment. The first two sections and 
each title are considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request 
for a recorded vote on any amendment.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less 
than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic 
device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting 
by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not 
be less than 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Acquisition Reform 
     Act of 1995''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1?
  If not, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
       Sec. 1. Short title.
       Sec. 2. Table of contents.

                          TITLE I--COMPETITION

       Sec. 101. Improvement of competition requirements.
       Sec. 102. Definitions relating to competition requirements.
       Sec. 103. Contract solicitation amendments.
       Sec. 104. Preaward debriefings.
       Sec. 105. Contract types.
       Sec. 106. Contract performance.

                       TITLE II--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

       Sec. 201. Commercial item exception to requirement for cost 
     of pricing data and information limitations.
       Sec. 202. Application of simplified procedures to 
     commercial items.
       Sec. 203. Amendment to definition of commercial items.
       Sec. 204. Inapplicability of cost accounting standards to 
     contracts and subcontracts for commercial items.

                TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REFORM PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. Government reliance on the private sector.
       Sec. 302. Elimination of certain certification 
     requirements.
       Sec. 303. Amendment to commencement and expiration of 
     authority to conduct certain tests of procurement procedures.
       Sec. 304. International competitiveness.
       Sec. 305. Procurement integrity.
       Sec. 306. Further acquisition streamlining provisions.
       Sec. 307. Justification of major defense acquisition 
     programs and meeting goals.
       Sec. 308. Enhanced performance incentives for acquisition 
     workforce.
       Sec. 309. Results oriented acquisition program cycle.
       Sec. 310. Rapid contracting goal.
       Sec. 311. Encouragement of multiyear contracting.
       Sec. 312. Contractor share of gains and losses from cost, 
     schedule, and performance experience.
       Sec. 313. Phase funding of defense acquisition programs.
       Sec. 314. Improved Department of Defense contract payment 
     procedures.
       Sec. 315. Consideration of past performance in assignment 
     to acquisition positions.
       Sec. 316. Additional Department of Defense pilot programs.
       Sec. 317. Value engineering for Federal agencies.
       Sec. 318. Acquisition workforce.

              TITLE IV--STREAMLINING OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION


                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

       Sec. 401. Definitions.


 subtitle b--establishment of civilian and defense boards of contract 
                                appeals

       Sec. 411. Establishment.
       Sec. 412. Membership.
       Sec. 413. Chairman.
       Sec. 414. Rulemaking authority.
       Sec. 415. Authorization of appropriations.


   subtitle c--functions of defense and civilian boards of contract 
                                appeals

       Sec. 421. Alternative dispute resolution services.
       Sec. 422. Alternative dispute resolution of disputes and 
     protests submitted to boards.
       Sec. 423. Contract disputes.
       Sec. 424. Protests.
       Sec. 425. Applicability to certain contracts.


    subtitle d--repeal of other statutes authorizing administrative 
                                protests

       Sec. 431. Repeals.


    subtitle e--transfers and transitional, savings, and conforming 
                               provisions

       Sec. 441. Transfer and allocation of appropriations and 
     personnel.
       Sec. 442. Terminations and savings provisions.
       Sec. 443. Contract disputes authority of boards.
       Sec. 444. References to agency boards of contract appeals.
       Sec. 445. Conforming amendments.


       subtitle F--effective date; interim appointment and rules

       Sec. 451. Effective date.
       Sec. 452. Interim appointment.
       Sec. 453. Interim rules.

              TITLE V--EFFECTIVE DATES AND IMPLEMENTATION

       Sec. 501. Effective date and applicability.
       Sec. 502. Implementing regulations.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
                          TITLE I--COMPETITION

     SEC. 101. IMPROVEMENT OF COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Section 2304 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2304. Contracts: competition requirements

       ``(a) Competition.--(1) Except as provided in subsections 
     (b), (c), and (e) and except in the case of procurement 
     procedures otherwise expressly authorized by statute, the 
     head of an agency in conducting a procurement for property or 
     services--
       ``(A) shall obtain full and open competition--
       ``(i) that provides open access, and
       ``(ii) that is consistent with the need to efficiently 
     fulfill the Government's requirements,

     through the use of competitive procedures in accordance with 
     this chapter and the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
       ``(B) shall use the competitive procedure or combination of 
     competitive procedures that is best suited under the 
     circumstances of the procurement.
       ``(2) In determining the competitive procedure appropriate 
     under the circumstances, the head of an agency--
       ``(A) shall solicit sealed bids if--
       ``(i) time permits the solicitation, submission, and 
     evaluation of sealed bids;
       ``(ii) the award will be made on the basis of price and 
     other price-related factors;
       ``(iii) it is not necessary to conduct discussions with the 
     responding sources about their bids; and
       ``(iv) there is a reasonable expectation of receiving more 
     than one sealed bid; and
       ``(B) shall request competitive proposals if sealed bids 
     are not appropriate under clause (A).
       ``(b) Exclusion of Particular Source.--The head of an 
     agency may provide for the procurement of property or 
     services covered by this chapter using competitive procedures 
     but excluding a particular source in order to establish or 
     maintain an alternative source or sources of supply for that 
     property or service. The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall 
     set forth the circumstances under which a particular source 
     may be excluded pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(c) Exclusion of Concerns Other Than Small Business 
     Concerns and Certain Other 

[[Page H 8865]]
     Entities.--The head of an agency may provide for the procurement of 
     property or services covered by this section using 
     competitive procedures, but excluding concerns other than 
     small business concerns in furtherance of sections 9 and 15 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638, 644) and concerns 
     other than small business concerns, historically Black 
     colleges and universities, and minority institutions in 
     furtherance of section 2323 of this title.
       ``(d) Procedures Other Than Competitive Procedures.--(1) 
     Procedures other than competitive procedures may be used for 
     purchasing property and services only when the use of 
     competitive procedures is not feasible or appropriate. 
     Standards for determining when the use of competitive 
     procedures is not feasible or appropriate shall be set forth 
     in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Each procurement using 
     procedures other than competitive procedures (other than a 
     procurement for commercial items using simplified procedures 
     or a procurement in an amount not greater than the simplified 
     acquisition threshold) shall be justified in writing and 
     approved in accordance with the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation.
       ``(2) In the case of a procurement using procedures that 
     preclude all but one source from responding (hereinafter in 
     this subsection referred to as a `sole source procurement'), 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall provide for 
     justification and approval under paragraph (1) of such 
     procurement under standards that set forth limited 
     circumstances for such sole source procurements, including 
     circumstances when--
       ``(A) the property or services needed by the agency are 
     available from only one responsible source and no other type 
     of property or services will satisfy the needs of the agency;
       ``(B) the agency's need for the property or services is of 
     such an unusual and compelling urgency that the United States 
     would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to 
     award the contract for the property or services to a 
     particular source;
       ``(C) it is necessary to award the contract to a particular 
     source in order (i) to maintain a facility, producer, 
     manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing 
     property or services in case of a national emergency or to 
     achieve industrial mobilization, (ii) to establish or 
     maintain an essential engineering, research, or development 
     capability to be provided by an educational or other 
     nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and 
     development center, or (iii) to procure the services of an 
     expert for use, in any litigation or dispute (including any 
     reasonably foreseeable litigation or dispute) involving the 
     Federal Government, in any trial, hearing, or proceeding 
     before any court, administrative tribunal, or agency, or in 
     any part of an alternative dispute resolution process, 
     whether or not the expert is expected to testify;
       ``(D) the terms of an international agreement or a treaty 
     between the United States and a foreign government or 
     international organization, or the written directions of a 
     foreign government reimbursing the agency for the cost of the 
     procurement of the property or services for such government, 
     have the effect of requiring the award of the contract for 
     the property or services to a particular source;
       ``(E) subject to section 2304f, a statute expressly 
     authorizes or requires that the procurement be made through 
     another agency or from a specified source, or the agency's 
     need is for a brand-name commercial item for authorized 
     resale;
       ``(F) the disclosure of the agency's needs would compromise 
     the national security unless the agency is permitted to award 
     the contract for the property or services needed by the 
     agency to a particular source; or
       ``(G) the head of the agency--
       ``(i) determines that it is necessary in the public 
     interest to award the contract for the property or services 
     needed by the agency to a particular source in the particular 
     procurement concerned, and
       ``(ii) notifies the Congress in writing of such 
     determination not less than 30 days before the award of the 
     contract.
       ``(3) The authority of the head of an agency under 
     paragraph (2)(G) may not be delegated.
       ``(e) Simplified Procedures.--(1) In order to promote 
     efficiency and economy in contracting and to avoid 
     unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall provide for special simplified 
     procedures for purchases of property and services for amounts 
     not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.
       ``(2) A proposed purchase or contract for an amount above 
     the simplified acquisition threshold may not be divided into 
     several purchases or contracts for lesser amounts in order to 
     use the simplified procedures required by paragraph (1).
       ``(3) In using simplified procedures, the head of an agency 
     shall ensure that competition is obtained to the maximum 
     extent practicable consistent with the particular Government 
     requirement.
       ``(f) Certain Contracts.--for the purposes of the following 
     laws, purchases or contracts awarded after using procedures 
     other than sealed-bid procedures shall be treated as if they 
     were made with sealed-bid procedures:
       ``(1) The Walsh-Healey Act (41 U.S.C. 35-45).
       ``(2) The Act entitled `An Act relating to the rate of 
     wages for laborers and mechanics employed on public buildings 
     of the United States and the District of Columbia by 
     contractors and subcontractors, and for other purposes', 
     approved March 3, 1931 (commonly referred to as the `Davis-
     Bacon Act') (40 U.S.C. 276a--276a-5).''.
       (2) Chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code is amended 
     by inserting before section 2305 a new section--
       (A) the designation and heading for which is as follows:

     ``Sec. 2304f. Merit-based selection'';

     and
       (B) the text of which consists of subsection (j) of section 
     2304 of such title, as in effect on the day before the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, modified--
       (i) by striking out the subsection designation;
       (ii) in paragraphs (2)(A), (3), and (4), by striking out 
     ``subsection'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section'' each 
     place it appears;
       (iii) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking out ``paragraph 
     (1)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (a)'';
       (iv) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively; and
       (v) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
       (3) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting before the item relating section 2305 
     the following new item:

``2304f. Merit-based selection.''.

       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Section 303 of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 303. CONTRACTS: COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Competition.--(1) Except as provided in subsections 
     (b), (c), and (e) and except in the case of procurement 
     procedures otherwise expressly authorized by statute, an 
     executive agency in conducting a procurement for property or 
     services--
       ``(A) shall obtain full and open competition--
       ``(i) that provide open access, and
       ``(ii) that is consistent with the need to efficiently 
     fulfill the Government's requirements, through the use of 
     competitive procedures in accordance with this chapter and 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
       ``(B) shall use the competitive procedure or combination of 
     competitive procedures that is best suited under the 
     circumstances of the procurement.
       ``(2) In determining the competitive procedure appropriate 
     under the circumstances, an executive agency--
       ``(A) shall solicit sealed bids if--
       ``(i) time permits the solicitation, submission, and 
     evaluation of sealed bids;
       ``(ii) the award will be made on the basis of price and 
     other price-related factors;
       ``(iii) it is not necessary to conduct discussions with the 
     responding source about their bids; and
       ``(iv) there is a reasonable expectation of receiving more 
     than one sealed bid; and
       ``(B) shall request competitive proposals if sealed bids 
     are not appropriate under clause (A).
       ``(b) Exclusion of Particular Source.--An executive agency 
     may provide for the procurement of property or services 
     covered by this chapter using competitive procedures but 
     excluding a particular source in order to establish or 
     maintain an alternative source or sources of supply for that 
     property or service. The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall 
     set forth the circumstances under which a particular source 
     may be excluded pursuant to this subsection.
       ``(c) Exclusion of Concerns Other Than Small Business 
     Concerns and Certain Other Entities.--An executive agency may 
     provide for the procurement of property or services covered 
     by this section using competitive procedures, but excluding 
     concerns other than small business concerns in furtherance of 
     section 9 and 15 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 638, 
     644) and concerns other than small business concerns, 
     historically Black colleges and universities, and minority 
     institutions in furtherance of section 7102 of the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. 644 note).
       ``(d) Procedures Other Than Competitive Procedures.--(1) 
     Procedures other than competitive procedures may be used for 
     purchasing property and services only when the use of 
     competitive procedures is not feasible or appropriate. 
     Standards for determining when the use of competitive 
     procedures is not feasible or appropriate shall be set forth 
     in the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Each procurement using 
     procedures other than competitive procedures (other than a 
     procurement for commercial items using simplified procedures 
     or a procurement in an amount not greater than the simplified 
     acquisition threshold shall be
      justified in writing and approved in accordance with the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       ``(2) In the case of a procurement using procedures that 
     preclude all but one source from responding (hereinafter in 
     this subsection referred to as a `sole source procurement'), 
     the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall provide for 
     justification and approval under paragraph (1) of such 
     procurement under standards that set forth limited 
     circumstances for such sole source procurements, including 
     circumstances when--
       ``(A) the property or services needed by the executive 
     agency are available from only one responsible source and no 
     other type of property or services will satisfy the needs of 
     the executive agency;
       ``(B) the executive agency's need for the property or 
     services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that 
     the United States would be seriously injured unless the 
     executive agency is permitted to award the contract for the 
     property or services to a particular source;
       ``(C) it is necessary to award the contract to a particular 
     source in order (i) to maintain a facility, producer, 
     manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing 
     property or services in case of a national emergency or to 
     achieve industrial mobilization, (ii) to establish or 
     maintain an essential engineering, research, or development 
     capability to be provided by an educational or other 
     nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and 
     development center, or (iii) to procure the services of an 
     expert for use, in any litigation or dispute (including any 

[[Page H 8866]]
     reasonably foreseeable litigation or dispute) involving the Federal 
     Government, in any trial, hearing, or proceeding before any 
     court, administrative tribunal, or agency, or in any part of 
     an alternative dispute resolution process, whether or not the 
     expert is expected to testify;
       ``(D) the terms of an international agreement or treaty 
     between the United States Government and a foreign government 
     or international organization, or the written directions of a 
     foreign government reimbursing the executive agency for the 
     cost of the procurement of the property or services for such 
     government, have the effect of requiring the award of the 
     contract for the property or services to a particular source;
       ``(E) subject to section 303M, a statute expressly 
     authorizes or requires that the procurement be made through 
     another executive agency or from a specified source, or the 
     agency's need is for a brand-name commercial item for 
     authorized resale;
       ``(F) the disclosure of the executive agency's needs would 
     compromise the national security unless the agency is 
     permitted to award the contract for the property or services 
     needed by the agency to a particular source; or
       ``(G) the head of the executive agency--
       ``(i) determines that it is necessary in the public 
     interest to award the contract for the property or services 
     needed by the agency to a particular source in the particular 
     procurement concerned, and
       ``(ii) notifies the Congress in writing of such 
     determination not less than 30 days before the award of the 
     contract.
       ``(3) The authority of the head of an executive agency 
     under paragraph (2)(G) may not be delegated.
       ``(e) Simplified Procedures.--In order to promote 
     efficiency and economy in contracting and to avoid 
     unnecessary burdens for agencies and contractors, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall provide for special simplified 
     procedures for purchases of property and services for amounts 
     not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.
       ``(2)(A) The Administrator of General Services shall 
     prescribe regulations that provide special simplified 
     procedures for acquisitions of leasehold interests in real 
     property at rental rates that do not exceed the simplified 
     acquisition threshold.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the rental rate or 
     rates under a multiyear lease do not exceed the simplified 
     acquisition threshold if the average annual amount of the 
     rent payable for the period of the lease does not exceed the 
     simplified acquisition threshold.
       ``(3) A proposed purchase or contract or for an amount 
     above the simplified acquisition threshold may not be divided 
     into several purchases or contracts for lesser amounts in 
     order to use the simplified procedures required by paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(4) In using simplified procedures, an executive agency 
     shall ensure that competition is obtained to the maximum 
     extent practicable consistent with the particular Government 
     requirement.''.
       ``(2) Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended by 
     inserting after section 303L a new section--
       (A) the designation and heading for which is as follows:
     ``SEC. 303M. MERIT-BASED SELECTION.'';

     and
       (B) the text of which consists of subsection (h) of section 
     303 of such Act, as in effect on the day before the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, modified--
       (i) by striking out the subsection designation;
       (ii) in paragraphs (2)(A), (3), and (4), by striking out 
     ``subsection'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section'' each 
     place it appears;
       (iii) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking out ``paragraph 
     (1)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subsection (a)'';
       ((iv) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) as 
     subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d), respectively; and
       (v) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated), by 
     redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as paragraphs 
     (1), (2), and (3), respectively.
       (3) The table of contents for the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (contained in section 
     1(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking out the item relating to section 303 and 
     inserting in lieu thereof the following:

``Sec. 303. Contracts: competition requirements.'';

     and
       (B) by inserting after the item relating to section 303L 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 303M. Merit-based selection.''.

       (c) Revisions to Procurement Notice Provisions.--Section 18 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     416) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B) of paragraphs (1)--
       (i) by striking out ``subsection (f)--'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``subsection (b); and''; and
       (ii) by inserting after ``property or services'' the 
     following: ``for a price expected to exceed $10,000 but not 
     to exceed $25,000'';
       (B) by striking out paragraph (4); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by amending subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(B) state where the acquisition is to be conducted 
     pursuant to a contractor verification system (as provided 
     pursuant to section 35) or whether the offeror, its product, 
     or its service otherwise must meet a qualification 
     requirement in order to be eligible for award and, if so, 
     identify the criteria to be used in determining such 
     eligibility;'; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) a statement that all responsible sources may submit 
     for consideration a bid, proposal, or quotation;''.
       (d) Executive Agency Responsibilities.--(1) Section 16 of 
     the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking out ``achieve'' in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof ``promote''; and
       (B) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) to implement competition that provides open access 
     for responsible sources in the procurement of property or 
     services by the executive agency by establishing policies, 
     procedures, and practices that are consistent with the need 
     to efficiently fulfill the Government's requirements;''.
       (2) Section 20 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 418) is amended in 
     subsection (a)(2)(A) by striking out ``serving in a position 
     authorized for such executive agency on the date of enactment 
     of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984''.

     SEC. 102. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Definition.--Paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 4 of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403) are 
     amended to read as follows:
       `(5) The term `competitive procedures' means procedures 
     under which an agency enters into a contract pursuant to full 
     and open competition that provides open access and is 
     consistent with the need to efficiently fulfill the 
     Government's requirements.
       ``(6) The term `open access', when used with respect to a 
     procurement, means that all responsible sources are permitted 
     to submit sealed bids or competitive proposals on the 
     procurement.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Office of federal procurement policy act.--Section 20 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), subsection (b)(3)(A), and 
     subsection (c), by inserting after ``full and open 
     competition'' the following: ``that
      provides open access and is consistent with the need to 
     efficiently fulfill the Government's requirements'' each 
     place it appears; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(4)(C), by striking out ``to full and 
     open competition that remain'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``that remain to achieving full and open competition that 
     provides open access and is consistent with the need to 
     efficiently fulfill the Government's requirements''.
       (2) Title 10.--Title 10, United States code, is amended--
       (A) in section 2302(2), by striking out the first sentence 
     and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``The term 
     `competitive procedures' means procedures under which an 
     agency enters into a contract pursuant to full and open 
     competition that provides open access and is consistent with 
     the need to efficiently fulfill the Government's 
     requirements.'';
       (B) in section 2302(3)(D), by striking out ``full and open 
     competition'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``open access'';
       (C) in section 2323(e)(3), by striking out ``less than full 
     and open'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``procedures other 
     than''; and
       (D) in section 2323(i)(3)(A), by striking out ``full and 
     open''.
       (3) Federal property and administrative services act.--
     Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
     Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended--
       (A) in section 309(b), by striking out the first sentence 
     and inserting in lieu thereof the following: ``The term 
     `competitive procedures' means procedures under which an 
     executive agency enters into a contract pursuant to full and 
     open competition that provides open access and is consistent 
     with the need to efficiently fulfill the Government's 
     requirements.'';
       (B) in section 309(c)(4), by striking out ``full and open 
     competition'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``open access''; 
     and
       (C) in section 304B(a)(2)(B), by striking out ``encouraging 
     full and open competition or''.
       (4) Other laws.--Section 7102 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Streamlining Act of 1994 (108 Stat. 3367; 15 U.S.C. 644 note) 
     is amended in subsection (a)(1)(A) by striking out ``less 
     than full and open competition'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``procedures other than competitive procedures''.

     SEC. 103. CONTRACT SOLICITATION AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2305 of title 10, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by striking out subparagraph (A) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following: ``(A) In preparing for the procurement 
     of property or services, the head of an agency shall use 
     advance procurement planning and market research.'';
       (B) by striking out subparagraph (B); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B) 
     and in that subparagraph by striking out ``For the purposes 
     of subparagraphs (A) and (B), the'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``Each solicitation under this chapter shall include 
     specifications that include restrictive provisions or 
     conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs 
     of the agency or as authorized by law. The'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(2), by inserting after ``(other than 
     for'' the following: ``a procurement for commercial items 
     using simplified procedures or''; and
       (3) in subsection (b)(4)(A)(i), by striking out ``all'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``the''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Section 303A of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253a) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking out paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following: ``(1) In preparing 

[[Page H 8867]]
     for the procurement of property or services, an executive agency shall 
     use advance procurement planning and market research.'';
       (ii) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (iii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2) and 
     in that paragraph by striking out ``For the purposes of 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), the'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``Each solicitation under this title shall include 
     specifications that include restrictive provisions or 
     conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs 
     of the executive agency or as authorized by law. The''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting after ``(other than 
     for'' the following: ``a procurement for commercial items 
     using simplified procedures or''.
       (2) Section 303B(d)(1)(A) of such Act (41 U.S.C. 253b) is 
     amended by striking out ``all'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``the''.
     SEC. 104. PREAWARD DEBRIEFINGS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2305(b) of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking out subparagraph (F) of paragraph (5);
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(6)(A) When the contracting officer excludes an offeror 
     submitting a competitive proposal from the competitive range 
     (or otherwise excludes such an offeror from further 
     consideration prior to the final source selection decision), 
     the excluded offeror may request in writing, within three 
     days after the date on which the excluded offeror receives 
     notice of its exclusion, a debriefing prior to award. The 
     contracting officer shall make every effort to debrief the 
     unsuccessful offeror as soon as practicable and may refuse 
     the request for a debriefing if it is not in the best 
     interests of the Government to conduct a debriefing at that 
     time.
       ``(B) The contracting officer is required to debrief an 
     excluded offeror in accordance with paragraph (5) of this 
     section only if that offeror requested and was refused a 
     preaward debriefing under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.
       ``(C) The debriefing conducted under this subsection shall 
     include--
       ``(i) the executive agency's evaluation of the significant 
     elements in the offeror's offer;
       ``(ii) a summary of the rationale for the offeror's 
     exclusion; and
       ``(iii) reasonable responses to relevant questions posed by 
     the debriefed offeror as to whether source selection 
     procedures set forth in the solicitation, applicable 
     regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed 
     by the executive agency.
       ``(D) The debriefing conducted pursuant to this subsection 
     may not disclose the number or identity of other offerors and 
     shall not disclose information about the content, ranking, or 
     evaluation of other offeror's proposals.
       ``(7) The contracting officer shall include a summary of 
     any debriefing conducted under paragraph (5) or (6) in the 
     contract file.''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Section 303B of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253b) is amended--
       (1) by striking out paragraph (6) of subsection (e);
       (2) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), (h), and (i) as 
     subsections (h), (i), (j), and (k), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(f)(1) When the contracting officer excludes an offeror 
     submitting a competitive proposal from the competitive range 
     (or otherwise excludes such an offeror from further 
     consideration prior to the final source selection decision), 
     the excluded offeror may request in writing, within 3 days 
     after the date on which the excluded offeror receives notice 
     of its exclusion, a debriefing prior to award. The 
     contracting officer shall make every effort to debrief the 
     unsuccessful offeror as soon as practicable and may refuse 
     the request for a debriefing if it is not in the best 
     interests of the Government to conduct a debriefing at that 
     time.
       ``(2) The contracting officer is required to debrief an 
     excluded offeror in accordance with subsection (e) of this 
     section only if that offeror requested and was refused a 
     preaward debriefing under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
       ``(3) The debriefing conducted under this subsection shall 
     include--
       ``(A) the executive agency's evaluation of the significant 
     elements in the offeror's offer;
       ``(B) a summary of the rationale for the offeror's 
     exclusion; and
       ``(C) reasonable responses to relevant questions posed by 
     the debriefed offeror as to whether source selection 
     procedures set forth in the solicitation, applicable 
     regulations, and other applicable authorities were followed 
     by the executive agency.
       ``(4) The debriefing conducted pursuant to this subsection 
     may not disclose the number or identity of other offerors and 
     shall not disclose information about the content, ranking, or 
     evaluation of other offerors' proposals.
       ``(g) The contracting officer shall include a summary of 
     any debriefing conducted under subsection (e) or (f) in the 
     contract file.''.

     SEC. 105. CONTRACT TYPES.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Section 2306 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting before the period at the end of subsection 
     (a) the following: ``, based on market conditions, 
     established commercial practice (if any) for the product or 
     service being acquired, and sound business judgment'';
       (B) by striking out subsections (b), (d), (e), (f), and 
     (h); and
       (C) by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (b).
       (2) The heading of such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 2306. Contract types''.

       (3) The item relating to section 2306 in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 137 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``2306. Contract types.''.

       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Section 304 of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 254) is amended--
       (A) by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
     sentence of subsection (a) the following: ``, based on market 
     conditions, established commercial practice (if any) for the 
     product or service being acquired, and sound business 
     judgment'';
       (B) by striking out ``Every contract awarded'' in the 
     second sentence of subsection (a) and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection; and
       (C) in subsection (b), by striking out ``used,'' in the 
     first sentence and all that follows through the end of the 
     subsection and inserting in lieu thereof ``used.''.
       (2) The heading of such section is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 304. CONTRACT TYPES.''.

       (3) The item relating to section 304 in the table of 
     contents for such Act (contained in section 1(b) is amended 
     to read as follows:

``Sec. 304. Contract types.''.

       (c) Conforming Repeals.--(1) Sections 4540, 7212, and 9540 
     of title 10, United States Code, are repealed.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 433 
     of such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 4540.
       (3) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 631 
     of such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 7212.
       (4) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 933 
     of such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 9540.
       (d) Civil Works Authority.--(1) Part IV of subtitle A of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by transferring section 2855 to the end of chapter 137; 
     and
       (B) by striking out the section heading and subsection (a) 
     of such section and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 2332. Contracts for architectural and engineering 
       services

       ``(a) The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the 
     military departments may enter into contracts for 
     architectural and engineering services in connection with a 
     military construction or family housing project or for other 
     Department of Defense or military department purposes. Such 
     contracts shall be awarded in accordance with the Brooks 
     Architect-Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.).''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 137 
     of such title is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``2332. Contracts for architectural and engineering services.''.

       (3) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 169 
     of such title is amended by striking out the item relating to 
     section 2855.

     SEC. 106. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE.

       (a) Requirement for System.--The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 35. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE.

       ``(a) Verification System.--
       ``(1) Requirement.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     shall provide for a contractor verification system in 
     accordance with this section.
       ``(2) Procedures.--The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall 
     provide procedures for the head of an executive agency to 
     follow in order to verify a contractor as eligible to compete 
     for contracts to furnish property or services that are 
     procured by the executive agency on a recurring basis.
       ``(3) Notification.--The procedures shall include a 
     requirement that the head of an executive agency provide for 
     the publication of appropriate notification about the 
     verification system in the Commerce Business Daily.
       ``(b) Evaluation.--(1) Under the procedures referred to in 
     subsection (a)(2), the head of an executive agency in 
     granting a verification to a contractor shall use the 
     following factors as the basis of the evaluation:
       ``(A) The efficiency and effectiveness of its business 
     practices.
       ``(B) The level of quality of its product or service.
       ``(C) Past performance of the contractor with regard to the 
     particular property or service.
       ``(2)(A) The evaluation of past performance may include 
     performance under--
       ``(i) a contract with an executive agency of the Federal 
     Government;
       ``(ii) a contract with an agency of a State or local 
     government; or
       ``(iii) a contract with an entity in the private sector.
       ``(B) The procedures shall include a requirement that, in 
     the case of a contractor with respect to which there is no 
     information on past contract performance or with respect to 
     which information on past contract performance is not 
     available, the contractor may not be evaluated favorably or 
     unfavorably on the factor of past performance.
       ``(c) Opportunity for All Interested Sources.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall provide procedures for ensuring 
     that all interested sources, including small businesses, have 
     a fair opportunity to be considered for verification under 
     the verification system.
       ``(d) Procurement From Verified Contractors.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation 

[[Page H 8868]]
     shall provide procedures under which the head of an executive agency 
     may enter into a contract for the procurement of property or 
     services referred to in subsection (a)(2) on the basis of a 
     competition in accordance with section 2304 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or section 303 of the Federal Property 
     and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) for 
     contractors verified with respect to such property or 
     services pursuant to the contractor verification system.
       ``(e) Termination of Verification.--The Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation shall provide procedures under which the head of 
     an executive agency--
       ``(1) may provide for the termination of a verification 
     granted a contractor under this section upon the expiration 
     of a period specified by the head of an executive agency;
       ``(2) may revoke a verification granted a contractor under 
     this section upon a determination that the quality of 
     performance of the contractor does not meet standards applied 
     by the head of the executive agency as of the time of the 
     revocation decision; and
       ``(3) may provide that a contractor whose verification is 
     terminated or revoked will have a fair opportunity to be 
     considered for reentry into the verification system.
       ``(f) Special Applicability Rule.--Notwithstanding section 
     34, the verification system shall apply to the procurement of 
     commercial items.''.
       (b) Repeals.--Section 2319 of title 10, United States Code, 
     is repealed. Section 303C of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253c) is 
     repealed.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The table of contents for the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (contained in 
     section 1(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 35. Contractor performance.''.

       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 137 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out 
     the item relating to section 2319.
       (3) The table of contents for the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (contained in section 
     1(b)) is amended by striking out the item relating to section 
     303C.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?


          amendment no. 1 offered by mrs. collins of illinois

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mrs. Collins of Illinois. Strike 
     out sections 101, 102, 103, and 106 and insert in lieu of 
     section 101 the following:

     SEC. 101. COMPETITION PROVISIONS.

       (a) Conference Before Submission of Bids or Proposals.--(1) 
     Section 2305(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(6) To the extent practicable, for each procurement of 
     property or services by an agency, the head of the agency 
     shall provide for a conference on the procurement to be held 
     for anyone interested in submitting a bid or proposal in 
     response to the solicitation for the procurement. The purpose 
     of the conference shall be to inform potential bidders and 
     offerors of the needs of the agency and the qualifications 
     considered necessary by the agency to compete successfully in 
     the procurement.''.
       (2) Section 303A of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253a) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) To the extent practicable, for each procurement of 
     property or services by an agency, an executive agency shall 
     provide for a conference on the procurement to be held for 
     anyone interested in submitting a bid or proposal in response 
     to the solicitation for the procurement. The purpose of the 
     conference shall be to inform potential bidders and offerors 
     of the needs of the executive agency and the qualifications 
     considered necessary by the executive agency to compete 
     successfully in the procurement.''.
       ``(b) Description of Source Selection Plan in 
     Solicitation.--(1) Section 2305(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code, is further amended in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking out ``and'' after the semicolon at the end 
     of subparagraph (A);
       (B) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph 
     (B) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) a description, in as much detail as is practicable, 
     of the source selection plan of the agency, or a notice that 
     such plan is available upon request.''.
       (2) Section 303A of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253a) is further amended in 
     subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking out ``and'' after the semicolon at the end 
     of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (2) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(3) a description, in as much detail as is practicable, 
     of the source selection plan of the executive agency, or a 
     notice that such plan is available upon request.''.
       (c) Discussions Not Necessary With Every Offeror.--(1) 
     Section 2305(b)(4)(A)(i) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 
     ``and provided that discussions need not be conducted with an 
     offeror merely to permit that offeror to submit a technically 
     acceptable revised proposal''.
       (2) Section 303B(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253b) is 
     amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: 
     ``and provided that discussions need not be conducted with an 
     offeror merely to permit that offeror to submit a technically 
     acceptable revised proposal''.
       (d) Preliminary Assessments of Competitive Proposals.--(1) 
     Section 2305(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``With respect to 
     competitive proposals, the head of the agency may make a 
     preliminary assessment of a proposal received, rather than a 
     complete evaluation of the proposal, and may eliminate the 
     proposal from further consideration if the head of the agency 
     determines the proposal has no chance for contract award.''.
       (2) Section 202B(b) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253b(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``With respect to 
     competitive proposals, the head of the agency may make a 
     preliminary assessment of a proposal received, rather than a 
     complete evaluation of the proposal, and may eliminate the 
     proposal from further consideration if the head of the agency 
     determines the proposal has no chance for contract award.''.
       (e) Federal Acquisition Regulation.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to reflect the 
     amendments made by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d).
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, just 3 months ago, when H.R. 
1670 was offered as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act, I 
offered an amendment to Chairman Clinger's amendment to protect small 
business by providing full and open competition procurement. My 
amendment was passed with bipartisan support, by a vote of 213-207. The 
procurement amendment was then passed by an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote of 402 to 1.
  My amendment today is the same one that passed the House on June 14, 
as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. It does three 
things: First, it strikes from H.R. 1670 its redefinition of the 
competition standard for Federal contracts. Second, it strikes an 
unnecessary system of Federal agency verification, whereby agency 
bureaucrats determine which firms are allowed to bid for Federal 
contracts. Third, it moves us closer to commercial buying practices, by 
empowering agency officials to have more open communication with the 
private sector. My position is supported by the Chair of the Committee 
on Small Business, Jan Meyers; the Small Business Administration; the 
Small Business Working Group on Procurement Reform; and the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce.
  In a July 27, 1995, letter to Chairman Clinger, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and Small Business Working Group on Procurement wrote:

       We believe that it is essential that H.R. 1670 be modified 
     to maintain the current standard of ``full and open 
     competition'', established by the landmark Competition in 
     Contracting Act of 1984 (CICA) . . . The competitive standard 
     established by CICA has proven itself for over a decade, 
     resulting in a steady decrease in sole source contract 
     awards. It assures a fair and open procurement process, which 
     is essential to small business.

  Clearly, for these major representatives of the small business 
community, the case has not been made for changing the full and open 
competition standard. Small business continues to believe that H.R. 
1670 will significantly limit their ability to fairly compete for 
Government contracts. In my opinion, this is a fatal flaw in H.R. 1670. 
My amendment will correct this flaw.
  The cornerstone of our free enterprise system is full and open 
competition. The competitive market ensures fair prices to the 
Government. If a vendor's product costs too much, it will not survive. 
At the same time full and open competition provides the opportunity for 
all vendors, particularly small businesses, to participate in the 
Federal marketplace, to be judged on merit. This creates incentives for 
the development of new and innovative products. These market forces are 
essential if we are to position our country for economic leadership 
into the next century.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Chairman, title I of H.R. 1670 amounts to little more than a bait 
and switch maneuver in which the term ``full and open'' is included in 
the text but its meaning is substantively 

[[Page H 8869]]
changed. The maximum practicable standard which we rejected on the 
House Floor on June 14 has been replaced by ``open access'', the 
definition of which is identical to the definition of ``full and open'' 
in CICA.
  However, the bill provides broad new exceptions to full and open 
competition when agency officials determine it is not feasible or 
appropriate.
  Prior to passage of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984, 
Federal agencies tended to award sole source contracts because agency 
bureaucrats complained that full and open competition would be too 
complicated and time consuming.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, They said it was less risky 
and more manageable to do business with a few selected vendors, instead 
of encouraging new and innovative qualified companies to enter the 
Federal marketplace. However, this lack of competition resulted in 
widespread waste and abuse in every Federal agency.
  The Competition in Contracting Act's establishment of the full and 
open competition standard has saved the Federal Government billions of 
dollars. Now, the same old arguments which were used to limit 
competition before we passed that legislation have resurfaced with H.R. 
1670.
  I can understand why agency bureaucrats would want additional powers 
to impose limits on competition. It is certainly much easier and less 
time consuming to do business with only a few selected well known big 
companies. Agency officials get to know the people in these companies. 
Yes, the old boy network does have its advantages; but do we really 
want our country to go backwards as we move into the more enlightened 
information age?
  Over the past 5 years much of the major innovative and technological 
advances that our country has made have come from small businesses. 
Just look at the remarkable rise of companies like Microsoft and Apple 
computers. Just a few years ago they were new, small companies; today 
they successfully compete with computer giants like IBM.
  Over the next 10 years, 85 percent of all new jobs in the United 
States will come from small businesses. Such businesses are in every 
district of every Member in this House. By adopting this new 
competition standard we will lock in procurement policies that lock 
small businesses out of the Federal marketplace and significantly 
undermine our Nation's competitiveness.
  Joshua Smith, who chaired President Bush's Commission on Minority 
Business, testified several years ago before the Government Operations 
Committee that emphasizing subjectivity in awarding contracts creates a 
breeding ground for prejudice, because contracting officers, if given 
the choice, will usually go with a well-established, large firm instead 
of a small business offering a lower price.
  Much of the stated justification for H.R. 1670's change in the 
competition standard is to give agency bureaucrats more power to 
exclude noncompetitive companies; but under the current full and open 
competition standard most of that authority already exists.
  Now, I agree with Chairman Clinger that there does appear to be a 
problem of many companies having technical weaknesses which are evident 
to the agencies early in the process. However, when agencies fail to so 
advise these companies of their little chance of winning, a lot of 
their money is wasted in a futile effort to win a contract.
  There also seems to be a problem with the lack of dialog between 
agencies and businesses prior to bidding. In the private sector, buyers 
and sellers talk to each other all the time. In the Federal Government 
we limit that discussion.
  I agree with these two industry concerns. Therefore, my amendment 
provides for prebid or preproposal conferences which should disclose as 
much information as possible regarding the qualifications necessary to 
successfully win a contract.
  In order to give companies a better understanding of how agencies 
will evaluate bids, my amendment would require that solicitation 
describe the agency source selection plan in as much detail 
practicable. If companies are better informed about how bids will be 
evaluated, they will be better able to give the Federal Government 
exactly what it needs and at the best price.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins] had expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Collins of Illinois was allowed to 
proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, finally, my amendment 
empowers Federal agencies by giving them the authority to eliminate 
from cost and technical discussions and evaluations any proposal that 
clearly has no chance for award. In this way companies should be 
informed early in the process that they have no chance to win a bid. 
This will cut down on time and significantly reduce costs.
  Mr. Chairman, full and open competition is the key to efficiency and 
fairness in Federal procurement. It creates a level playing field upon 
which all qualified vendors, particularly small businesses, have a fair 
chance to compete for a share of the hundreds of billions of dollars 
spent by the Federal Government in procurement each year. In return, 
the Government receives the maximum benefit from the innovations and 
expertise offered by companies large and small. We should maintain the 
current standard and the current interpretation of full and open, and 
make the targeted changes contained in my amendment.
  My amendment had the strong support of the small business community, 
as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as well as the following 
groups: Small Business Legislative Council [SBLC]; National Small 
Business United [NSBU]; 100 + member National Association of Women 
Business Owners [NAWBO]; Latin American Management Association [LAMA]; 
Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund 
[MBELDEF]; National Association of Minority Business [NAMB]; National 
Association of Minority Contractors [NAMC]; Women Construction Owners 
and Executives; and American Gear Manufacturers Association. The bill 
before us today unfortunately does not include my amendment, and 
instead would grant a broad new authority to procurement officials to 
limit competition. Therefore, I once again offer an amendment to 
restore the full and open standard which the House endorsed in June.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant but very strenuous opposition to 
the amendment of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]. I know 
of her concern and I know that she has really thought long and deeply 
about this matter, but I have to say that I think the gentlewoman is 
wrong in the interpretation that she gives to the language that we have 
included in this bill.
  I also point out that since we considered this amendment back in 
June, significant, substantive changes have been made in the 
legislation, primarily to move in the direction that the gentlewoman 
has importuned us to do. I think we recognized a number of the concerns 
that she raised and we did move in that direction.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the amendment that we have 
before us tonight really is in response to an earlier, now outmoded 
iteration of the legislation that we have before us tonight. The 
legislation we have before us tonight, I think, has addressed many of 
the concerns that were raised.
  In that respect, I would point out that I know the gentlewoman would 
not want to mislead anybody in terms of the support, but I think that 
it was alluded to that the NFIB had supported this amendment. They did 
indeed support this amendment when it was offered in June. I think they 
recognized that we have moved significantly toward the objectives that 
we all seek, and we just received a call, I would tell the gentlewoman 
and the Members, in our cloakroom asking me to make clear that they 
take no position on the amendment that is being offered tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that reflects a movement and a recognition that 
the bill that we are offering tonight really 

[[Page H 8870]]

has gone, we think, the extra mile in trying to address those concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, I must oppose the amendment. I think what we are 
attempting to do here is to remove the restraints that have been placed 
upon our procurement officers to do the job that we want them to do, 
not add new restraints, new requirements, new restrictions.
  I stress at the outset, this bill retains the language of full and 
open competition. It is our intent to encourage everybody that wants to 
do business, to come in and do business with the Federal Government.
  It does say that that cannot be an open-ended process where they are 
going to be in the process to the end of time or until the end of the 
process. It does indicate there has to be some flexibility, some 
discretion lodged in the very competent and able people who we have 
manning that job. I would say if that proves not to be true, I think we 
could revisit that.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would provide that a solicitation 
include an agency's source selection plan. According to FAR, the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation, source selection plans are to include 
such information as a description of the organization of the agency's 
source selection structure, a summary of the agency's acquisition 
strategy, the proposed acquisition factors and a description of the 
evaluation process.
  Since agencies are required by current law to set forth in a 
solicitation a clear statement of the Government's requirements, along 
with evaluation factors and subfactors as well as their relative 
weights, it is not clear to me, at least, that this additional 
information, to the extent that it could be released under the 
procurement integrity laws contained in the plans, would be of any 
value to the offerors. What is clear is that the already bloated 
procurement code would still have another requirement.
  Mr. Chairman, we want to compress and eliminate those that are no 
longer necessary or redundant, not add to the burden that we place on 
these people. H.R. 1670 provides for a standard of competition, focused 
on the competition received in response to the Government's 
requirements.
  What we do not recognize now is that there are procurements that are 
in the millions of dollars, and there are procurements that are in the 
hundreds of dollars. There is enormous variety and disparity between 
the types of procurements we do, and yet we put them in a straitjacket, 
requiring them to do everything the same.
  Mr. Chairman, what we are saying is that there ought to be some 
ability for the procurement people to look at what the scope of that 
procurement is, to determine what is going to give good competition to 
achieve what we all want, and that is very simply what we are after.
  What we have done here, I think, in our amendment would permit 
acquisition professionals to make rational judgments in accordance with 
the evaluation factors set forth in the solicitation throughout the 
entire selection process to ensure that only firms with a realistic 
chance of award, which is not the case now, I mean, they never get the 
word perhaps that they are not eligible until way down the process 
after they spent a lot of money and time, and then are told, ``Hey, you 
were never in the ball game to begin with.'' We allow the procurement 
officers to make those determinations early.
  The amendment would provide that an agency head may reject a proposal 
on the basis of a preliminary assessment of its merits, rather than a 
complete evaluation, if the agency has concluded that it has no chance 
for award.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Clinger was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, many have indicated they would like to be 
informed as soon as possible in the evaluation process if they had no 
chance for award in order to save time and expense. We have not heard 
that firms wish to have their initial proposals, which is what this 
amendment would do, have their initial proposals rejected based on less 
than a complete evaluation.
  So, this amendment really, I think, takes away that full and complete 
evaluation at the outset. The concern has been that offerors are 
encouraged to incur the expense of submitting revised proposals without 
the real chance of getting the award. This is addressed in H.R. 1670 by 
providing for increased information in the public notice so that 
offerors are provided, as early as possible in the process, detailed 
information concerning the evaluation criteria to appear in the 
solicitation and by granting acquisition professionals increased 
discretion in accordance with the announced evaluation criteria 
throughout the selection process.
  Mr. Chairman, what this basically says is that we do treat all of the 
applicants fairly. We do allow everybody to come in. This is not an 
exclusionary process. We treat them very fairly, but we do tell them up 
front what this is about. It also gives the Federal Government the 
opportunity to have some flexibility, some discretion about the way 
they do it.

                              {time}  1830

  So this is all backed up. Our bill is all backed by simplified, 
easily accessed, robust bid process to guard against abuse by the 
discretion of the contracting officers.
  We are concerned about what contracting officers are going to do; 
then we have a provision there that allows that to be reviewed on a 
regular basis.
  Mr. Chairman, this is really an obsolete amendment. As I say, it 
addresses problems that were inherent, perhaps, in the earlier bill, we 
did not think so, that were inherent. We have changed many of those to 
achieve the kind of reforms we all seek.
  I would urge in the strongest possible way, reluctant as it may be, a 
``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have three basic principles at issue before us. 
About 10 years ago, in the midst of all kinds of procurement excesses, 
Congress amended procurement law and established in the Competition and 
Contracting Act a vigorous commitment to the principle of free, full, 
and open competition. Basically, the philosophy of that was that if we 
had full and open competition, we could say to the public, ``This is 
the public's money you are spending. You are getting your value's worth 
because it is a result, what we are doing, the contracts we are 
awarding are a result of full, open, and vigorous competition.''
  So I think that we can still say 10 years later any deviation from 
full and open competition ought to be staunchly defended. I think we 
ought to be wary right now of deviating from full and open competition 
for a particular reason. We are downsizing acquisition in the defense 
arena, drastically cutting the amount that we appropriate every year 
for the so-called investment accounts, research and development and 
procurement, by huge percentages.
  There is a tendency there for the haves, for those
   who are now defense contractors, to want to exclude the others 
because the pie is shrinking, and there are just so many pieces you can 
cut out of a shrinking pie. So there is already a tendency, because of 
downsizing of funding of procurement for the haves, to try to exclude 
the have-nots, and we want to be very careful so we do not dovetail 
procurement law at this very point in the history of procurement 
funding and make it easier for the haves to rule out the have-nots. I 
fear we still have too much tendency toward that in this revision of 
the bill.

  Do not take it from me. Read what the Chamber of Commerce said in a 
letter they wrote at the end of July, looking back at this bill. They 
said,

       We do not believe that any case has been made for modifying 
     the standards and practices of full and open competition. We 
     are unaware of any testimony or study that such a change is 
     needed. On the contrary, it was specifically considered and 
     rejected by the advisory panel on codifying and streamlining 
     acquisition laws whose 1,800-page report was the foundation 
     for P.L. 103-355, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
     1994.

  So that is the first principle here.
  Let us be extremely careful about the deviations we make from full 
and open competition.
  Second, to the extent we do and to the extent we allow and authorize 
those who manage this system in the 

[[Page H 8871]]
executive branch to manage and operate the competitive system and to 
determine who can bid and who cannot bid, who wins the bid, who is 
excluded and who is included, then we should at least lay down our own 
principles to guide them.
  The second point that the Chamber made, and speaking for small 
businesses in particular, is, and I am reading from their letter, ``We 
are perplexed by a theme reflected in so many of the bills' provisions 
eliminating clear statutory standards and substituting virtually 
unfettered discretion in the career regulation writers to shape the 
procurement system as they see fit.'' We are virtually letting them 
make sandlot rules, to make up the rules as they go along and giving 
them next to no criteria for doing so.
  Read the bill itself. Pick up a copy of it. I am reading from page 
13, 2304(d), ``Standards for determining when the use of competitive 
procedures is not feasible or appropriate shall be set forth in the 
Federal acquisition regulations.'' That is basically the bare language 
of the statute. That is the prescription we are giving to the 
regulators who write the rules and regulations, the black-letter law 
that will determine who gets included and who gets excluded.
  The Speaker just made a very compelling speech. I would like to share 
another anecdote about procurement history that goes back some years. 
When Ike had retired and gone to Gettysburg, he was interviewed once. 
Somebody asked him ``General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower, who were 
the heroes of the Second World War who were unsung, the people who 
helped win it, the people who played a pivotal role who did not get 
adequate credit?'' The first person he mentioned was Andrew Jackson 
Higgins, A.J. Higgins, a small boat manufacturer who made bayou boats 
in New Orleans, LA, who came on during World War II to make PT boats 
and the famous Higgins boats that made the amphibious landings 
possible. That is the very kind of small business we want to make 
provision for.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Spratt was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. SPRATT. That is what we are about here. We want to make sure this 
system is still open to A.J. Higgins, that will ensure that we have the 
kind of innovation that keeps us abreast of technology and that will 
assure that we do not fall victim to having a cartel, a club of pre-
qualified bidders who are the only ones eligible to participate in this 
shrinking procurement pie.
  I support the amendment that the gentlewoman, our ranking Member, has 
offered. I think it improves upon title I of it and corrects some of 
the deviations that the bill otherwise tends towards veering away from 
the standard of full and open competition.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not want to confuse this group. I had intended to 
offer my own amendment tonight, but because my amendment was so close 
in purpose to what the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins] attempts to do, I have decided instead to 
support her amendment.
  I have been working all week with the Chamber of Commerce to try to 
represent their interests and the National Association for the Self-
employed, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the 
Associated Builders and Contractors, the Small Business Legislative 
Council, National Small Business United, the National Association of 
Women Business Owners, the Latin American Management Association, the 
Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund; many 
others are deeply concerned about doing away with full and open 
competition.
  We have heard it stated today that there is a 20 percent premium 
associated with full and open competition, and this study was cited. 
But this study does not relate those costs to full and open 
competition. The costs identified were not associated
 with competition. They were associated to Government regulation 
relating to quality assurance, accounting and audit requirements, 
management of technical data, engineering, to name a few. Those are the 
costs that drive Government procurement. Full and open competition, 
from all of the testimony that we have heard in our committee, will 
save money in procurement.

  I rise in strong support of the Meyers-Collins amendment, and I think 
that small business supports procurement reform, but more important, 
small business supports competition.
  H.R. 1670 is supposed to simplify the procurement by weeding out bids 
from firms that have no chance at winning a contract. Fair enough. But 
how? In title I, H.R. 1670 eliminates full and open competition in 
favor of competition whenever it is feasible or appropriate or 
efficient. Who decides feasibility? An agency functionary. Who decides 
what is efficient? The same bureaucrat, the same people who gave us 
$600 hammers.
  Mr. Chairman, abandoning full and open competition is irresponsible. 
I have letters from the inspectors general from the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Veterans' Affairs urging Congress not to 
go back, to turn its back on full and open competition. They say that a 
change is unnecessary and will be confusing as to the level of standard 
for competition.
  H.R. 1670 also proposes to streamline the pre-qualification process. 
But is there any language laying out the process? No. Once again, it is 
all left to the procurement bureaucracy to devise.
  Read the bill. There are no procedures, no standards, nothing.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow the same weeding out of 
capable bidders, but inside of a statutory framework. It brings us back 
to current law. This amendment will allow agencies to eliminate 
unsuitable proposals early in the competition through preliminary 
evaluations. The amendment will meet the goals of H.R. 1670 in a way 
that is fair to everyone, particularly small business.
  Agencies will have an opportunity to establish their needs for 
performance, and firms wishing to do business with the Government will 
have their opportunity.
  I urge my colleagues not to be misled with the
   cries of easing the burden on the contracting system. Businesses do 
not regularly bid on projects they have no hope of winning. Bid 
proposals cost time and money. Businesses are not in the habit of 
wasting their time and money on projects that have no chance for 
success.

  I ask my colleagues, are we in favor of letting the bureaucrats run 
off and just do their own thing? That is not what I have heard in this 
House over the last 9 months.
  H.R. 1670, in its current form, says let us give full authority to 
the bureaucracy; we will just trust them to do the right thing. Mr. 
Chairman, I just cannot do that. I know what happens to small 
businesses when agencies have too much power. Rights are trampled. 
Ridiculous fines are levied. Jungles of arcane regulations appear.
  Many of my colleagues in the freshman class know this, too. It is a 
part of why they are here. That is not what I fought for when we passed 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments this year, and this is not 
what the Contract With America was all about, and that is why I support 
this amendment.
  This amendment will ensure small business is not run over by the 
regulatory train of procurement streamlining. Let us streamline 
procurement, yes, but let us not hand over total discretionary 
authority to the bureaucracy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas was allowed to proceed 
for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that 
this amendment is the same amendment that was attempted as a place 
holder in the DOD appropriation, or the authorization, I believe. If 
you voted for the Collins amendment then, vote for the Collins-Meyers 
amendment now. It is the right thing to do for small business.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page H 8872]]

  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Meyers-
Collins amendment. The Meyers-Collins amendment responds to the 
concerns of the small-business community and saves taxpayers' dollars 
by preserving the current standard and practice of full and open 
competition in Federal contracting.
  The Meyers-Collins amendment responds to concerns of the small-
business community and saves taxpayers' dollars by rejecting the bill's 
grant of sweeping authority for contracting officers to limit 
competition, such as when they believe that competition is not 
appropriate or feasible.
  Where are they going to make this decision? Behind locked doors? Who 
is going to oversee their decision process? The Meyers-Collins 
amendment helps small businesses and saves taxpayers' dollars by 
maintaining statutory standards that help protect businesses from 
arbitrary treatment by contracting bureaucratic officers. The Meyers-
Collins amendment saves taxpayers' dollars and helps small businesses 
by rejecting the bill's issuance of multiple blank checks to career 
regulation writers to shape the Federal contracting process to their 
convenience.
  Mr. Chairman, full and open competition is the heart of the free 
market system. In the Federal procurement process, it guarantees that 
the Government gets the best value for the goods and services it 
purchases. The full and open competition standard has been in law for 
over a decade. It was enacted as part of the Competition and 
Contracting Act of 1984, a bill that responded to the fraud, waste and 
abuse characterizing Federal procurement at that time.
  We all remember the DOD spare parts horror stories and the 
investigation of influence peddling, the Ill Winds scandal.
  H.R. 1670 weakens full and open competition and could return us to 
those days of scandals. The simple fact is this: The case for changing 
the full and open competition standard has not been made in any 
credible or coherent fashion. The issue was not even raised at the 
February hearing of the committee on Government Reform and Oversight. 
The DOD inspector general and the IG of Veterans' Affairs agree 
completely with this point, and I quote from the DOD inspector 
general's testimony:

       It is not clear what statutory shortcomings the proposed 
     changes are intended to fix. We have not seen any analysis or 
     demonstration of a problem that supports moving away from 
     full and open competition.

  This is the IG saying,

     Don't, do not do it.

                              {time}  1845

  The so-called section 800 panel, which provided the analytical basis 
for last year's FASA bill, considered and explicitly rejected moving 
away from full and open competition. They said do not do it, it will 
cause problems, it will waste taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, competition in Federal contracting dates back to the 
revolutionary war. Competition in contracting has been around that long 
for one simple reason: It is fair, it is honest, and it works well. 
Full and open competition saves 25 percent, according to GAO in our 
contracting pursuits in their recent report. Maybe even more 
importantly competition maintains Federal procurement integrity and 
guarantees fair play by guaranteeing that contracts are awarded on 
merit; that they are awarded on merit, not favoritism and backroom 
decisions.
  It is easy, very easy, to understand why government bureaucrats would 
support a retreat from full and open competition. Deciding who can 
compete on any given contract is a very powerful position. Deciding who 
can compete on over $200 billion in taxpayers' funds in Federal 
contracts is a very powerful person.
  Doing business with a few well-known businesses is easier than 
considering qualified bidders. That is why the small business community 
is so opposed to this bill. Small businesses make up the heart of our 
economy, generating 85 percent of all new jobs and providing 
extraordinary technological innovations. Barring small businesses from 
the Federal acquisition system is unfair and it makes absolutely no 
economic sense.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 
Maloney] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Maloney was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to conclude by saying 
the other side of the aisle has spent a great deal of time in this 
Congress debating the necessity of having risk assessment placed on our 
bureaucrats, of overseeing them and limiting what they are doing in 
health and safety, on food inspection, on the environment. We have to 
have risk assessment, we have to have standards, yet in this bill they 
hand the bureaucrats a completely blank slate to determine what the 
standards are. There is no legislative authority. There are no clear 
guidelines. I tell Members it is a disaster, and we will be back here 
changing it after dollars are wasted in fraud, waste and abuse.
  Full and open guarantees competition and the best price for 
government goods, saving taxpayers' dollars. I congratulate the 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] and the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins] on their joint bipartisan effort on this bill and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CHRYSLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words in opposition to the Collins amendment and urge my colleagues to 
vote against it.
  The amendment furthers the notion that Congress is in the business of 
micromanaging the operations of the executive branch and removes the 
fundamental reforms included in H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition 
Reform Act.
  The current system has confronted industry vendors with a maze of 
redtape, often amounting to a step-by-step prescription that increases 
staff and equipment needs and leaves little room for the exercise of 
good business judgment, initiatives, and creativity. H.R. 1670 would 
remove these unneeded prescriptions and move the system closer to a 
more commercial-like process by allowing industry sellers and 
government buyers to offer and acquire respectively maximum value for 
the taxpayer.
  Unfortunately, the gentlewoman's amendment would counter this drive 
to streamline and simplify the process. Instead, her amendment strips 
the fundamental reform included in H.R. 1670 and adds more requirements 
and more micromanagement to the already arcane procurement codes.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1670 would enhance competition for government 
contracts, focused on the government's requirements, improved 
communications between government buyers and industry sellers, and 
reduce the Federal Government's operating costs by increasing its 
reliance on the private sector for commercial products.
  NFIB is neutral on this issue, and I strongly urge my colleagues, to 
vote against this amendment.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.
  I have listened to this debate and I cannot believe we are talking 
about the same bill. I have heard a lot about scandals. The fact is the 
scandals occurred under the present system, and what we are trying to 
do is change the present system.
  We clearly spell out, if you have read the bill, that they shall 
obtain full and open competition that provides open access and that is 
consistent with the need to efficiently fulfill the Government's 
requirements. Open access is defined on page 21:

       When used with respect to a procurement means that all 
     responsible sources are permitted to submit sealed bids or 
     competitive proposals on the procurement.

  Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is spell out that the Government 
must note its requirements, apply certain weights to them based on the 
type of procurement, and than everyone can submit their procurement. 
What is holding small business up is also holding big business up, and 
that is shelves of regulations, shelves of bureaucracy to go through. 
This tries to simplify the system to protect the taxpayers, No. 1, and 
to provide for the responsible bidders to gain a contract that they can 
actually fulfill, No. 2.

[[Page H 8873]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Collins amendment.
  Mr. CHRYSLER. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult situation where we are posited 
between two committee chairmen, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger]; the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight, and the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] the chairwoman 
of the Committee on Small Business. Both of these chairmen have as 
their goal the streamlining of the acquisition process because it is 
good for the Government and it is good for businesses of all types. I 
think, however, we have to take a closer look at the reason for the 
Collins-Meyers amendment, and that is to ensure that small businesses 
have a stake in the procurement process.
  Mr. Chairman, we can go through the different organizations that are 
for and against this bill, but I think probably the most compelling 
reason for the Collins-Meyers amendment is by the inspector general of 
the Department of Defense, a person who is in a civil service position. 
This is a nonpolitical position. I would quote briefly from the remarks 
from the letter that is opposed to the underlying bill and
 it states as follows:

  It says, under the definition section, the word competitive 
procedures would have an added definition of ``open access.'' We 
disagree with the changes. The revised definition of competitive 
procedures would allow the contracting officer to limit competition on 
the basis of efficiency. From our point of view, a definition for open 
access is not needed because under the current statutes all responsible 
sources are permitted to submit bids or proposals.
  He also goes on and he says,

       Subsections (b)(1), et cetera, conforming amendments to 
     provide for full and open competition, that provides open 
     access and is consistent with the need to efficiently fulfill 
     the Government's requirements.

  The inspector general says we disagree with the changes because we 
believe this is a further attempt to limit the use of full and open 
competitive procedures.
  Mr. Chairman, back in 1984, this body looked at the situation and it 
passed the Competition in Contracting Act in 1984, which established 
the current standard of full and open competition, the standard to 
which the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] attempts to restore 
under her amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the public trust. In one sense the 
Government cannot be as selective as the private sector with whom it 
does business. Everybody deserves an opportunity to compete for a 
Government contract. The examples are there. Prior to the act, there 
was a bid for a flame holder for the F-100 engine for the Air Force. 
The bid came in at $5,000, depending upon the size of the buy. When the 
Air Force restricted the purchase of the prime contractor, the cost 
jumped to $16,000 per flame holder.
  And, again, a divergent nozzle segment for the F-100. The bid went 
from $2,400, when there was essentially sole sourcing, down to $1,000 
per unit from the same contractor when this type of competition was 
allowed.
  Mr. Chairman, the small business people of this country are very much 
concerned that they have a stake, that they have the ability to compete 
in the procurement process. In the area which I represent, in the 
northern part of Illinois, over 6,000 different contracts have been 
signed by businesses with the Federal Government over the past 10 
years. We are not talking about an inside-the-beltway type of thing. We 
are dealing literally with tens of thousands of small businesses that 
want to get involved in selling to the Federal Government.
  The Collins-Meyers amendment strengthens a good bill. It strengthens 
the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger]. It is not a 
weakening amendment. Members of this body voted overwhelmingly a few 
months ago to adopt the Collins amendment to the DOD authorization 
bill. Members of this body are already on record in being in favor of 
advocating small businesses becoming involved with the procurement 
process. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members of this body 
to back the Collins amendment. It is good for the United States of 
America, and it is good for small business.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, despite my high regard for the ranking Democrat on this 
committee and what I know to be her intent, and from her perspective 
improving this bill, I think it is only the responsible thing to do to 
put on the record how the Democratic White House, the people who have 
worked on reinventing government, on attempting to streamline 
government, the people who, in fact, on a day-to-day basis, were vested 
with the responsibility of carrying out the contractual obligations of 
the United States receiving bids, granting contracts, and, in fact, 
carrying out the laws that we entrust with them.
  The Department of Defense, the executive branch, really need to be 
heard from on this bill. I think the most important sentence in the 
statement of administration policy, which is dated today, September 13, 
1995, says, the very first sentence, the administration supports House 
passage of H.R. 1670 as reported by the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee.
  So, Mr. Chairman, while I understand the good intent of this 
amendment, the fact is that this amendment would change the legislation 
as reported by the committee and, thus, the Clinton administration does 
not support this amendment.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. Chairman, I am going to explain in the White House's words why 
they do not support this amendment.
  In a letter from the Defense Department, which explains the support 
for H.R. 1670 and the opposition of this amendment, the Department of 
Defense explains that it will add significant bureaucratic burden 
without furthering the goal of acquisition streamlining. The Defense 
Department supports the concept that Government can no longer afford 
the time and the administrative burden associated with the requirement 
that every potential Government source must be allowed to compete even 
when not all of those sources have a realistic chance of receiving the 
contract. Thus DOD supports the enactment of the broad generic 
authority to downselect that is not hampered by excessive procedural 
detail. This will leave the executive agency free to implement the 
authority in a flexible manner, enhancing the effectiveness of the 
authority. In addition, allowing agencies to limit the number of 
offerers in the competitive range to three, the contracting officer 
determines the such action is warranted by considerations of efficiency 
which similarly enable
 agencies to expedite the procurement process and allow offerers that 
do not have a real chance of receiving the award to save time and money 
by being removed sooner rather than late in the process. That is a 
realistic, rational approach to Government procurement reform.

  So I agree with the administration. I think we need to continue 
procurement reform. The statement of administration policy, of Clinton 
administration policy, says that this is the one bill that continues 
the procurement reform that they have consistently supported. That is 
why, and I state again for emphasis, the Clinton administration 
supports House passage of this very bill before us as reported by the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight without amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mrs. Collins of Illinois and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Moran was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman did not 
read on this some statement that he has before him, right on down under 
title I it says, even though it does say supports passage of the bill, 
it says, however, 

[[Page H 8874]]
the language in title I has raised concerns about the Government's 
commitment to vigorous competition. With those concerns being raised, 
it seems to me the Government has not said it does not want full and 
open competition. It raises that concern, the concern is there. It is 
stated on the same piece of paper that the gentleman just got through 
reading from, and that has to be taken into consideration.
  I favor the bill as is written with one exception, that it does not 
contain full and open competition. Full and open competition would make 
this bill much better. It makes it workable. It erases the concern that 
the Government has, that the administration has, on this piece of 
legislation. It is a worthy amendment that betters this bill. It does 
not weaken it in any way. It is an amendment that should be passed by 
this House of Representatives tonight.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] has 
again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Moran was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the chairman that we hand 
out the statement of administration policy to all of the Members. They 
can reach their own conclusion as to what it says, but I would also ask 
the Democratic Members of this House particularly to call the White 
House and to ask them their position both on this amendment as well as 
on passage of the bill.
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                               Washington, DC, September 13, 1995.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

    (This statement has been coordinated by OMB with the concerned 
agencies.)--H.R. 1670--Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995--(Clinger 
                       (R) PA and 16 cosponsors)

       The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 1670 as 
     reported by the Government Reform and Oversight Committee.
       H.R. 1670 makes a number of important steps to simplify the 
     procurement process, reduce bureaucracy, and make it easier 
     for the Government to select suppliers committed to good 
     performance. In particular, the Administration supports the 
     provisions that authorize simplified procedures for use in 
     commercial product acquisitions, streamline ``procurement 
     integrity'' requirements, and eliminate statutorily mandated 
     layers of review that slow down the procurement process 
     without adding value.
       The Administration will continue to work with Congress to 
     address concerns with:
       Title I, which redefines ``full and open competition'' and 
     authorizes ``procedures other than competitive procedures'' 
     where competitive procedures are ``not feasible or 
     appropriate''. The Administration appreciates the Committee's 
     intent to authorize the streamlined competitive methods the 
     Administration has sought without micromanaging in statute. 
     The Administration agrees with the conclusion embodied in 
     Title I that significant reforms of the way in which 
     competitions are conducted are needed. These would include 
     (1) authorizing innovative ``two-phase procedures'' allowing 
     elimination of uncompetitive bidders prior to full 
     competitive proposals, and (2) allowing reduction of the 
     competitive range, after receipt of proposals, in order to 
     conduct an efficient procurement. However, the language in 
     Title I has raised concerns about the Government's commitment 
     to vigorous competition. The Administration therefore 
     recommends consideration of its proposal to authorize the 
     aforementioned streamlined procedures in statute.
       Title IV, concerning bid protests. While Title IV has been 
     improved since its introduction, it still does not go far 
     enough to reduce excessive litigation, intrusive discovery 
     techniques, and adversarial relations between suppliers and 
     the government customer. The Administration would support an 
     amendment that would reduce the litigation burden associated 
     with Federal procurement. The Administration also continues 
     to have concerns about consolidation of claims and protests 
     into a single forum. Finally, the Administration has a 
     constitutional concern with the manner in which Appeals Board 
     judges would be appointed. These officials should be 
     appointed by the heads of the agencies in which the Boards 
     are located--the Department of Defense and the General 
     Services Administration--respectively.

  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few questions, if I could, to the 
chairman of the committee and the author of this legislation to try to 
clear up, I think, some comments that have been made perhaps in haste, 
or misunderstanding, on the floor.
  First of all, as I read the bill and I read this amendment, if this 
amendment fails, is not the standard in the bill still full and open 
competition?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Absolutely, and that is one of the changes that has been 
made, frankly, since we last considered this measure, the DOD 
authorization bill. There was a concern that we were eliminating the 
language which has been relied on so long and so--for so many years, 
and so we put that language back in. Full and open competition is still 
the standard, and what we have done is say everybody, access to 
everybody can come in. We have not changed that in any way.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I think within their own 
committee's report, it says the section would amend to define the terms 
``open access'' and ``competitive procedures'' as the operative 
elements of the new competition standard. According to the new 
definition, open access would be achieved when all responsible sources 
are permitted to submit offers under competitive procedures, and then 
they define competitive procedures. Competitive procedures would be 
defined as those under which an agency enters into a contract pursuant 
to full and open competition that provides open access and is 
consistent with the Government's needs to efficiently fulfill its 
requirements. That is the concern of small business.
  Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask the gentlewoman from Kansas then are there any 
notice provision that she has eliminated in her amendment, and I would 
ask both, as I understand it, what notice provisions now will not go 
out to small businesses under this that would have gone out, that would 
go out, if this amendment passes?
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. I just know that in the competition 
requirements, in the contracting requirements, they have eliminated the 
competition requirements. They have eliminated four pages.
  At the end of that they say standards for determining when the 
competitive procedure is not feasible or appropriate shall be set forth 
in the Federal acquisition regulation.
  In other words, the bureaucrats decide what is feasible and what is 
appropriate, and that is what scares small business.
  Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask, if I can, the author of this bill the 
standards for notice, if I can, for the procurements in this. Are they 
changed at all.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Not in any respect.
  Everybody is going to be fully aware of what is out there.
  Mr. DAVIS. Now let me put sole source to one side just for one 
second. Can anyone bid on the procurement regard? Is there any bar to 
anyone bidding that is in this bill?
  Mr. CLINGER. There is no bar to anybody who is, as my colleague 
knows, anyone can get in and bid on these Government procurements.
  Mr. DAVIS. And, as I read this, the amendment and the bill, there was 
some rhetoric about these decisions were made by Government 
bureaucrats. I guess they are talking about Government procurement 
officers, behind closed doors, back-door decisions. But, as I read the 
sole-source requirements under the bill, they are the same seven 
source-sole requirements that currently are in operation that this 
amendment does not affect?
  Am I correct?
  Mr. CLINGER. That is exactly correct. That is exactly correct.
  Mr. DAVIS. And I think when we start talking about this, we have to 
talk what is the current state of where we are now. Where does the 
administration stand on this?
  Mr. CLINGER. Well, I think it bears repeating. The administration in 
their statement we received tonight supports House passage of H.R. 1670 
as reported by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, and I 
think the gentleman from Virginia indicated some of the reasons behind 
that, that determination, which were afforded to the Department of 
Defense.
  Mr. DAVIS. My comments are simply this, and why I oppose the 
amendment:
  I understand the intentions of this and the concerns that have been 
raised, 

[[Page H 8875]]
but I think they are bogus in this case. I think we have--what we are 
doing to some extent is we are allowing the Government buyer, if my 
colleague will, the contracting officer or procurement officers--to 
make some decision, but we are allowing it earlier in the game.
  I was a procurement attorney for 15 years, and I can tell the 
gentleman many times we would go out there and spent tens of thousands, 
sometimes hundreds of thousands, of dollars on a procurement and never 
really have had a chance at it at all after that money was spent.
  As I understand, if this amendment is defeated, one can still bid on 
the procurement. There is no bar to anyone bidding on these 
procurements, but they will know earlier in the process, before vast 
sums are expended, that they are outside the competitive range. That is 
a savings to these small firms, and many of them, I think, would 
welcome this.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. One other point.
  It has been suggested here that some nameless, faceless bureaucrats 
squirreled away someplace are going to be writing regulations that are 
going to limit, and restrict, and exclude people from the process. That 
is absolutely not true.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Clinger and by unanimous consent, Mr. Davis was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. CLINGER. That is absolutely untrue. What we are saying is that 
the procurement officials, very front and center, they are very much on 
the front line of the decisions that they make, are going to be given a 
little more flexibility, a little more discretion, in how they do these 
things. They are going to be answerable for decisions they make, and, 
in fact if they exclude people, they have to go on record in writing 
why and on the basis on which they excluded those people from the 
competition.
  So, it is not a nameless, faceless bureaucrat. It is going to be a 
very visible procurement officer.
  Mr. DAVIS. In fact, as I understand the legislation, the gentleman 
has even stricter standards in terms of bid protests, in terms of what 
those criteria are going to be.
  Mr. CLINGER. Tighten those and make them much stronger.
  Mr. DAVIS. Let me just ask why because I understand it is well 
intentioned, and I applaud the gentlewoman from Illinois for offering 
this the first time in the authorization bill, although it was narrowly 
defeated. A lot of the opposition at that time was the fact it was 
approach to the authorization bill and was not free-standing. In this 
we have made concessions in this to try to accommodate some of the 
concerns that were rightfully raised, and I applaud her for that.
  But the central issue here is, should the Government in its 
procurement operate on a ``one size fits all'' standard, or are we 
going to allow the buyer, are we going to allow that agent then who is 
trying to get the best price they can for the Government, the 
flexibility to do the right thing, the flexibility to make those 
determinations, and, once again, the sole criteria is not changed one 
iota under the current law, and this amendment does not affect that at 
all.
  All the rhetoric notwithstanding it says decisions are going to be 
made in the back room. The decisions on sole source do not change one 
bit under this.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Collins-Meyers amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to listen to this debate as I was 
listening to it a few minutes ago from my office. I had to ask myself 
if this is 1995. Have we forgotten what it used to be like? Have we 
forgotten the fact that there was a time when only a few could really 
compete and be successful with government procurement, not only in 
Federal Government, but in State government. We had situations where 
they did not even make public procurement opportunities. We have had 
people fighting now for years so that we can shine some light on the 
opportunities that are available, and put in publications and made 
public. We have had to take away the opportunity for just a few to 
participate
 because there were bureaucrats who could literally hand it out to 
those they thought should get it. It was a little old comfortable 
network of folks who could be successful, and my colleagues know this 
procurement game.

  Yes, we could set up a situation that I hear people talking about on 
the floor today where we could have bureaucrats say, ``Oh, I don't 
think this person, or that person, or this business is big enough, or 
smart enough, or the proposal doesn't look good enough, or it comes 
from a strange part of the country.'' We did not know that they had 
these kinds of operations there. They could do all of those things and 
exclude people from bidding, from participating. They could cut a lot 
of small businesses out that could be successful if they only had a 
decent chance to compete.
  But we do not want to go back to those days. We do not want to allow 
any one, or two, or three individuals to decide that they know best 
without people having a real opportunity to be evaluated.
  We talk about merit day in and day out. Well, I want my colleagues to 
know that is what this discussion is about, that is what this debate is 
about. It is about whether or not the Federal Government is going to 
open up opportunity for everybody.
  I hear a lot about suspect for small businesses, but this is the real 
test. This is the test of whether or not we are going to let small 
businesses, some of whom have not been successful in the past, but they 
are willing to continue to spend their money, they are willing to 
continue to knock on these doors, they are willing to continue to work 
hard to get a piece of this government business. Do not close the door 
not, and, please, do not make the argument about it is inconvenient.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not care about anybody's proposal for streamlining 
government. Of course we want to streamline government. But we do not 
ever want to conclude that it is too inconvenient for us to allow small 
businesses to compete, to allow those who have not had opportunities in 
the past. This is a test of whether or not those who stand up time and 
time again talking about how America is made up of small businesses and 
how they need, but have the opportunity, to participate, to see where 
they really stand for the opportunity for small business to 
participate.
                              {time}  1915

  We are talking about opening it up, fair competition. We are talking 
about evaluating. We are talking about merit. This is a time to use to 
open the doors, not close them, not exclude, not keep out small 
businesses and women and others who have not been successful in this 
process in the past, because we have had those bureaucrats who can make 
decisions and not really evaluate people on their ability to perform.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 1670 and encourage 
our colleagues to vote for its passage. ``Better,'' ``faster,'' 
``cheaper'' are more than buzz words, Mr. Chairman. Last Congress we 
began efforts to make these words a reality as we began the process of 
streamlining the Federal acquisition process. Starting with the 
enactment into law of FASA, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, 
H.R. 1670 builds on that initiative.
  I would like to address right now, however, two issues that I think 
need more clarification. First is the administration's position. My 
colleague from Virginia [Mr. Moran] read some excerpts from the 
statement of administration policy, and I would like to read some 
others, because they bear on the issue of this amendment.

       The administration appreciates the committee's intent to 
     authorize the streamlined competitive methods the 
     administration has sought without micromanaging in statute. 

[[Page H 8876]]
     These would include, one, authorizing innovative two-phased procedures 
     allowing elimination of uncompetitive bidders prior to full 
     competitive proposals; and, two, allowing reduction of the 
     competitive range after receipt of proposals in
      order to conduct an efficient procedure.

  I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that efficiency is the only goal, but 
it is a valid goal. The other goals are opportunity, and ``better'', 
``faster'', ``cheaper'', and I think what we are trying to do here is 
to achieve a balance among three good goals.
  Let me further read some language from the Department of Defense, 
which has a position on the Meyers amendment, which is not going to be 
offered today but, nonetheless, which also relates to this amendment. 
These defense views were prepared before it was clear that the Meyers 
amendment would be withdrawn, and they are in opposition to the Meyers 
amendment, making this statement:

       The Department of Defense supports the concept that 
     government can no longer afford the time and the 
     administrative burden associated with the requirement that 
     every potential government source must be allowed to compete, 
     even when not all of those sources have a realistic chance of 
     receiving the government contract. Thus, DOD supports the 
     enactment of broad, generic authority to down-select that is 
     not hampered by excessive procedural detail,'' and so forth.

  And it goes on to be more specific about the Meyers amendment.
  I would like to say this. As a general matter, though, it is kind of 
difficult to parse it all. The administration has suggested its 
opposition to these amendments, not because it is opposed to 
opportunity, but because it thinks that the reinventing government 
idea, which should apply to procurement, requires change. After all, if 
it does not, we will never get to a better allocation of scarce 
dollars. Change is painful. I think that our colleague, the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], has been enormously helpful in this 
conversation, but my own conclusion, based on my experience with 
defense procurement and my effort to parse and understand this complex 
material, is that if we are ever to get to a balance among three goals: 
Efficiency, ``better'', ``faster'', ``cheaper'', and opportunity, we 
ought not to adopt this amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we are still talking about 
the administration policy, the statement of administration policy, and 
it says right here on this third paragraph,

       The administration will continue to work with Congress to 
     address concerns with title I, which redefines full and open 
     competition and authorizes procedures other than competitive 
     procedures where competitive procedures are not feasible or 
     appropriate.

  This tells me that the administration has not signed off on that part 
of the bill. It tells me that there is still some concern that has been 
raised. Full and open competition has given the administration concern. 
They said, ``However, the language in title I has raised concerns about 
the government's commitment to vigorous competition.'' Therefore, the 
Collins-Meyers amendment is absolutely on time and on target.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the first sentence as 
read by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] says, ``The 
Administration supports passage of H.R. 1670 as reported by the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.''
  In conclusion, just let me say again that I reluctantly oppose this 
amendment and I believe that the administration and specifically the 
Defense Department are in opposition to this amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
I think it is great for you and for others to recite the very first 
line in this statement, adding line No. 3, to point out the concerns.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is a very complex 
and opaque statement of position, I agree with you, but I have read 
other lines on this proposal.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
then why are we using this?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Harman] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Clinger, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Harman was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, in case there is any confusion, I would 
like to refer to the letter from the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. 
Longuemare, who does say--

       The Department of Defense is strongly opposed to the 
     proposed amendment and believes that it will add significant 
     bureaucratic burden without furthering the goal of 
     acquisition streamlining.

  I think that is unequivocal and very clear.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this letter is directed 
to the Meyers amendment, not to the Collins amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. If the gentlewoman will continue to yield, they are, 
however, very close cousins.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would agree with the 
gentleman that they are close cousins, and I would also say to the 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] that her leadership on the 
Committee on Small Business is unassailed and it is with great 
diffidence that I stand here and suggest that we ought to support the 
original text of the legislation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Harman] has expired.
  (On request of Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, and by unanimous consent, Ms. 
Harman was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Ms. HARMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, something is in the administration statement that is 
really puzzling me. It was just pointed out to me. It says,

       The administration agrees with the conclusion embodied in 
     title I that significant reforms of the way in which 
     competitions are conducted are needed. These would include, 
     one, authorizing innovative two-phased procedures, allowing 
     elimination of uncompetitive bidders prior to full 
     competitive proposals; and, two, allowing reduction of the 
     competitive range after receipt of proposals in order to 
     conduct an efficient procurement.

  Those are not in the bill. Those are not in H.R. 1670 as it stands 
right now. So I think that those would have been in had my amendment 
been adopted. I decided instead to support the Collins amendment. Mine 
was much longer and I thought it may be too complex. But those two 
factors that are addressed in the administration's statement are simply 
not in the bill.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate my 
friend's words, but I do not believe it is a correct statement of the 
bill's provisions.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Collins amendment that would open competition for small business, and I 
think it is appropriate that our chairman of the Committee on Small 
Business is also supporting it.
  The Collins amendment retains the current practice allowing all 
business to compete for government procurement contracts under full and 
open competition. The bill would restrict competition by allowing 
agency employees, those so-called terrible bureaucrats, to limit the 
companies allowed to compete. The Collins amendment was previously 
adopted in this House on the DOD Authorization Act on June 14 allowing 
for consideration of procurement reform, and the Collins amendment was 
supported by a great many different groups, including the Small 
Business Working Group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small 
Business Administration, and of course the chair of the Committee on 
Small Business, the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. There are 
also other groups, the Latin American Management Association, the 
National Association of Minority Businesses. It is very important that 
they have an ability to compete for Government contracts on equal 
footing if they can do the job.

[[Page H 8877]]

  I think that is what this whole effort is about, to bring more 
competition to help to lower the cost to the taxpayers in this bill. 
That is why I voted for the bill coming out of committee, and I hope we 
can improve it a great deal tonight with the Collins amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to respond to some of 
the prior speakers on the administration policy statement, which just 
arrived at the last minute. I might note that it does not address what 
the Meyers-Collins amendment is addressing, which is full and open 
competition. When it does, it waffles, and I quote title I: ``* * * has 
raised concern about the government's commitment to vigorous 
competition.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to underscore and highlight my support of 
the statement made by the gentlewoman from Kansas, in that when it does 
go into detail it talks about items that were in her amendment that are 
not in the amendment that is before the body now.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, I agree with the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] that the statement of 
administration policy in the letter that we have could be clearer, but 
clearly it is authentic, because it is obvious that is written by 
Federal bureaucrats.
  I love Federal bureaucrats, as the gentlewoman knows I do, they are 
my constituents, but it clearly is authentic. If it was not authentic, 
it might be easier to read.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield 
in order to respond, I am not questioning whether it is an authentic 
statement or not. I am saying that it does not address what we are 
debating now, which is the Meyers-Collins amendment, which goes to the 
heart of procurement reform, the procurement debate, which the Small 
Business Administration and so many other small businesses have reached 
out to us, and that is preserving full and open competition. It talks 
about a lot of other things and a lot of other concerns, but it does 
not directly address the concerns that are before us in this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
did not make the statement or the point that I wanted to make.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene Green, 
has expired.
  (On request of Mrs. Collins of Illinois, and by unanimous consent, 
Mr. Gene Green of Texas was allowed to proceed for 3 additional 
minutes.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
[Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, we are at the point, I 
believe, where we are going to vote very, very shortly on the Collins 
amendment.
  I just want to point out that this amendment is the same identical 
amendment that we voted on in June of this year. Not a word of it has 
been changed. It made good sense then, it makes good sense now. This 
bill does not preserve full and open competition.
  What it does is put a statutory bait and switch on the House and on 
the American public. I think that we cannot do those kinds of things. 
We must in fact vote for the Collins-Meyers amendment, because we want 
to be fair, we want to do the right thing by small business, we want to 
do the right thing by large business, we want to do the right thing by 
American business.
  We want everybody to have an opportunity to play a part as being 
vendors for the American dollar. We are all taxpayers here. Everybody 
who pays taxes, everybody who pays taxes one way or the other has a 
right to have a small business. They have a right to have a low cost. 
They have a right to have the Government accept their bids and to be 
looked at carefully.
  They do not have the right, they do not have the right to have 
somebody just say arbitrarily that we do not want to take your bid. We 
do not want your business, because we have to have a deal someplace 
else.
  Mr. Chairman, it makes good sense, it makes fair sense to vote for 
the Collins-Meyers amendment on full and open competition.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Collins amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUTE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points in 
closing. We have had a spirited debate. I think it has been a good 
debate. I just wanted to make a couple of points as we conclude this 
debate.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUTE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts 
for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak before the chairman of the committee, 
because I want Members to be left with his remarks. But I do think it 
is useful to respond to some of the questions that have been raised 
with regard to the language that has come from the White House and from 
the Department of Defense.
  The bottom line is that the White House opposes this amendment and 
supports the bill. I will conclude with the point that I know, because 
I have spoken with the White House, that the White House does not 
support this amendment. It opposes this amendment.
  It does support this bill. It has supported this bill consistently. I 
think that is important for all the Members of the House to know, but 
particularly for the Democratic Members of the House who wish to 
support the continuing commitment to Government reform, and 
particularly to procurement reform as is accomplished by this bill.
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield further to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I think we have had a very thorough 
debate. We are ready to vote on this matter. It is clear, there is a 
significant difference between us on this major issue. I would point 
out one thing: The gentlewoman from Illinois said not one word, not one 
comma, not one phrase has been changed in this amendment; it is exactly 
the same amendment we voted on in June.
  That is true. What has changed is the underlying bill to which the 
amendment is proposed. We have made significant changes in the 
underlying bill which we considered in June. We have accommodated many 
of the concerns that were raised by the gentlewoman from Illinois and 
by others with regard to the small business concerns. I think we have 
addressed those. We did not have, for example, the language ``full and 
open competition'' in the bill that we considered in June. That is now 
in there. We have made a number of other changes that I think should go 
a long way toward addressing it.
  What we have not done though is give way on a significant, 
significant factor, and that is the factor that we really need to get 
flexibility. We need to give these procurement officers who are going 
to be very public in their decisions some ability to do the best thing 
for the government. The Government, after all, is who we are trying to 
assist in getting the biggest bang for the bucks that we spend.
  So I would just in closing point out a couple of other things that 
need to be pointed out. It was alluded earlier and I want to stress it 
again that there was perhaps support of the NIFB. They did support this 
measure in June. They no longer do support this measure in September. 
The Chamber of Commerce has just informed us that they do not support 
this amendment at this particular time because of the fact that we have 
made significant progress in addressing those concerns.
  In fact, the others who strongly support our bill range from the 
American Electronics Association, American Defense Preparedness 
Association, Contract Services Association, and, most importantly, Mr. 
chairman, most importantly, it has the very strong support of the 
Americans For Tax Reform, the National Taxpayers Union, and other 
groups that have been real watchdogs in trying to hold down 

[[Page H 8878]]
spending to get the biggest bang for their buck.
  We feel that this bill is going to enable us to attack that 20 
percent premium which we now pay on almost all goods and services that 
we deal with in the Federal Government. We really think this is the 
best opportunity we have, perhaps in this Congress, to effect the kinds 
of savings that we need to do to get to a balanced budget. So I must 
reluctantly but firmly urge a ``no'' vote on the Collins amendment. I 
really think that it would undercut, perhaps not gut, but seriously 
impair the ability for us to get the savings we are after.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, the Small Business Association and the White House 
Conference on Small Business, as well as the American Chamber of 
Commerce, supports this amendment. It is ironic to me that we are 
opposing open government, when all we have heard this year is the angry 
feelings out there where people feel they do not have access to their 
government. I do not believe that this issue has been addressed in the 
bill. If it had been, we would not be considering this amendment.
  Small businesses will want access to their government. They are not 
asking for a handout. They simply want consideration. They do not want 
to be barred from submitting bids. It seems to me that the least we can 
do is protect our small business people and protect our taxpaying 
citizens and allow that their bids be considered.
  The good-old-boy network has worked for many years, not because it 
has been supported by the general public, but because they never had an 
opportunity to get in the door to prove that they can do adequate work. 
I think that this amendment will do that.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas.
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that I 
have a letter here from the chamber dated September 12. It says:

       Further, a strong case would have to be made to justify the 
     modification of the standard and practice of full and open 
     competition that has worked well for more than a decade since 
     the enactment of the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. 
     The Chamber believes that increased awards to small business 
     over the past decade through full and open competition and 
     the subsequent growth of a number of these companies 
     demonstrates the effectiveness of this standard.

  I think they strongly endorse the principle, Mr. Chairman, and I 
think they wrote that letter when they thought it was going to be my 
amendment. They were not aware it was going to be another amendment. I 
think that is the only reason that they have stated this withdrawal. 
They strongly support full and open competition. I think they support 
the concept, and I am not at all ashamed to associate their name with 
this. We have taken the names off anything printed. But I have been 
working with them all along. They knew last week what was in the bill 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] and they still felt 
that it would be wrong to remove full and open competition.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, 
I would simply close by saying we owe it to our small businesses, we 
owe it to our general business community, to allow them access to their 
own government.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respectfully offer what I believe are 
two corrections in the debate here. The first is we were informed by 
the staff from the majority leader's office that the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce has not taken an official position on this amendment, which, 
if correct, means, of course, they have not endorsed this amendment one 
way or the other.
  Second of all, more central to this debate, it is statements that are 
starting to be made that the advocates of the amendment say they want 
free competition and full competition and fair competition so small 
business can enter bids and be considered. All of that remains under 
this bill. H.R. 1670 does not change any of that. All that H.R. 1670 
changes is that it allows a procurement officer to make an earlier 
decision in a process to take certain bids out of consideration so that 
a smaller number of bids more likely to be accepted to the Government's 
needs will go through and be reviewed further along the line. That is 
all that it does.
  The point is that everybody can submit a bid, just as they have 
always been able to submit a bid. Further, the appellate process for 
the purpose of procurement remains in effect. So anyone who believes, 
whether they are small business or large business or anyone else, that 
their procurement has not been handled fairly, that they were rejected 
early in the process without good justification, they can appeal that. 
So their rights are protected.
  The point is, we are trying to make Federal procurement look like and 
function more like private procurement, because we have seen the 
strides that business has made in terms of accomplishing its goals, 
which, of course, are to get the best possible product at the best 
possible price. That ought to be the Government's goal.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Collins amendment.
  The way the bill is currently written it would restrict true 
competition and would allow agency bureaucrats to limit small 
businesses from competing on Government contracts.
  I would also like to point out to the rest of my colleagues that a 
similar amendment was passed as part of the DOD Authorization Act of 
1996 by an overwhelming margin.
  The Collins amendment is pro small business and is supported by the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Working Group, and the 
Small Business Administration.
  The Collins amendment would retain the current practice of allowing 
all businesses to compete for government procurement contracts under 
full and open competition.
  I ask my fellow colleagues to support the Collins amendment and allow 
for fair and open competition of all business.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 239, not voting 13, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 660]

                               AYES--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--239

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)

[[Page H 8879]]

     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cox
     de la Garza
     Frost
     Herger
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Pelosi
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Sisisky
     Tucker
     Waldholtz

                              {time}  2000

  Messrs. CREMEANS, WILLIAMS, and WAMP changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. DOYLE, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. FARR, and Mr. MASCARA changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                     amendment offered by mr. davis

  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis:
       Add at the end of title I (page 36, after line 9) the 
     following new section:
     SEC. 107. TWO-PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Chapter 137 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     2305 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2305a. Two-phase selection procedures

       ``(a) Authorization.--Unless the traditional acquisition 
     approach of design-bid-build is used or another acquisition 
     procedure authorized by law is used, the head of an agency 
     shall use the two-phase selection procedures authorized in 
     this section for entering into a contract for the design and 
     construction of a public building, facility, or work when a 
     determination is made under subsection (b) that the 
     procedures are appropriate for use.
       ``(b) Criteria for Use.--A contracting officer shall make a 
     determination whether two-phase selection procedures are 
     appropriate for use for entering into a contract for the 
     design and construction of a public building, facility, or 
     work when the contracting officer anticipates that three or 
     more offers will be received for such contract, design work 
     must be performed before an offeror can develop a price or 
     cost proposal for such contract, the offeror will incur a 
     substantial amount of expense in preparing the offer, and the 
     contracting officer has considered information such as the 
     following:
       ``(1) The extent to which the project requirements have 
     been adequately defined.
       ``(2) The time constraints for delivery of the project.
       ``(3) The capability and experience of potential 
     contractors.
       ``(4) The suitability of the project for use of the two-
     phase selection procedures.
       ``(5) The capability of the agency to manage the two-phase 
     selection process.
       ``(6) Other criteria established by the agency.
       ``(c) Procedures Described.--Two-phase selection procedures 
     consist of the following:
       ``(1) The agency develops, either in-house or by contract, 
     a scope of work statement for inclusion in the solicitation 
     that defines the project and provides prospective offerors 
     with sufficient information regarding the Government's 
     requirements (which may include criteria and preliminary 
     design, budget parameters, and schedule or delivery 
     requirements) to enable the offerors to submit proposals 
     which meet the Government's needs. When the two-phase 
     selection procedure is used for design and construction of a 
     public building, facility, or work and the agency contracts 
     for development of the scope of work statement, the agency 
     shall contract for architectural/engineering services as 
     defined by and in accordance with the Brooks Architect-
     Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.).
       ``(2) The contracting officer solicits phase-one proposals 
     that--
       ``(A) include information on the offeror's--
       ``(i) technical approach; and
       ``(ii) technical qualifications; and
       ``(B) do not include--
       ``(i) detailed design information; or
       ``(ii) cost or price information.
       ``(3) The evaluation factors to be used in evaluating 
     phase-one proposals are stated in the solicitation and 
     include specialized experience and technical competence, 
     capability to perform, past performance of the offeror's team 
     (including the architect-engineer and construction members of 
     the team if the project is for the construction of a public 
     building, facility, or work) and other appropriate factors, 
     except that cost-related or price-related evaluation factors 
     are not permitted. Each solicitation establishes the relative 
     importance assigned to the evaluation factors and subfactors 
     that must be considered in the evaluation of phase-one 
     proposals. The agency evaluates phase-one proposals on the 
     basis of the phase-one evaluation factors set forth in the 
     solicitation.
       ``(4) The contracting officer selects as the most highly 
     qualified the number of offerors specified in the 
     solicitation to provide the property or services under the 
     contract and requests the selected offerors to submit phase-
     two competitive proposals that include technical proposals 
     and cost or price information. Each solicitation establishes 
     with respect to phase two--
       ``(A) the technical submission for the proposal, including 
     design concepts or proposed solutions to requirements 
     addressed within the scope of work (or both), and
       ``(B) the evaluation factors and subfactors, including cost 
     or price, that must be considered in the evaluations of 
     proposals in accordance with section 2305(b)(4) of this 
     title.
     The contracting officer separately evaluates the submissions 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       ``(5) The agency awards the contract in accordance with 
     section 2305(b)(4) of this title.
       ``(d) Solicitation to State Number of Offerors To Be 
     Selected for Phase Two Requests for Competitive Proposals.--A 
     solicitation issued pursuant to the procedures described in 
     subsection (c) shall state the maximum number of offerors 
     that are to be selected to submit competitive proposals 
     pursuant to subsection (c)(4). The maximum number specified 
     in the solicitation shall not exceed 5 unless the agency 
     determines with respect to an individual solicitation that a 
     specified number greater than 5 is in the Government's 
     interest and is consistent with the purposes and objectives 
     of the two-phase selection process.
       ``(e) Requirement for Guidance and Regulations.--The 
     Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, established by 
     section 25(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 421(a)), shall provide guidance and promulgate 
     regulations--
       ``(1) regarding the factors that may be considered in 
     determining whether the two-phase contracting procedures 
     authorized by subsection (a) are appropriate for use in 
     individual contracting situations;
       ``(2) regarding the factors that may be used in selecting 
     contractors;
       ``(3) providing for a uniform approach to be used 
     Government-wide;
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 137 
     of such title is amended by adding after the item relating to 
     section 2305 the following new item:

``2305a. Two-phase selection procedures.''.

       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Title III of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     303L the following new section:
       ``(a) Authorization.--Unless the `traditional' acquisition 
     approach of design-bid-build is used or another acquisition 
     procedure authorized by law is used, the head of an executive 
     agency shall use the two-phase selection procedures 
     authorized in this section for entering into a contract for 
     the design and construction of a public building, facility, 
     or work when a determination is made under subsection (b) 
     that the procedures are appropriate for use. The two-phase 
     selection procedures authorized in this section may also be 
     used for entering into a contract for the acquisition of 
     property or 

[[Page H 8880]]
     services other than construction services when such a determination is 
     made.
       ``(b) Criteria for Use.--A contracting officer shall make a 
     determination whether two-phase selection procedures are 
     appropriate for use for entering into a contract for the 
     design and construction of a public building, facility, or 
     work when the contracting officer anticipates that three or 
     more offers will be received for such contract, design work 
     must be performed before an offeror can develop a price or 
     cost proposal for such contract, the offeror will incur a 
     substantial amount of expense in preparing the offer, and the 
     contracting officer has considered information such as the 
     following:
       ``(1) The extent to which the project requirements have 
     been adequately defined.
       ``(2) The time constraints for delivery of the project.
       ``(3) The capability and experience of potential 
     contractors.
       ``(4) The suitability of the project for use of the two-
     phase selection procedures.
       ``(5) The capability of the agency to manage the two-phase 
     selection process.
       ``(6) Other criteria established by the agency.
       ``(c) Procedures Described.--Two-phase selection procedures 
     consist of the following:
       ``(1) The agency develops, either in-house or by contract, 
     a scope of work statement for inclusion in the solicitation 
     that defines the project and provides prospective offerors 
     with sufficient information regarding the Government's 
     requirements (which may include criteria and preliminary 
     design, budget parameters, and schedule or delivery 
     requirements) to enable the offerors to submit proposals 
     which meet the Government's needs. When the two-phase 
     selection procedure is used for design and construction of a 
     public building, facility, or work and the agency contracts 
     for development of the scope of work statement, the agency 
     shall contract for architectural/engineering services as 
     defined by and in accordance with the Brooks Architect-
     Engineers Act (40 U.S.C. 541 et seq.).
       ``(2) The contracting officer solicits phase-one proposals 
     that--
       ``(A) include information on the offeror's--
       ``(i) technical approach; and
       ``(ii) technical qualifications; and
       ``(B) do not include--
       ``(i) detailed design information; or
       ``(ii) cost or price information.
       ``(3) The evaluation factors to be used in evaluating 
     phase-one proposals are stated in the solicitation and 
     include specialized experience and technical competence, 
     capability to perform, past performance of the offeror's team 
     (including the architect-engineer and construction members of 
     the team if the project is for the construction of a public 
     building, facility, or work) and other appropriate factors, 
     except that cost-related or price-related evaluation factors 
     are not permitted. Each solicitation establishes the relative 
     importance assigned to the evaluation factors and subfactors 
     that must be considered in the evaluation of phase-one 
     proposals. The agency evaluates phase-one proposals on the 
     basis of the phase-one evaluation factors set forth in the 
     solicitation.
       ``(4) The contracting officer selects as the most highly 
     qualified the number of offerors specified in the 
     solicitation to provide the property or services under the 
     contract and requests the selected offerors to submit phase-
     two competitive proposals that include technical proposals 
     and cost or price information. Each solicitation establishes 
     with respect to phase two--
       ``(A) the technical submission for the proposal, including 
     design concepts or proposed solutions to requirements 
     addressed within the scope of work (or both), and
       ``(B) the evaluation factors and subfactors, including cost 
     or price, that must be considered in the evaluations of 
     proposals in accordance with section 303B(d).
     The contracting officer separately evaluates the submissions 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (B).
       ``(5) The agency awards the contract in accordance with 
     section 303B of this title.
       ``(d) Solicitation to State Number of Offerors To Be 
     Selected for Phase Two Requests for Competitive Proposals.--A 
     solicitation issued pursuant to the precedures described in 
     subsection (c) shall state the maximum number of offerors 
     that are to be selected to submit competitive proposals 
     pursuant to subsection (c)(4). The maximum number specified 
     in the solicitation shall not exceed 5 unless the agency 
     determines with respect to an individual solicitation that a 
     specified number greater than 5 is in the Government's 
     interest and is consistent with the purposes and objectives 
     of the two-phase selection process.
       ``(e) Requirement for Guidance and Regulations.--The 
     Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, established by 
     section 25(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 421(a)), shall provide guidance and promulgate 
     regulations--
       ``(1) regarding the factors that may be considered in 
     determining whether the two-phase contracting procedures 
     authorized by subsection (a) are appropriate for use in 
     individual contracting situations;
       ``(2) regarding the factors that may be used in selecting 
     contractors;
       ``(3) providing for a uniform approach to be used 
     Government-wide;
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such Act is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 303L 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 303M. Two-phase selection procedures.''.

  Mr. DAVIS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, we had published this in the Record. We have 
made two modifications from what was published. It will have the 
support of the administration and the committee chair on this. One was 
expressed by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the other by 
the administration. We have addressed those.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman on about 98 percent 
of the content of his amendment. There was one part of the amendment on 
which we had some confusion with the language referring to stipends for 
those contractors who were not selected with the award. The gentleman 
withdrew that section of the amendment, and we have worked out a 
compromise where we will hold hearings on this portion of the 
amendment. I am sure we can resolve this problem.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the gentleman, as I 
understand it, we have stricken the stipend provision, but any existing 
provisions in law that would allow a government contracting agent, of 
course, would remain in effect; is that correct?
  Mr. GILCHREST. Any existing law remains in effect at this time, yes.
  Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman. Let me just add that we have had a 
coalition of groups that have traditionally been at odds over how 
Federal procurements these groups compete on should be phrased. We have 
gotten them together and endorsed this. That includes the American 
Consulting Engineers
 Council, the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of 
Civil Engineers, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the 
Associated General Contractors of America, the Construction Industries' 
Presidents Forum, the Design-Build Industry of America, and the 
National Society of Professional Engineers.

  Mr. Chairman, I would just simply say, I did a Dear Colleague letter 
this morning, but this amendment will, where appropriate, allow the 
agency buyer to choose between the traditional procurement methodology 
and the two-phase design-build selection procedure. It will allow the 
agency to develop either in-house or by contract a scope of work 
defining the project. The amendment also provides procuring agencies 
flexibility to determine the level of preliminary design necessary to 
be acquired, using the traditional method. It will provide the agency 
flexibility and authority to determine the number of offerors of 
competitive proposals in the second phase of the procurement process.
  It will require the FAR counsel to determine if the two-phase 
procedures are appropriate for use in individual contracting 
situations, establish factors that may be used to select contractors, 
establish a uniform governmentwide approach, and establish criteria for 
awarding stipends. I would urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the 
distinguished author of this bill and the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to commend the gentleman on 
this amendment. I think it makes a very valuable addition to the bill. 
As he says, it does not replace the Brooks Act. It requires an 
alternative method of dealing with the Brooks architect-engineers 
provision. I think it is a valuable addition, and we are pleased to 
support the amendment. I commend the gentleman on that and for his help 
on this.
  Mr. DAVIS. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the committee staff and 
Mrs. Brown for working with us, and the different groups, I ask 
adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].

[[Page H 8881]]

  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  The Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                       TITLE II--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

     SEC. 201. COMMERCIAL ITEM EXCEPTION TO REQUIREMENT FOR COST 
                   OR PRICING DATA AND INFORMATION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Subsections (b), (c), 
     and (d) of section 2306a of title 10, United States Code, are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Submission of cost or pricing data shall 
     not be required under subsection (a) in the case of a 
     contract, a subcontract, or modification of a contract or 
     subcontract--
       ``(A) for which the price agreed upon is based on--
       ``(i) adequate price competition; or
       ``(ii) prices set by law or regulation;
       ``(B) for the acquisition of a commercial item; or
       ``(C) in an exceptional case when the head of the procuring 
     activity, without delegation, determines that the 
     requirements of this section may be waived and justifies in 
     writing the reasons for such determination.
       ``(2) Modifications of contracts and subcontracts for 
     commercial items.--In the case of a modification of a 
     contract or subcontract for a commercial item that is not 
     covered by the exception on the submission of cost or pricing 
     data in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B), submission of cost or 
     pricing data shall not be required under subsection (a) if--
       ``(A) the contract or subcontract being modified is a 
     contract or subcontract for which submission of cost or 
     pricing data may not be required by reason of paragraph 
     (1)(A) or (1)(B); and
       ``(B) the modification would not change the contract or 
     subcontract, as the case may be, from a contract or 
     subcontract for the acquisition of a commercial item to a 
     contract or subcontract for the acquisition of an item other 
     than a commercial item.
       ``(c) Authority To Require Cost or Pricing Data on Below-
     Threshold Contracts.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), when 
     certified cost or pricing data are not required to be 
     submitted by subsection (a) for a contract, subcontract, or 
     modification of a contract or subcontract, such data may 
     nevertheless be required to be submitted by the head of the 
     procuring activity, but only if the head of the procuring 
     activity determines that such data are necessary for the 
     evaluation by the agency of the reasonableness of the price 
     of the contract, subcontract, or modification of a contract 
     or subcontract. In any case in which the head of the 
     procuring activity requires such data to be submitted under 
     this subsection, the head of the procuring activity shall 
     justify in writing the reason for such requirement.
       ``(2) The head of the procuring activity may not require 
     certified cost or pricing data to be submitted under this 
     paragraph for any contract or subcontract, or modification of 
     a contract or subcontract, covered by the exceptions in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b)(1).
       ``(3) The head of a procuring activity may not delegate 
     functions under this paragraph.
       ``(d) Limitations on Other Information.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall include the following:
       ``(1) Provisions concerning the types of information that 
     contracting officers may consider in determining whether the 
     price of a procurement to the Government is fair and 
     reasonable when certified cost or pricing data are not 
     required to be submitted under this section, including 
     appropriate information on the prices at which the same item 
     or similar items have previously been sold that is adequate 
     for evaluating the reasonableness of the price of the 
     proposed contract or subcontract for the procurement.
       ``(2) Reasonable limitations on requests for sales data 
     relating to commercial items.
       ``(3) A requirement that a contracting officer shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, limit the scope of any 
     request for information relating to commercial items from an 
     offeror to only that information that is in the form 
     regularly maintained by the offeror in commercial operations.
       ``(4) A statement that any information received relating to 
     commercial items that is exempt from disclosure under section 
     552(b) of title 5 shall not be disclosed by the Federal 
     Government.''.
       (2) Section 2306a of such title is further amended--
       (A) by striking out subsection (h); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h).
       (3) Section 2375 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking out subsection (c).
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Subsections (b), (c) 
     and (d) of section 304A of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 254b) are 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Submission of cost or pricing data shall 
     not be required under subsection (a) in the case of a 
     contract, a subcontract, or a modification of a contract or 
     subcontract--
       ``(A) for which the price agreed upon is based on--
       ``(i) adequate price competition; or
       ``(ii) prices set by law or regulation;
       ``(B) for the acquisition of a commercial item; or
       ``(C) in an exceptional case when the head of the procuring 
     activity, without delegation, determines that the 
     requirements of this section may be waived and justifies in 
     writing the reasons for such determination.
       ``(2) Modifications of contracts and subcontracts for 
     commercial items.--In the case of a modification of a 
     contract or subcontract for a commercial item that is not 
     covered by the exception on the submission of cost or pricing 
     data in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B), submission of cost or 
     pricing data shall not be required under subsection (a) if--
       ``(A) the contract or subcontract being modified is a 
     contract or subcontract for which submission of cost or 
     pricing data may not be required by reason of paragraph 
     (1)(A) or (1)(B); and
       ``(B) the modification would not change the contract or 
     subcontract, as the case may be, from a contract or 
     subcontract for the acquisition of a commercial item to a 
     contract or subcontract for the acquisition of an item other 
     than a commercial item.
       ``(c) Authority To Require Cost or Pricing Data on Below-
     Threshold Contracts.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), when 
     certified cost or pricing data are not required to be 
     submitted by subsection (a) for a contract, subcontract, or 
     modification of a contract or subcontract, such data may 
     nevertheless be required to be submitted by the head of the 
     procuring activity, but only if the head of the procuring 
     activity determines that such data are necessary for the 
     evaluation by the agency of the reasonableness of the price 
     of the contract, subcontract, or modification of a contract 
     or subcontract. In any case in which the head of the 
     procuring activity requires such data to be submitted under 
     this subsection, the head of the procuring activity shall 
     justify in writing the reason for such requirement.
       ``(2) The head of the procuring activity may not require 
     certified cost or pricing data to be submitted under this 
     paragraph for any contract or subcontract, or modification of 
     a contract or subcontract, covered by the exceptions in 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (b)(1).
       ``(3) The head of a procuring activity may not delegate the 
     functions under this paragraph.
       ``(d) Limitations on Other Information.--The Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall include the following:
       ``(1) Provisions concerning the types of information that 
     contracting officers may consider in determining whether the 
     price of a procurement to the Government is fair and 
     reasonable when certified cost or pricing data are not 
     required to be submitted under this section, including 
     appropriate information on the prices at which the same item 
     or similar items have previously been sold that is adequate 
     for evaluating the reasonableness of the price of the 
     proposed contract or subcontract for the procurement.
       ``(2) Reasonable limitations on requests for sales data 
     relating to commercial items.
       ``(3) A requirement that a contracting officer shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, limit the scope of any 
     request for information relating to commercial items from an 
     offeror to only that information that is in the form 
     regularly maintained by the offeror in commercial operations.
       ``(4) A statement that any information received relating to 
     commercial items that is exempt from disclosure under section 
     552(b) of title 5 shall not be disclosed by the Federal 
     Government.''.
       (2) Section 304A of such Act is further amended--
       (A) by striking out subsection (h); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (h).

     SEC. 202. APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO COMMERCIAL 
                   ITEMS.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2304(e) of title 
     10, United States Code, as amended by section 101(a), is 
     further amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``special 
     simplified procedures'' the following: ``for purchases of 
     commercial items and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall provide 
     that, in the case of a purchase of commercial items in an 
     amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, the 
     head of an agency--
       ``(A) may not conduct the purchase on a sole source basis 
     unless the need to do so is justified in writing and approved 
     in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
       ``(B) shall include in the contract file a written 
     description of the procedures used in awarding the contract 
     and the number of offers received.''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Section 303(e) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253), as amended by section 101(b), is further 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``special 
     simplified procedures'' the following: ``for purchases of 
     commercial items and''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall provide 
     that, in the case of a purchase of commercial items in an 
     amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, an 
     executive agency--
       ``(A) may not conduct the purchase on a sole source basis 
     unless the need to do so is justified in writing and approved 
     in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation; and
       ``(B) shall include in the contract file a written 
     description of the procedures used in awarding the contract 
     and the number of offers received.''.
       (c) Simplified Notice.--Section 18 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(5) (as redesignated by section 
     101(c))--
       (A) by striking out ``limited''; and
       (B) by inserting before ``submission'' the following: 
     ``issuance of solicitations and the''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(6), by striking out ``threshold--'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``threshold, or a contract for 
     the procurement of commercial items using simplified 
     procedures--''.
     
[[Page H 8882]]


     SEC. 203. AMENDMENT TO DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS.

       Section 4(12)(F) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(12)(F)) is amended by striking out 
     ``catalog''.

     SEC. 204. INAPPLICABILITY OF COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS TO 
                   CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS FOR COMMERCIAL 
                   ITEMS.

       Subparagraph (B) of section 26(f)(2) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 422(f)(2)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking out clause (i) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(i) Contracts or subcontracts for the acquisition of 
     commercial items.''; and
       (2) by striking out clause (iii).

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
  The Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
                TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REFORM PROVISIONS
     SEC. 301. GOVERNMENT RELIANCE ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

       (a) Government Reliance on the Private Sector.--The Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 16 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 17. GOVERNMENT RELIANCE ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

       ``It is the policy of the Federal Government to rely on the 
     private sector to supply the products and services the 
     Federal Government needs.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (contained in 
     section 1(b)) is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 16 the following new item:

``Sec. 17. Government reliance on the private sector.''.
     SEC. 302. ELIMINATION OF CERTAIN CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Elimination of Certain Statutory Certification 
     Requirements.--(1)(A) Section 2410 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (i) in the heading, by striking out ``: certification''; 
     and
       (ii) in subsection (a)--
       (I) in the heading, by striking out ``Certification'';
       (II) by striking out ``unless'' and all that follows 
     through ``that--'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``unless--
     ''; and
       (III) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``to the best of 
     that person's knowledge and belief''.
       (B) The item relating to section 2410 in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 141 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 2410. Requests for equitable adjustment or other relief.''.

       (2) Section 2410b of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended in paragraph (2) by striking out ``certification 
     and''.
       (3) Section 1352(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking out subparagraph (C); and
       (B) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (A).
       (4) Section 5152 of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 (41 
     U.S.C. 701) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out ``has certified 
     to the contracting agency that it will'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``agrees to'';
       (B) in subsection (a)(2), by striking out ``contract 
     includes a certification by the individual'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``individual agrees''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (i) by striking out subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (A) 
     and in that subparagraph by striking out ``such certification 
     by failing to carry out''; and
       (iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph 
     (B).
       (b) Elimination of Certain Regulatory Certification 
     Requirements.--
       (1) Current certification requirements.--(A) Not later than 
     210 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, any 
     certification required of contractors or offerors by the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation that is not specifically 
     imposed by statute shall be removed by the Administrator for 
     Federal Procurement Policy from the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation unless--
       (i) written justification for such certification is 
     provided to the Administrator by the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulatory Council; and
       (ii) the Administrator approves in writing the retention of 
     such certification.
       (B)(i) Not later than 210 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, any certification required of 
     contractors or offerors by a procurement regulation of an 
     executive agency that is not specifically imposed by statute 
     shall be removed by the head of the executive agency from 
     such regulation unless--
       (I) written justification for such certification is 
     provided to the head of the executive agency by the senior 
     procurement executive; and
       (II) the head of the executive agency approves in writing 
     the retention of such certification.
       (ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term ``head of the 
     executive agency'' with respect to a military department 
     means the Secretary of Defense.
       (iii) The Secretary of Defense may delegate his duties 
     under this subparagraph only to the Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
       (2) Future certification requirements.--(A) Section 29 of 
     the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 425) 
     is amended--
       (i) by amending the heading to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 29. CONTRACT CLAUSES AND CERTIFICATIONS.'';

       (ii) by inserting ``(a) Nonstandard Contract Clauses.--'' 
     before ``The Federal Acquisition''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Prohibition on Certification Requirements.--(1) A 
     requirement for a certification by a contractor or offeror 
     may not be included in the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     unless--
       ``(A) the certification is specifically imposed by statute; 
     or
       ``(B) written justification for such certification is 
     provided to the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy 
     by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, and the 
     Administrator approves in writing the inclusion of such 
     certification.
       ``(2)(A) A requirement for a certification by a contractor 
     or offeror may not be included in a procurement regulation of 
     an executive agency unless--
       ``(i) the certification is specifically imposed by statute; 
     or
       ``(ii) written justification for such certification is 
     provided to the head of the executive agency by the senior 
     procurement executive of the agency, and the head of the 
     executive agency approves in writing the inclusion of such 
     certification.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the term `head of 
     the executive agency' with respect to a military department 
     means the Secretary of Defense.
       ``(C) The Secretary of Defense may delegate his duties 
     under this paragraph only to the Under Secretary of Defense 
     for Acquisition and Technology.''.
       (B) The item relating to section 29 in the table of 
     contents for the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (contained in section 1(b)) (41 U.S.C. 401 note) is amended 
     to read as follows:

``Sec. 29. Contract clauses and certifications.''.
     SEC. 303. AMENDMENT TO COMMENCEMENT AND EXPIRATION OF 
                   AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT CERTAIN TESTS OF 
                   PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES.

       Subsection (j) of section 5061 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Streamlining Act of 1994 (41 U.S.C. 413 note) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(j) Commencement and Expiration of Authority.--The 
     authority to conduct a test under subsection (a) in an agency 
     and to award contracts under such a test shall take effect on 
     August 1, 1995, and shall expire on August 1, 2000. Contracts 
     entered into before such authority expires in an agency 
     pursuant to a test shall remain in effect, notwithstanding 
     the expiration of the authority to conduct the test under 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 304. INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS.

       (a) Repeal of Provision Relating to Research, Development, 
     and Production Costs.--
       (1) Subject to paragraph (2), section 21(e) of the Arms 
     Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2761(e)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     paragraph (1)(A);
       (B) by striking out subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1);
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) as 
     subparagraph (B);
       (D) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (E) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2).
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall be effective only if--
       (A) the President, in the budget of the President for 
     fiscal year 1997, proposes legislation that if enacted would 
     be qualifying offsetting legislation; and
       (B) there is enacted by October 1, 1996, qualifying 
     offsetting legislation.
       (3) If the conditions in paragraph (2) are met, then the 
     amendments made by paragraph (1) shall take effect on October 
     1, 1996.
       (4) For purposes of this subsection:
       (A) The term ``qualifying offsetting legislation'' means 
     legislation that includes provisions that--
       (i) offset fully the estimated revenues lost as a result of 
     the amendments made by paragraph (1) for each of the fiscal 
     years 1997 through 2000;
       (ii) expressly state that they are enacted for the purpose 
     of the offset described in clause (i); and
       (iii) are included in full on the PayGo scorecard.
       (B) The term ``PayGo scorecard'' means the estimates that 
     are made with respect to fiscal years through fiscal year 
     2000 by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office and 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under 
     section 252(d) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985.
       (b) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall be effective with respect to sales agreements pursuant 
     to sections 21 and 22 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2761 and 2762) entered into during the period 
     beginning on October 1, 1996, and ending on September 30, 
     2000.

     SEC. 305. PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY.

       (a) Amendment of Procurement Integrity Provision.--Section 
     27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     423) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 27. RESTRICTIONS ON DISCLOSING AND OBTAINING 
                   CONTRACTOR BID OR PROPOSAL INFORMATION OR 
                   SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION.

       ``(a) Prohibition on Disclosing Procurement Information.--
     (1) A person described in paragraph (2) shall not, other than 
     as provided by law, knowingly disclose contractor bid or 
     proposal information or source selection information before 
     the award of a Federal agency procurement contract to which 
     the information relates.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any person who--

[[Page H 8883]]

       ``(A) is a present or former officer or employee of the 
     United States, or a person who is acting or has acted for or 
     on behalf of, or who is advising or has advised the United 
     States with respect to, a Federal agency procurement; and
       ``(B) by virtue of that office, employment, or relationship 
     has or had access to contractor bid or proposal information 
     or source selection information.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Obtaining Procurement Information.--A 
     person shall not, other than as provided by law, knowingly 
     obtain contractor bid or proposal information or source 
     selection information before the award of a Federal agency 
     procurement contract to which the information relates.
       ``(c) Prohibition on Disclosing or Obtaining Procurement 
     Information in Connection With a Protest.--(1) A person shall 
     not, other than as provided by law, knowingly violate the 
     terms of a protective order described in paragraph (2) by 
     disclosing or obtaining contractor bid or proposal 
     information or source selection information related to the 
     procurement contract concerned.
       ``(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any protective order issued 
     by the Defense Board or the Civilian Board in connection with 
     a protest against the award or proposed award of a Federal 
     agency procurement contract.
       ``(d) Penalties and Administrative Actions.--
       ``(1) Criminal penalties.--
       ``(A) Whoever engages in conduct constituting an offense 
     under subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be imprisoned for not 
     more than one year or fined as provided under title 18, 
     United States Code, or both.
       ``(B) Whoever engages in conduct constituting an offense 
     under subsection (a), (b), or (c) for the purpose of either--
       ``(i) exchanging the information covered by such subsection 
     for anything of value, or
       ``(ii) obtaining or giving anyone a competitive advantage 
     in the award of a Federal agency procurement contract,
     shall be imprisoned for not more than 15 years or fined as 
     provided under title 18, United States Code, or both.
       ``(2) Civil penalties.--The Attorney General may bring a 
     civil action in the appropriate United States district court 
     against any person who engages in conduct constituting an 
     offense under subsection (a), (b), or (c). Upon proof of such 
     conduct by a preponderance of the evidence, the person is 
     subject to a civil penalty. An individual who engages in such 
     conduct is subject to a civil penalty of not more than 
     $50,000 for each violation plus twice the amount of 
     compensation which the individual received or offered for the 
     prohibited conduct. An organization that engages in such 
     conduct is subject to a civil penalty of not more than 
     $500,000 for each violation plus twice the amount of 
     compensation which the organization received or offered for 
     the prohibited conduct.
       ``(3) Administrative actions.--(A) If a Federal agency 
     receives information that a contractor or a person has 
     engaged in conduct constituting an offense under subsection 
     (a), (b), or (c), the Federal agency shall consider taking 
     one or more of the following actions, as appropriate:
       ``(i) Cancellation of the Federal agency procurement, if a 
     contract has not yet been awarded.
       ``(ii) Rescission of a contract with respect to which--
       ``(I) the contractor or someone acting for the contractor 
     has been convicted for an offense under subsection (a), (b), 
     or (c), or
       ``(II) the head of the agency that awarded the contract has 
     determined, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that 
     the contractor or someone acting for the contractor has 
     engaged in conduct constituting such an offense.
       ``(iii) Initiation of suspension or debarment proceedings 
     for the protection of the Government in accordance with 
     procedures in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
       ``(iv) Initiation of adverse personnel action, pursuant to 
     the procedures in chapter 75 of title 5, United States Code, 
     or other applicable law or regulation.
       ``(B) If a Federal agency rescinds a contract pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A)(ii), the United States is entitled to 
     recover, in addition to any penalty prescribed by law, the 
     amount expended under the contract.
       ``(C) For purposes of any suspension or debarment 
     proceedings initiated pursuant to subparagraph (A)(iii), 
     engaging in conduct constituting an offense under subsection 
     (a), (b), or (c) affects the present responsibility of a 
     Government contractor or subcontractor.
       ``(e) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       ``(1) The term `contractor bid or proposal information' 
     means any of the following information submitted to a Federal 
     agency as part of or in connection with a bid or proposal to 
     enter into a Federal agency procurement contract, if that 
     information has not been previously made available to the 
     public or disclosed publicly:
       ``(A) Cost or pricing data (as defined by section 2306a(h) 
     of title 10, United States Code, with respect to procurements 
     subject to that section, and section 304A(h) of Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     254b(h), with respect to procurements subject to that 
     section).
       ``(B) Indirect costs and direct labor rates.
       ``(C) Proprietary information about manufacturing 
     processes, operations, or techniques marked by the contractor 
     in accordance with applicable law or regulation.
       ``(D) Information marked by the contractor as `contractor 
     bid or proposal information', in accordance with applicable 
     law or regulation.
       ``(2) The term `source selection information' means any of 
     the following information prepared for use by a Federal 
     agency for the purpose of evaluating a bid or proposal to 
     enter into a Federal agency procurement contract, if that 
     information has not been previously made available to the 
     public or disclosed publicly:
       ``(A) Bid prices submitted in response to a Federal agency 
     solicitation for sealed bids, or lists of those bid prices 
     before public bid opening.
       ``(B) Proposed costs or prices submitted in response to a 
     Federal agency solicitation, or lists of those proposed costs 
     or prices.
       ``(C) Source selection plans.
       ``(D) Technical evaluation plans.
       ``(E) Technical evaluations of proposals.
       ``(F) Cost or price evaluations of proposals.
       ``(G) Competitive range determinations that identify 
     proposals that have a reasonable chance of being selected for 
     award of a contract.
       ``(H) Rankings of bids, proposals, or competitors.
       ``(I) The reports and evaluations of source selection 
     panels, boards, or advisory councils.
       ``(J) Other information marked as `source selection 
     information' based on a case-by-case determination by the 
     head of the agency, his designee, or the contracting officer 
     that its disclosure would jeopardize the integrity or 
     successful completion of the Federal agency procurement to 
     which the information relates.
       ``(3) The term `Federal agency' has the meaning provided 
     such term in section 3 of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472).
       ``(4) The term `Federal agency procurement' means the 
     acquisition (by using competitive procedures and awarding a 
     contract) of goods or services (including construction) from 
     non-Federal sources by a Federal agency using appropriated 
     funds.
       ``(5) The term `contracting officer' means a person who, by 
     appointment in accordance with applicable regulations, has 
     the authority to enter into a Federal agency procurement 
     contract on behalf of the Government and to make 
     determinations and findings with respect to such a contract.
       ``(6) The term `protest' means a written objection by an 
     interested party to the award or proposed award of a Federal 
     agency procurement contract, pursuant to title IV of the 
     Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995.
       ``(f) Limitation on Protests.--No person may file a protest 
     against the award or proposed award of a Federal agency 
     procurement contract alleging an offense under subsection 
     (a), (b), or (c), of this section, nor may the Defense Board 
     or the Civilian Board consider such an allegation in deciding 
     a protest, unless that person reported to the Federal agency 
     responsible for the procurement information that the person 
     believed constituted evidence of the offense no later than 14 
     days after the person first discovered the possible offense.
       ``(g) Savings Provisions.--This section does not--
       ``(1) restrict the disclosure of information to, or its 
     receipt by, any person or class of persons authorized, in 
     accordance with applicable agency regulations or procedures, 
     to receive that information;
       ``(2) restrict a contractor from disclosing its own bid or 
     proposal information or the recipient from receiving that 
     information;
       ``(3) restrict the disclosure or receipt of information 
     relating to a Federal agency procurement after it has been 
     canceled by the Federal agency before contract award unless 
     the Federal agency plans to resume the procurement;
       ``(4) prohibit individual meetings between a Federal agency 
     employee and an offeror or potential offeror for, or a 
     recipient of, a contract or subcontract under a Federal 
     agency procurement, provided that unauthorized disclosure or 
     receipt of contractor bid or proposal information or source 
     selection information does not occur;
       ``(5) authorize the withholding of information from, nor 
     restrict its receipt by, Congress, a committee or 
     subcommittee of Congress, the Comptroller General, a Federal 
     agency, or an inspector general of a Federal agency;
       ``(6) authorize the withholding of information from, nor 
     restrict its receipt by, the Defense Board or the Civilian 
     Board in the course of a protest against the award or 
     proposed award of a Federal agency procurement contract; or
       ``(7) limit the applicability of any requirements, 
     sanctions, contract penalties, and remedies established under 
     any other law or regulation.''.
       (b) Repeals.--The following provisions of law are repealed:
       (1) Sections 2397, 2397a, 2397b, and 2397c of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       (2) Section 33 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
     1974 (15 U.S.C. 789).
       (3) Section 281 of title 18, United States Code.
       (4) Subsection (c) of section 32 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428).
       (5) The first section 19 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy 
     Research and Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5918).
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 141 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking out 
     the items relating to sections 2397, 2397a, 2397b, and 2397c.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking out the 
     item relating to section 281.
       (3) Section 32 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 428) is amended by redesignating subsections 
     (d), (e), (f), and (g) as subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), 
     respectively.

     SEC. 306. FURTHER ACQUISITION STREAMLINING PROVISIONS.

       (a) Purpose of Office of Federal Procurement Policy.--(1) 
     Section 5(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (41 U.S.C. 404) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) To promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in 
     the procurement of property and services by the executive 
     branch of the Federal Government, there shall be an Office of 
     Federal 

[[Page H 8884]]
     Procurement Policy (hereinafter referred to as the `Office') in the 
     Office of Management and Budget to provide overall direction 
     of Government-wide procurement policies, regulations, 
     procedures, and forms for executive agencies.''.
       (2) Sections 2 and 3 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 401 and 402) 
     are repealed.
       (b) Repeal of Report Requirement.--Section 8 of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 407) is 
     repealed.
       (c) Repeal of Obsolete Provisions.--(1) Sections 10 and 11 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     409 and 410) are repealed.
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of contents for the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (contained in 
     section 1(b)) is amended by striking out the items relating 
     to sections 2, 3, 8, 10, and 11.
     SEC. 307. JUSTIFICATION OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS 
                   NOT MEETING GOALS.

       Section 2220(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``In addition, the 
     Secretary shall include in such annual report a justification 
     for the continuation of any program that--
       ``(1) is more than 50 percent over the cost goal 
     established for the development, procurement, or operational 
     phase of the program;
       ``(2) fails to achieve at least 50 percent of the 
     performance capability goals established for the development, 
     procurement, or operational phase of the program; or
       ``(3) is more than 50 percent behind schedule, as 
     determined in accordance with the schedule goal established 
     for the development, procurement, or operational phase of the 
     program.''.

     SEC. 308. ENHANCED PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES FOR ACQUISITION 
                   WORKFORCE.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Subsection (b) of section 
     5001 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-355; 108 Stat. 3350; 10 U.S.C. 2220 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (2) by designating the second sentence as paragraph (2);
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b) Enhanced System of 
     Performance Incentives.--''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary shall include in the enhanced system of 
     incentives the following:
       ``(A) Pay bands.
       ``(B) Significant and material pay and promotion incentives 
     to be awarded, and significant and material unfavorable 
     personnel actions to be imposed,
      under the system exclusively, or primarily, on the basis of 
     the contributions of personnel to the performance of the 
     acquisition program in relation to cost goals, performance 
     goals, and schedule goals.
       ``(C) Provisions for pay incentives and promotion 
     incentives to be awarded under the system.''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Subsection (c) of 
     section 5051 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
     1994 (Public Law 103-355; 108 Stat. 3351; 41 U.S.C. 263 note) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 
     (2) as clauses (i) and (ii), respectively;
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (3) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c) Enhanced System of 
     Performance Incentives.--''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The Deputy Director shall include in the enhanced 
     system of incentives under paragraph (1)(B) the following:
       ``(A) Pay bands.
       ``(B) Significant and material pay and promotion incentives 
     to be awarded, and significant and material unfavorable 
     personnel actions to be imposed, under the system 
     exclusively, or primarily, on the basis of the contributions 
     of personnel to the performance of the acquisition program in 
     relation to cost goals, performance goals, and schedule 
     goals.
       ``(C) Provisions for pay incentives and promotion 
     incentives to be awarded under the system.''.

     SEC. 309. RESULTS ORIENTED ACQUISITION PROGRAM CYCLE.

       Section 5002(a) of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act 
     of 1994 (Public Law 103-355; 108 Stat. 3350) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``to ensure''; and
       (2) by striking out the period at the end and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following: ``; (2) to ensure that the 
     regulations compress the time periods associated with 
     developing, procuring, and making operational new systems; 
     and (3) to ensure that Department of Defense directives 
     relating to development and procurement of information 
     systems (numbered in the 8000 series) and the Department of 
     Defense directives numbered in the 5000 series are 
     consolidated into one series of directives that is consistent 
     with such compressed time periods.''.

     SEC. 310. RAPID CONTRACTING GOAL.

       (a) Goal.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as 
     amended by section 106, is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 36. RAPID CONTRACTING GOAL.

       ``The Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy shall 
     establish a goal of reducing by 50 percent the time necessary 
     for executive agencies to acquire an item for the user of 
     that item.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such 
     Act, contained in section 1(b), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new item:

``Sec. 36. Rapid contracting goal.''.
     SEC. 311. ENCOURAGEMENT OF MULTIYEAR CONTRACTING.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--Section 2306b(a) of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1) by striking out ``may'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``shall, to the maximum extent possible,''.
       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--Section 304B(a) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 254c(a)) is amended in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1) by striking out ``may'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``shall, to the maximum extent possible,''.

     SEC. 312. CONTRACTOR SHARE OF GAINS AND LOSSES FROM COST, 
                   SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE EXPERIENCE.

       (a) Armed Services Acquisitions.--(1) Chapter 137 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     2306b the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2306c. Contractor share of gains and losses from cost, 
       schedule, and performance experience

       ``The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall contain 
     provisions to ensure that, for any cost-type contract or 
     incentive-type contract, the contractor may be rewarded for 
     contract performance exceeding the contract cost, schedule, 
     or performance parameters to the benefit of the United States 
     and may be penalized for failing to adhere to cost, schedule, 
     or performance parameters to the detriment of the United 
     States.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     2306b the following new item:

``2306c. Contractor share of gains and losses from cost, schedule, and 
              performance experience.''.

       (b) Civilian Agency Acquisitions.--(1) Title III of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 251 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     304C the following new section:
     ``SEC. 304D. CONTRACTOR SHARE OF GAINS AND LOSSES FROM COST, 
                   SCHEDULE, AND PERFORMANCE EXPERIENCE.

       ``The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall contain 
     provisions to ensure that, for any cost-type contract or 
     incentive-type contract, the contractor may be rewarded for 
     contract performance exceeding the contract cost, schedule, 
     or performance parameters to the benefit of the United States 
     and may be penalized for failing to adhere to cost, schedule, 
     or performance parameters to the detriment of the United 
     States.''.
       (2) The table of contents for such Act, contained in 
     section 1(b), is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 304C the following new item:

``Sec. 304D. Contractor share of gains and losses from cost, schedule, 
              and performance experience.''.
     SEC. 313. PHASE FUNDING OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

       Chapter 131 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2221. Funding for results oriented acquisition program 
       cycle

       ``Before initial funding is made available for the 
     development, procurement, or operational phase of an 
     acquisition program for which an authorization of 
     appropriations is required by section 114 of this title, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress information 
     about the objectives and plans for the conduct of that phase 
     and the funding requirements for the entire phase. The 
     information shall identify the intended user of the system to 
     be acquired under the program and shall include objective, 
     quantifiable criteria for assessing the extent to which the 
     objectives and goals determined pursuant to section 2435 of 
     this title are achieved.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2221. Funding for results oriented acquisition program cycle.''.
     SEC. 314. IMPROVED DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACT PAYMENT 
                   PROCEDURES.

       (a) Review and Improvement of Procedures.--The Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall review commercial 
     practices regarding accounts payable and, considering the 
     results of the review, develop standards for the Secretary of 
     Defense to consider using for improving the contract payment 
     procedures and financial management systems of the Department 
     of Defense.
       (b) GAO Report.--Not later than September 30, 1996, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report 
     containing the following matters:
       (1) The weaknesses in the financial management processes of 
     the Department of Defense.
       (2) Deviations of the Department of Defense payment 
     procedures and financial management systems from the 
     standards developed pursuant to subsection (a), expressed 
     quantitatively.
       (3) The officials of the Department of Defense who are 
     responsible for resolving the deviations.

     SEC. 315. CONSIDERATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE IN ASSIGNMENT TO 
                   ACQUISITION POSITIONS.

       (a) Requirement.--Section 1701(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The policies and procedures shall provide that education 
     and training in acquisition matters, and past performance of 
     acquisition responsibilities, are major factors in the 
     selection of personnel for assignment to acquisition 
     positions in the Department of Defense.''.
       (b) Performance Requirements for Assignment.--(1) Section 
     1723(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``, including requirements relating to demonstrated 
     past performance of acquisition duties,'' in the first 
     sentence after ``experience requirements''.
       (2) Section 1724(a)(2) of such title is amended by 
     inserting before the semicolon at the end the 

[[Page H 8885]]
     following: ``and have demonstrated proficiency in the performance of 
     acquisition duties in the contracting position or positions 
     previously held''.
       (3) Section 1735 of such title is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (ii) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) must have demonstrated proficiency in the performance 
     of acquisition duties.'';
       (B) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
       (ii) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (3) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) must have demonstrated proficiency in the performance 
     of acquisition duties.'';
       (C) in subsection (d), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, and have demonstrated proficiency 
     in the performance of acquisition duties''; and
       (D) in subsection (e), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, and have demonstrated proficiency 
     in the performance of acquisition duties''.
     SEC. 316. ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Additional Program Authorized for Participation in 
     Defense Acquisition Pilot Program.--Section 5064 of the 
     Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-355; 
     108 Stat. 3359) is amended as follows:
       (1) Subsection (a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Joint standoff weapon unitary variant (jsow-uv).--The 
     Joint Standoff Weapon Unitary Variant program with respect to 
     all contracts directly related to the development and 
     procurement of an air-delivered, standoff weapon that 
     incorporates a global positioning system-aided inertial 
     navigation system, a data link capability, and a unitary 
     warhead.''.
       (2) Subsection (c) is amended--
       (A) by striking out ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (2) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) with respect to the program described in subsection 
     (a)(6)--
       ``(A) to apply any amendment or repeal of a provision of 
     law made in the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995 to the 
     pilot program before the effective date of such amendment or 
     repeal; and
       ``(B) to apply to a procurement of items other than 
     commercial items under such program any waiver or exception 
     applicable under the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 
     1994 (Public Law 103-355) or the Federal Acquisition Reform 
     Act of 1995 (or an amendment made by a provision of either 
     Act) in the case of commercial items before the effective 
     date of such provision (or amendment), to the extent that the 
     Secretary determines necessary to test the application of 
     such waiver or exception to procurements of items other than 
     commercial items.''.
       (b) Defense Acquisition Facility-Wide Pilot Program.--
       (1) Authority to conduct facility-wide pilot program.--The 
     Secretary of Defense may conduct a pilot program, to be known 
     as the ``defense facility-wide pilot program'', for the 
     purpose of determining the potential for increasing the 
     efficiency and effectiveness of the acquisition process in 
     facilities.
       (2) Scope of program.--At a facility designated as a 
     participant in the pilot program, the pilot program shall 
     consist of the following:
       (A) All contracts and subcontracts for defense supplies and 
     services that are performed at the facility.
       (B) All contracts and subcontracts performed elsewhere that 
     the Secretary determines are directly and substantially 
     related to the production of defense supplies and services at 
     the facility and are necessary for the pilot program.
       (3) Designation of participating facilities.--(A) The 
     Secretary may designate up to three facilities as 
     participants in the defense facility-wide pilot program.
       (B) Subject to paragraph (7), the Secretary may determine 
     the scope and duration of a designation made under this 
     paragraph.
       (4) Criteria for designation.--The Secretary may designate 
     a facility under paragraph (3) only if the Secretary 
     determines that all or substantially all of the contracts to 
     be awarded and performed at the facility after the 
     designation, and all or substantially all of the subcontracts 
     to be awarded under those contracts and performed at the 
     facility after the designation, will be--
       (A) for the production of supplies or services on a firm-
     fixed price basis;
       (B) awarded without requiring the contractors or 
     subcontractors to provide certified cost or pricing data 
     pursuant to section 2306a of title 10, United States Code; 
     and
       (C) awarded and administered without the application of 
     cost accounting standards under section 26(f) of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 422(f)).
       (5) Exemption from certain requirements.--In the case of a 
     contract or subcontract that is to be performed at a facility 
     designated for participation in the defense facility-wide 
     pilot program and that is subject to section 2306a of title 
     10, United States Code, or section 26(f) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 422(f)), the 
     Secretary of Defense may exempt such contract or subcontract 
     from the requirement to obtain certified cost or pricing data 
     under such section 2306a or the requirement to apply 
     mandatory cost accounting standards under such section 26(f) 
     if the Secretary determines that the contract or 
     subcontract--
       (A) is within the scope of the pilot program (as described 
     in paragraph (2)); and
       (B) is fairly and reasonably priced based on information 
     other than certified cost and pricing data.
       (6) Special authority.--The authority provided under 
     paragraph (1) may include authority for the Secretary of 
     Defense--
       (A) to apply any amendment or repeal of a provision of law 
     made in this Act to the pilot program before the effective 
     date of such amendment or repeal; and
       (B) to apply to a procurement of items other than 
     commercial items under such program--
       (i) any authority provided in the Federal Acquisition 
     Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355) (or in an 
     amendment made by a provision of that Act) to waive a 
     provision of law in the case of commercial items, and
       (ii) any exception applicable under this Act or the Federal 
     Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-355) (or 
     an amendment made by a provision of either Act) in the case 
     of commercial items,

     before the effective date of such provision (or amendment) to 
     the extent that the Secretary determines necessary to test 
     the application of such waiver or exception to procurements 
     of items other than commercial items.
       (7) Applicability.--(A) Paragraphs (5) and (6) apply with 
     respect to--
       (i) a contract that is awarded or modified during the 
     period described in subparagraph (B); and
       (ii) a contract that is awarded before the beginning of 
     such period and is to be performed (or may be performed), in 
     whole or in part, during such period.
       (B) The period referred to in subparagraph (A) is the 
     period that begins 45 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act and ends on September 30, 1998.
       (8) Commercial practices encouraged.--With respect to 
     contracts and subcontracts within the scope of the defense 
     facility-wide pilot program, the Secretary of Defense may, to 
     the extent the Secretary determines appropriate and in 
     accordance with the law, adopt commercial practices in the 
     administration of contracts and subcontracts. Such commercial 
     practices may include elimination of Government audit and 
     access to records provisions; incorporation of commercial 
     oversight, inspection, and acceptance procedures; use of 
     alternative dispute resolution techniques (including 
     arbitration); and elimination of contract provisions 
     authorizing the Government to make unilateral changes to 
     contracts.
     SEC. 317. VALUE ENGINEERING FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Use of Value Engineering.--The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 310, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 37. VALUE ENGINEERING.

       ``(a) In General.--Each executive agency shall establish 
     and maintain effective value engineering procedures and 
     processes.
       ``(b) Threshold.--The procedures and processes established 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall be applied to those 
     programs, projects, systems, and products of an executive 
     agency that, in a ranking of all programs, projects, systems, 
     and products of the agency according to greatest dollar 
     value, are within the highest 20th percentile.
       ``(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term `value 
     engineering' means a team effort, performed by qualified 
     agency or contractor personnel, directed at analyzing the 
     functions of a program, project, system, product, item of 
     equipment, building, facility, service, or supply for the 
     purpose of achieving the essential functions at the lowest 
     life-cycle cost that is consistent with required or improved 
     performance, reliability, quality, and safety.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for such 
     Act, contained in section 1(b), is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new item:

``Sec. 37. Value engineering.''.
     SEC. 318. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.

       (a) Acquisition Workforce.--(1) The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), as amended by 
     section 317, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 38. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.

       ``(a) Applicability.--This section does not apply to an 
     executive agency that is subject to chapter 87 of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       ``(b) Management Policies.--
       ``(1) Policies and procedures.--The head of each executive 
     agency, after consultation with the Administrator for Federal 
     Procurement Policy, shall establish policies and procedures 
     for the effective management (including accession, education, 
     training, career development, and performance incentives) of 
     the acquisition workforce of the agency. The development of 
     acquisition workforce policies under this section shall be 
     carried out consistent with the merit system principles set 
     forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 2301(b) of title 
     5, United States Code.
       ``(2) Uniform implementation.--The head of each executive 
     agency shall ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     acquisition workforce policies and procedures established are 
     uniform in their implementation throughout the agency.
       ``(3) Government-wide policies and evaluation.--The 
     Administrator shall issue policies to promote uniform 
     implementation of this section by executive agencies, with 
     due regard for differences in program requirements among 
     agencies that may be appropriate and warranted in view of the 
     agency mission. The Administrator 

[[Page H 8886]]

     shall coordinate with the Deputy Director for Management of 
     the Office of Management and Budget to ensure that such 
     policies are consistent with the policies and procedures 
     established and enhanced system of incentives provided 
     pursuant to section 5051(c) of the Federal Acquisition 
     Streamlining Act of 1994 (41 U.S.C. 263 note). The 
     Administrator shall evaluate the implementation of the 
     provisions of this section by executive agencies.
       ``(c) Senior Procurement Executive Authorities and 
     Responsibilities.--Subject to the authority, direction, and 
     control of the head of an executive agency, the senior 
     procurement executive of the agency shall carry out all 
     powers, functions, and duties of the head of the agency with 
     respect to implementation of this section. The senior 
     procurement executive shall ensure that the policies of the 
     head of the executive agency established in accordance with 
     this section are implemented throughout the agency.
       ``(d) Management Information Systems.--The Administrator 
     shall ensure that the heads of executive agencies collect and 
     maintain standardized information on the acquisition 
     workforce related to implementation of this section. To the 
     maximum extent practicable, such data requirements shall 
     conform to standards established by the Office of Personnel 
     Management for the Central Personnel Data File.
       ``(e) Acquisition Workforce.--The programs established by 
     this section shall apply to all employees in the
      General Schedule Contracting series (GS-1102) and the 
     General Schedule Purchasing series (GS-1105), and to any 
     employees regardless of series who have been appointed as 
     contracting officers whose authority exceeds the micro-
     purchase threshold, as that term is defined in section 
     32(g). The head of each executive agency may include 
     employees in other series who perform acquisition or 
     acquisition-related functions.
       ``(f) Career Development.--
       ``(1) Career paths.--The head of each executive agency 
     shall ensure that appropriate career paths for personnel who 
     desire to pursue careers in acquisition are identified in 
     terms of the education, training, experience, and assignments 
     necessary for career progression to the most senior 
     acquisition positions. The head of each executive agency 
     shall make information available on such career paths.
       ``(2) Critical duties and tasks.--For each career path, the 
     head of each executive agency shall identify the critical 
     acquisition-related duties and tasks in which, at minimum, 
     employees of the agency in the career path shall be competent 
     to perform at full performance grade levels. For this 
     purpose, the head of the executive agency shall provide 
     appropriate coverage of the critical duties and tasks 
     identified by the Director of the Federal Acquisition 
     Institute.
       ``(3) Mandatory training and education.--For each career 
     path, the head of each executive agency shall establish 
     requirements for the completion of course work and related 
     on-the-job training in the critical acquisition-related 
     duties and tasks of the career path. The head of each 
     executive agency shall also encourage employees to maintain 
     the currency of their acquisition knowledge and generally 
     enhance their knowledge of related acquisition management 
     disciplines through academic programs and other self-
     developmental activities.
       ``(4) Performance incentives.--The head of each executive 
     agency, acting through the senior procurement executive for 
     the agency, shall provide for an enhanced system of 
     incentives for the encouragement of excellence in the 
     acquisition workforce which rewards performance of employees 
     that contribute to achieving the agency's performance goals. 
     The system of incentives shall include provisions that--
       ``(A) relate pay to performance;
       ``(B) provide for consideration, in personnel evaluations 
     and promotion decisions, of the extent to which the 
     performance of personnel contributed to achieving the 
     agency's performance goals; and
       ``(C) provide pay and promotion incentives to be awarded, 
     and unfavorable personnel actions to be imposed, under the 
     system on the basis of the contributions of personnel to 
     achieving the agency's performance goals.
       ``(g) Qualification Requirements.--
       ``(1) General schedule contracting series (gs-1102).--
       ``(A) Entry level qualifications.--The Director of the 
     Office of Personnel Management shall require that, after 
     October 1, 1996, a person may not be appointed to a position 
     in the GS-1102 occupational series unless the person--
       ``(i) has received a baccalaureate degree from an 
     accredited educational institution authorized to grant 
     baccalaureate degrees,
       ``(ii) has completed at least 24 semester credit hours (or 
     the equivalent) of study from an accredited institution of 
     higher education in any of the following disciplines: 
     accounting, business finance, law, contracts, purchasing, 
     economics, industrial management, marketing, quantitative 
     methods, or organization and management, or
       ``(iii) has passed a written test determined by the 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, after 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, to demonstrate the judgmental skills necessary 
     for positions in this series.
       ``(B) Qualifications for senior contracting positions.--The 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall require 
     that, after October 1, 1996, persons may be appointed to 
     positions at and above full performance grade levels in the 
     GS-1102 occupational series only if those persons--
       ``(i) have satisfied the educational requirement either of 
     subparagraph (A)(i) or (A)(ii),
       ``(ii) have successfully completed all training required 
     for the position under subsection (f)(3), and
       ``(iii) have satisfied experience and other requirements 
     established by the Director for such positions.

     However, this requirement shall apply to persons employed on 
     October 1, 1996, in GS-1102 positions at those grade levels 
     only as a prerequisite for promotion to a GS-1102 position at 
     a higher grade.
       ``(2) General schedule purchasing series (gs-1105).--The 
     Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall require 
     that, after October 1, 1996, a person may not be appointed to 
     a position in the GS-1105 occupational series unless the 
     person--
       ``(A) has successfully completed 2 years of course work 
     from an accredited educational institution authorized to 
     grant degrees, or
       ``(B) has passed a written test determined by the 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, after 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, to demonstrate the judgmental skills necessary 
     for positions in this series.
       ``(3) Contracting officers.--The head of each executive 
     agency shall require that, beginning after October 1, 1996, a 
     person may be appointed as a contracting officer with 
     authority to award or administer contracts for amounts above 
     the micro-purchase threshold, as that term is defined in 
     section 32(g), only if the person--
       ``(A) has successfully completed all mandatory training 
     required of an employee in an equivalent GS-1102 or 1105 
     position under subsection (f)(3); and
       ``(B) meets experience and other requirements established 
     by the head of the agency, based on the dollar value and 
     complexity of the contracts that the employee will be 
     authorized to award or administer under the appointment as a 
     contracting officer.
       ``(4) Exceptions.--(A) The requirements set forth in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), as applicable, shall not apply to any 
     person employed in the GS-1102 or GS-1105 series on October 
     1, 1996.
       ``(B) Employees of an executive agency who do not satisfy 
     the full qualification requirements for appointment as a 
     contracting officer under paragraph (3) may be appointed as a 
     contracting officer for a temporary period of time under 
     procedures established by the agency head. The procedures 
     shall--
       ``(i) require that the person have completed a significant 
     portion of the required training,
       ``(ii) require a plan be established for the balance of the 
     required training,
       ``(iii) specify a period of time for completion of the 
     training, and
       ``(iv) include provisions for withdrawing or terminating 
     the appointment prior to the scheduled expiration date, where 
     appropriate.
       ``(5) Waiver.--The senior procurement executive for an 
     executive agency may waive any or all of the qualification 
     requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) for a person if the 
     person possesses significant potential for advancement to 
     levels of greater responsibility and authority, based on 
     demonstrated job performance and qualifying experience. This 
     authority may not be redelegated by the senior procurement 
     executive. With respect to each waiver granted under this 
     subsection, the senior procurement executive shall set forth 
     in writing the rationale for the decision to waive such 
     requirements.
       ``(h) Program Establishment and Implementation.--
       ``(1) Funding levels.--(A) The head of an executive agency 
     shall request in the budget for a fiscal year for the 
     agency--
       ``(i) for education and training under this section, an 
     amount equal to no less than 2.5 percent of the base 
     aggregate salary cost of the acquisition workforce subject to 
     this section for that fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) for salaries of the acquisition workforce, an amount 
     equal to no more than 97.5 percent of such base aggregate 
     salary cost.
       ``(B) The head of the executive agency shall set forth 
     separately the funding levels requested in the budget 
     justification documents submitted in support of the 
     President's budget submitted to Congress under section 1105 
     of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(C) Funds appropriated for education and training under 
     this section may not be obligated or used for any other 
     purpose.
       ``(2) Interagency agreements.--The head of an executive 
     agency may enter into a written agreement with another agency 
     to participate in programs established under this section on 
     a reimbursable basis.
       ``(3) Tuition assistance.--Notwithstanding the prohibition 
     in section 4107(b) of title 5, United States Code, the head 
     of each executive agency may provide for tuition 
     reimbursement and education (including a full-time course of 
     study leading to a degree) for acquisition personnel in the 
     agency related to the purposes of this section.
       ``(4) Intern programs.--The head of each executive agency 
     may establish intern programs in order to recruit highly 
     qualified and talented individuals and provide them with 
     opportunities for accelerated promotions, career broadening 
     assignments, and specified training for advancement to senior 
     acquisition positions. For such programs, the head of an 
     executive agency, without regard to the provisions of title 
     5, United States Code, may appoint individuals to competitive 
     GS-5, GS-7, or GS-9 positions in the General Schedule 
     Contracting series (GS-1102) who have graduated from 
     baccalaureate or master's programs in purchasing or 
     contracting from accredited educational institutions 
     authorized to grant baccalaureate and master's degrees.
       ``(5) Cooperative education program.--The head of each 
     executive agency may establish an agencywide cooperative 
     education credit program for acquisition positions. Under the 
     program, the head of the executive agency may enter into 
     cooperative arrangements with one or more accredited 
     institutions of higher education 

[[Page H 8887]]
     which provide for such institutions to grant undergraduate credit for 
     work performed in such position.
       ``(6) Scholarship program.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--Where deemed appropriate, the head of 
     each executive agency may establish a scholarship program for 
     the purpose of qualifying individuals for acquisition 
     positions in the agency.
       ``(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in a 
     scholarship program established under this paragraph by an 
     executive agency, an individual must--
       ``(i) be accepted for enrollment or be currently enrolled 
     as a full-time student at an accredited educational 
     institution authorized to grant baccalaureate or graduate 
     degrees (as appropriate);
       ``(ii) be pursuing a course of education that leads toward 
     completion of a bachelor's, master's, or doctor's degree (as 
     appropriate) in a qualifying field of study, as determined by 
     the head of the agency;
       ``(iii) sign an agreement described in subparagraph (C) 
     under which the participant agrees to serve a period of 
     obligated service in the agency in an acquisition position in 
     return for payment of educational assistance as provided in 
     the agreement; and
       ``(iv) meet such other requirements as the head of the 
     agency prescribes.
       ``(C) Agreement.--An agreement between the head of an 
     executive agency and a participant in a scholarship program 
     established under this paragraph shall be in writing, shall 
     be signed by the participant, and shall include the following 
     provisions:
       ``(i) The agreement of the head of the agency to provide 
     the participant with educational assistance for a specified 
     number of school years, not to exceed 4, during which the 
     participant is pursuing a course of education in a qualifying 
     field of study. The assistance may include payment of 
     tuition, fees, books, laboratory expenses, and a stipend.
       ``(ii) The participant's agreement--

       ``(I) to accept such educational assistance,
       ``(II) to maintain enrollment and attendance in the course 
     of education until completed,
       ``(III) while enrolled in such course, to maintain an 
     acceptable level of academic standing (as prescribed by the 
     head of the agency), and
       ``(IV) after completion of the course of education, to 
     serve as a full-time employee in an acquisition position in 
     the agency for a period of time of one calendar year for each 
     school year or part thereof for which the participant was 
     provided a scholarship under the program.

       ``(D) Repayment.--(i) Any person participating in a program 
     established under this paragraph shall agree to pay to the 
     United States the total amount of educational assistance 
     provided to the person under the program if the person is 
     voluntarily separated from the agency or involuntarily 
     separated for cause from the agency before the end of the 
     period for which the person has agreed to continue in the 
     service of the agency in an acquisition position.
       ``(ii) If an employee fails to fulfill the agreement to pay 
     to the Government the total amount of educational assistance 
     provided to the person under the program, a sum equal to the 
     amount of the educational assistance may be recovered by the 
     Government from the employee (or the estate of the employee) 
     by setoff against accrued pay, compensation, amount of 
     retirement credit, or other amount due the employee from the 
     Government; and by such other method as is provided by law 
     for the recovery of amounts owing to the Government.
       ``(iii) The head of an executive agency may waive in whole 
     or in part a repayment required under this paragraph if the 
     head of the agency determines the recovery would be against 
     equity and good conscience or would be contrary to the best 
     interests of the United States.
       ``(E) Termination of agreement.--There shall be no 
     requirement that a position be offered to a person after such 
     person successfully completes a course of education required 
     by an agreement under this paragraph. If no position is 
     offered, the agreement shall be considered terminated.''.
       (2) The table of contents for such Act, contained in 
     section 1(b), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 38. Acquisition workforce.''.

       (b) Additional Amendments.--Section 6(d)(5) of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 405), is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking out ``Government-wide 
     career management programs for a professional procurement 
     work force'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the development 
     of a professional acquisition workforce Government-wide'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) by striking out ``procurement by the'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``acquisition by the''; and
       (B) by striking out ``and'' at the end of the subparagraph; 
     and
       (3) by striking out subparagraph (C) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(C) administer the provisions of section 38;
       ``(D) collect data and analyze acquisition workforce data 
     from the Office of Personnel Management, the heads of 
     executive agencies, and, through periodic surveys, from 
     individual employees;
       ``(E) periodically analyze acquisition career fields to 
     identify critical competencies, duties, tasks, and related 
     academic prerequisites, skills, and knowledge;
       ``(F) coordinate and assist agencies in identifying and 
     recruiting highly qualified candidates for acquisition 
     fields;
       ``(G) develop instructional materials for acquisition 
     personnel in coordination with private and public acquisition 
     colleges and training facilities;
       ``(H) evaluate the effectiveness of training and career 
     development programs for acquisition personnel;
       ``(I) promote the establishment and utilization of academic 
     programs by colleges and universities in acquisition fields;
       ``(J) facilitate, to the extent requested by agencies, 
     interagency intern and training programs; and
       ``(K) perform other career management or research functions 
     as directed by the Administrator.''.

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weller, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1670) to 
revise and streamline the acquisition laws of the Federal Government, 
to reorganize the mechanisms for resolving Federal procurement 
disputes, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________