[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 143 (Thursday, September 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8915-H8937]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 FEDERAL ACQUISITION REFORM ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 219 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 
1670.

                              {time}  1333


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
September 13, 1995, title III was open for amendment at any point.
  Are there any amendments to title III?


                    amendment offered by mr. spratt

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Spratt: At the end of title III 
     (page 100, after line 12), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 319. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT RELATING TO CERTAIN PERSONNEL 
                   MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

       (a) Commencement.--The Secretary of Defense is encouraged 
     to take such steps as may be necessary to provide for the 
     commencement of a demonstration project, the purpose of which 
     would be to determine the feasibility or desirability of one 
     or more proposals for improving the personnel management 
     policies or procedures that apply with respect to the 
     acquisition workforce of the Department of Defense.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, any demonstration project described in subsection 
     (a) shall be subject to section 4703 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and all other provisions of such title that 
     apply with respect to any demonstration project under such 
     section.
       (2) Exceptions.--Subject to paragraph (3), in applying 
     section 4703 of title 5, United States Code, with respect to 
     a demonstration project described in subsection (a)--
       (A) ``180 days'' in subsection (b)(4) of such section shall 
     be deemed to read ``120 days'';
       (B) ``90 days'' in subsection (b)(6) of such section shall 
     be deemed to read ``30 days''; and
       (C) subsection (d)(1)(A) of such section shall be 
     disregarded.
       (3) Condition.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect 
     to a demonstration project unless it--
       (A) involves only the acquisition workforce of the 
     Department of Defense (or any part thereof); and

[[Page H 8916]]

       (B) commences during the 3-year period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``acquisition workforce'' refers to the persons serving in 
     acquisition positions within the Department of Defense, as 
     designated pursuant to section 1721(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code.

  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I have been here for 7 terms now, and I 
have seen the cycles rise and cycles fall with respect to defense 
procurement policy making. In one period we get very prescriptive about 
the rules we make, and the next period we realize that we have been 
overprescriptive, we have been much too specific, and we back off and 
give the Department of Defense, in particular, more running room, more 
discretion, more flexibility, and more responsibility. But always 
mainly our effort is directed towards the black-letter rule, the 
procedures, and yet most of us who have ever been involved in running a 
business realize that when our businesses succeeded or failed, it was 
not the rule book or the policy manual we turned to first. It was the 
people who worked for us, and I think we should heed that own practical 
experience when we look at the defense procurement, and, in revisiting 
the rules one more time, making another cut at the rules to see if we 
cannot make defense procurement much more efficient.
  I do not think we should overlook the fact that we have got to do 
something about the quality, the calibre, the incentives, the rewards, 
the accountability of the acquisition work force, and that is the 
purpose of my amendment. My amendment simply encourages the Secretary 
of Defense to set up pilot projects to improve acquisition or 
procurement by improving the people who manage the system. It will 
allow far greater flexibility in hiring, and firing, and promoting, and 
incentivizing the people who work in defense acquisition.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I would go further than this particular 
amendment does. I would actually impose upon the Secretary of Defense a 
requirement that he undertake certain demonstration projects to test 
out the viability or feasibility of flexing up his personnel policies 
in the acquisition work force, but in the interests of achieving a 
consensus this bill, this amendment, simply encourages the Secretary to 
do that and to use authority that is already on the books, title 5, 
section 4703, United States Code, which gives that same authority to 
the Office of Personnel Management.
  This particular amendment simply starts out by saying the Secretary 
of Defense is encouraged to utilize that authority and to undertake 
demonstrational pilot projects that will experiment with, attempt on a 
broad scale, much more flexible and innovative procedures in hiring, 
and firing, and rewarding, and penalizing those who fail or succeed.
  This is a first step, and is long overdue, towards implementing one 
of the key reforms that was recommended 10 years ago by the Packard 
Commission. In its report in 1986 the Packard Commission said DOD must 
be able to attract, and retain, and motivate well-qualified acquisition 
personnel. The Packard Commission recognized that acquisition reform 
would not happen if we just rewrite the rule book. This is an exercise 
that we do frequently, and we wonder why we do not get results. It is 
because we are not doing enough to change the people that implement and 
follow the rules. We have to upgrade the caliber of people who manage 
acquisition. We have got to reward them for good performance, 
penalizing or replacement for inadequate performance, and, above all, 
hold them accountable. My amendment would allow the DOD to restructure 
their personnel regulations for acquisition managers without regard to 
existing classifications in the Civil Service Code in order to attract 
better technical talent to keep people who are knowledgeable and 
capable, and reward them accordingly, and to motivate the whole work 
force better.
  Mr. Chairman, this reform is not only recommended by the Packard 
Commission, but by the National Academy of Public Administration, once 
again more than 10 years ago, and our followup to it has been all too 
feeble.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Despite the fact the gentleman opposed my position on 
title I, I would say what I consider to be a very generous example of 
noblesse oblige, we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment, 
and I understand that any problems have been worked out with all the 
parties, and we are pleased to accept the amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his magnanimity, 
as well as his support. I appreciate it.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I am more than happy that this is really a 
great amendment. It is one that a great deal of work has been done by 
the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and of course we on this 
side accept this most wonderful amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. The amendment seeks to 
implement a recommendation made in 1986 by the Packard Commission that 
the Secretary of Defense be given the authority to establish a flexible 
personnel system for DOD acquisition personnel.
  I want to commend the gentleman for his efforts to perfect this 
amendment since the committee markup. His office worked closely with my 
staff and with the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] to produce 
language that enjoys bipartisan support.
  The Spratt amendment encourages the Secretary to work with OPM to 
conduct this demonstration project under the framework of existing 
demonstration project authority, with a few minor changes. It waives 
the statutory cap which limits the number of employees involved to 
5,000. This is necessary because there are about 6,500 individuals in 
DOD's civilian acquisition work force. The amendment also makes minor 
changes in some of the timeframes for notifications sent the affected 
employees and the Congress.
  I believe this provision can lead to greater productivity on the part 
of acquisition personnel. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  amendments offered by mr. chambliss
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments and ask unanimous 
consent that they be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Chambliss:
       Amendment No. 6: (1) Strike out title IV (page 100, 
     starting on line 13, and all that follows through line 18 on 
     page 143) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

              TITLE IV--STREAMLINING OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.

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

                     ``TITLE II--DISPUTE RESOLUTION

                    ``Subtitle A--General Provisions

     ``SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) The term `Defense Board' means the Department of 
     Defense Board of Contract Appeals established pursuant to 
     section 8(a) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     607).
       ``(2) The term `Civilian Board' means the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals established pursuant to section 8(b) of the 
     Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607).
       ``(3) The term `Board judge' means a member of the Defense 
     Board or the Civilian Board, as the case may be.
       ``(4) The term `Chairman' means the Chairman of the Defense 
     Board or the Civilian Board, as the case may be.
       ``(5) The term `Board concerned' means--
       ``(A) the Defense Board with respect to matters within its 
     jurisdiction; and
       ``(B) the Civilian Board with respect to matters within its 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(6) The term `executive agency'--
       ``(A) with respect to contract disputes and protests under 
     the jurisdiction of the Defense Board, means the Department 
     of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the 
     Navy, or the Department of the Air Force; and
       ``(B) with respect to contract disputes and protests under 
     the jurisdiction of the Civilian Board, has the meaning given 
     by section 4(1) of this Act except that the term does not 

[[Page H 8917]]
     include the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the 
     Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force.
       ``(7) The term `alternative means of dispute resolution' 
     has the meaning given by section 571(3) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(8) The term `protest' means a written objection by an 
     interested party to any of the following:
       ``(A) A solicitation or other request by an executive 
     agency for offers for a contract for the procurement of 
     property or services.
       ``(B) The cancellation of such a solicitation or other 
     request.
       ``(C) An award or proposed award of such a contract.
       ``(9) The term `interested party', with respect to a 
     contract or a solicitation or other request for offers, means 
     an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct 
     economic interest would be affected by the award of the 
     contract or by failure to award the contract.
       ``(10) The term `prevailing party', with respect to a 
     determination of the Board under section 214(h)(2) that a 
     decision of the head of an executive agency is arbitrary or 
     capricious or violates a statute or regulation, means a party 
     that showed that the decision was arbitrary or capricious or 
     violated a statute or regulation.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is further 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting the following before section 1:

           ``TITLE I--FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY GENERALLY'';

     and
       (2) in section 4, by striking out ``As used in this Act:'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as otherwise 
     specifically provided, as used in this Act:''.

 Subtitle B--Establishment of Civilian and Defense Boards of Contract 
                                Appeals

     SEC. 411. ESTABLISHMENT.

       Subsections (a) and (b) of section 8 of the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607) are amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) There is established in the Department of Defense a 
     board of contract appeals to be known as the Department of 
     Defense Board of Contract Appeals.
       ``(b) There is established in the General Services 
     Administration a board of contract appeals to be known as the 
     Civilian Board of Contract Appeals.''.

     SEC. 412. MEMBERSHIP.

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

     ``SEC. 202. MEMBERSHIP.

       ``(a) Appointment.--(1)(A) The Defense Board shall consist 
     of judges appointed by the Secretary of Defense from a 
     register of applicants maintained by the Defense Board, in 
     accordance with rules issued by the Defense Board for 
     establishing and maintaining a register of eligible 
     applicants and selecting Defense Board judges. The Secretary 
     shall appoint a judge without regard to political affiliation 
     and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications 
     required to perform the duties and responsibilities of a 
     Defense Board judge.
       ``(B) The Civilian Board shall consist of judges appointed 
     by the Administrator of General Services from a register of 
     applicants maintained by the Civilian Board, in accordance 
     with rules issued by the Civilian Board for establishing and 
     maintaining a register of eligible applicants and selecting 
     Civilian Board judges. The Administrator shall appoint a 
     judge without regard to political affiliation and solely on 
     the basis of the professional qualifications required to 
     perform the duties and responsibilities of a Civilian Board 
     judge.
       ``(2) The members of the Defense Board and the Civilian 
     Board shall be selected and appointed to serve in the same 
     manner as administrative law judges appointed pursuant to 
     section 3105 of title 5, United States Code, with an 
     additional requirement that such members shall have had not 
     fewer than five years of experience in public contract law.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) and subject to 
     subsection (b), the following persons shall serve as Board 
     judges:
       ``(A) For the Defense Board, any full-time member of the 
     Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals serving as such on 
     the day before the effective date of this title.
       ``(B) For the Civilian Board, any full-time member of any 
     agency board of contract appeals other than the Armed 
     Services Board of Contract Appeals serving as such on the day 
     before the effective date of this title.
       ``(C) For either the Defense Board or the Civilian Board, 
     any person serving on the day before the effective date of 
     this title in a position at a level of assistant general 
     counsel or higher with authority delegated from the 
     Comptroller General to decide bid protests under subchapter V 
     of chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(b) Removal.--Members of the Defense Board and the 
     Civilian Board shall be subject to removal in the same manner 
     as administrative law judges, as provided in section 7521 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(c) Compensation.--Compensation for the Chairman of the 
     Defense Board and the Chairman of the Civilian Board and all 
     other members of each Board shall be determined under section 
     5372a of title 5, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 413. CHAIRMAN.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 412, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 203. CHAIRMAN.

       ``(a) Designation.--(1)(A) The Chairman of the Defense 
     Board shall be designated by the Secretary of Defense to 
     serve for a term of five years. The Secretary shall select 
     the Chairman from among sitting judges each of whom has had 
     at least five years of service--
       ``(i) as a member of the Armed Services Board of Contract 
     Appeals; or
       ``(ii) in a position at a level of assistant general 
     counsel or higher with authority delegated from the 
     Comptroller General to decide bid protests under subchapter V 
     of chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code (as in effect 
     on the day before the effective date of this title).
       ``(B) The Chairman of the Civilian Board shall be 
     designated by the Administrator of General Services to serve 
     for a term of five years. The Administrator shall select the 
     Chairman from among sitting judges each of whom has had at 
     least five years of service--
       ``(i) as a member of an agency board of contract appeals 
     other than the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals; or
       ``(ii) in a position at a level of assistant general 
     counsel or higher with authority delegated from the 
     Comptroller General to decide bid protests under subchapter V 
     of chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code (as in effect 
     on the day before the effective date of this title).
       ``(2) A Chairman of a Board may continue to serve after the 
     expiration of the Chairman's term until a successor has taken 
     office. A Chairman may be reappointed any number of times.
       ``(b) Responsibilities.--The Chairman of the Defense Board 
     or the Civilian Board, as the case may be, shall be 
     responsible on behalf of the Board for the executive and 
     administrative operation of the Board, including functions of 
     the Board with respect to the following:
       ``(1) The selection, appointment, and fixing of the 
     compensation of such personnel, pursuant to part III of title 
     5, United States Code, as the Chairman considers necessary or 
     appropriate, including a Clerk of the Board, a General 
     Counsel, and clerical and legal assistance for Board judges.
       ``(2) The supervision of personnel employed by or assigned 
     to the Board, and the distribution of work among such 
     personnel.
       ``(3) The operation of an Office of the Clerk of the Board, 
     including the receipt of all filings made with the Board, the 
     assignment of cases, and the maintenance of all records of 
     the Board.
       ``(4) The prescription of such rules and regulations as the 
     Chairman considers necessary or appropriate for the 
     administration and management of the Board.
       ``(c) Vice Chairmen.--The Chairman of the Defense Board or 
     the Civilian Board, as the case may be, may designate up to 
     four other Board judges as Vice Chairmen. The Chairman may 
     divide the Board into two divisions, one for handling 
     contract disputes and one for handling protests, and, if such 
     division is made, shall assign a Vice Chairman to head each 
     division. The Vice Chairmen, in the order designated by the 
     Chairman, shall act in the place and stead of the Chairman 
     during the absence of the Chairman.''.

     SEC. 414. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 413, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 204. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided by section 452 of the 
     Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1995, the Chairman of the 
     Defense Board and the Chairman of the Civilian Board shall 
     jointly issue and maintain--
       ``(1) such procedural rules and regulations as are 
     necessary to the exercise of the functions of the Boards 
     under sections 213 and 214; and
       ``(2) statements of policy of general applicability with 
     respect to such functions.
       ``(b) Board Procedures.--In issuing procedural rules and 
     regulations for the exercise of the Boards' protest function 
     under section 214, the Chairmen shall take due notice of 
     executive agency procedures for the resolution of protests as 
     a discretionary alternative to resolution of protests by the 
     Boards and shall ensure that the rules and regulations 
     governing the time for filing protests with the Boards make 
     appropriate allowance for the use of such executive agency 
     procedures by interested parties.''.

     SEC. 415. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 414, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     1997 and each succeeding fiscal year such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. Funds 
     for the activities of each Board shall be separately 
     appropriated for such purpose. Funds appropriate pursuant to 
     this section shall remain available until expended.''.

   Subtitle C--Functions of Defense and Civilian Boards of Contract 
                                Appeals

     SEC. 421. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 415, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
     
[[Page H 8918]]


``Subtitle B--Functions of the Defense and Civilian Boards of Contract 
                                Appeals

     ``SEC. 211. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES.

       ``(a) Requirement To Provide Services Upon Request.--The 
     Defense Board and the Civilian Board shall each provide 
     alternative means of dispute resolution for any disagreement 
     regarding a contract or prospective contract of an executive 
     agency upon the request of all parties to the disagreement.
       ``(b) Personnel Qualified To Act.--Each Board judge and 
     each attorney employed by the Board concerned shall be 
     considered to be qualified to act for the purpose of 
     conducting alternative means of dispute resolution under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Services To Be Provided Without Charge.--Any services 
     provided by the Board concerned or any Board judge or 
     employee pursuant to this section shall be provided without 
     charge.
       ``(d) Recusal of Certain Personnel Upon Request.--In the 
     event that a matter which is presented to the Board concerned 
     for alternative means of dispute resolution, pursuant to this 
     section, later becomes the subject of formal proceedings 
     before such Board, any Board judge or employee who was 
     involved in the alternative means of dispute resolution 
     shall, if requested by any party to the formal proceeding, 
     take no part in that proceeding.''.

     SEC. 422. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES AND 
                   PROTESTS SUBMITTED TO BOARDS.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 421, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 212. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES AND 
                   PROTESTS SUBMITTED TO BOARDS.

       ``With reasonable promptness after the submission to the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board of a contract dispute 
     under section 213 or a bid protest under section 214, a Board 
     judge to whom the contract dispute or protest is assigned 
     shall request the parties to meet with a Board judge, or an 
     attorney employed by the Board concerned, for the purpose of 
     attempting to resolve the dispute or protest through 
     alternative means of dispute resolution. Formal proceedings 
     in the appeal shall then be suspended until such time as any 
     party or a Board judge to whom the dispute or protest is 
     assigned determines that alternative means of dispute 
     resolution are not appropriate for resolution of the dispute 
     or protest.''.

     SEC. 423. CONTRACT DISPUTES.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 422, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 213. CONTRACT DISPUTES.

       ``The Defense Board shall have jurisdiction as provided by 
     section 8(a) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     601-613). The Civilian Board shall have jurisdiction as 
     provided by section 8(b) of such Act.''.

     SEC. 424. PROTESTS.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 423, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 214. PROTESTS.

       ``(a) Review Required Upon Request.--Upon request of an 
     interested party in connection with any procurement conducted 
     by an executive agency, the Defense Board or the Civilian 
     Board, as the case may be, shall review, as provided in this 
     section, any decision by the head of the executive agency 
     alleged to be arbitrary or capricious or to violate a statute 
     or regulation. A decision or order of the Board concerned 
     pursuant to this section shall not be subject to 
     interlocutory appeal or review.
       ``(b) Standard of Review.--In deciding a protest, the Board 
     concerned may consider all evidence that is relevant to the 
     decision under protest. The protester may prevail only by 
     showing that the decision was arbitrary or capricious or 
     violated a statute or regulation.
       ``(c) Notification.--Within one day after the receipt of a 
     protest, the Board concerned shall notify the executive 
     agency involved of the protest.
       ``(d) Suspension of Contract Award.--(1) Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a contract may not be 
     awarded in any procurement after the executive agency has 
     received notice of a protest with respect to such procurement 
     from the Board concerned and while the protest is pending.
       ``(2) The head of the procuring activity responsible for 
     award of a contract may authorize the award of the contract 
     (notwithstanding a protest of which the executive agency has 
     notice under this section)--
       ``(A) upon a written finding that urgent and compelling 
     circumstances which significantly affect interests of the 
     United States will not permit waiting for the decision of the 
     Board concerned under this section; and
       ``(B) after the Board concerned is advised of that finding.
       ``(3) A finding may not be made under paragraph (2)(A) of 
     this subsection unless the award of the contract is otherwise 
     likely to occur within 30 days after the making of such 
     finding.
       ``(4) The suspension of the award under paragraph (1) shall 
     not preclude the executive agency concerned from continuing 
     the procurement process up to but not including the award of 
     the contract.
       ``(e) Suspension of Contract Performance.--(1) A contractor 
     awarded an executive agency contract may, during the period 
     described in paragraph (4), begin performance of the contract 
     and engage in any related activities that result in 
     obligations being incurred by the United States under the 
     contract unless the contracting officer responsible for the 
     award of the contract withholds authorization to proceed with 
     performance of the contract.
       ``(2) The contracting officer may withhold an authorization 
     to proceed with performance of the contract during the period 
     described in paragraph (4) if the contracting officer 
     determines in writing that--
       ``(A) a protest is likely to be filed; and
       ``(B) the immediate performance of the contract is not in 
     the best interests of the United States.
       ``(3)(A) If the executive agency awarding the contract 
     receives notice of a protest in accordance with this section 
     during the period described in paragraph (4)--
       ``(i) the contracting officer may not authorize performance 
     of the contract to begin while the protest is pending; or
       ``(ii) if authorization for contract performance to proceed 
     was not withheld in accordance with paragraph (2) before 
     receipt of the notice, the contracting officer shall 
     immediately direct the contractor to cease performance under 
     the contract and to suspend any related activities that may 
     result in additional obligations being incurred by the United 
     States under that contract.
       ``(B) Performance and related activities suspended pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A)(ii) by reason of a protest may not be 
     resumed while the protest is pending.
       ``(C) The head of the procuring activity may authorize the 
     performance of the contract (notwithstanding a protest of 
     which the executive agency has notice under this section)--
       ``(i) upon a written finding that urgent and compelling 
     circumstances that significantly affect interests of the 
     United States will not permit waiting for the decision 
     concerning the protest by the Board concerned; and
       ``(ii) after the Board concerned is notified of that 
     finding.
       ``(4) The period referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3)(A), 
     with respect to a contract, is the period beginning on the 
     date of the contract award and ending on the later of--
       ``(A) the date that is 10 days after the date of the 
     contract award; or
       ``(B) the date that is 5 days after the debriefing date 
     offered to an unsuccessful offeror for any debriefing that is 
     requested and, when requested, is required.
       ``(f) The authority of the head of the procuring activity 
     to make findings and to authorize the award and performance 
     of contracts under subsections (d) and (e) of this section 
     may not be delegated.
       ``(g) Procedures.--
       ``(1) Proceedings and discovery.--The Board concerned shall 
     conduct proceedings and allow discovery to the minimum extent 
     necessary for the expeditious, fair, and cost-effective 
     resolution of the protest. The Board shall allow discovery 
     only in a case in which the Board determines that the written 
     submissions of the parties do not provide an adequate basis 
     for a fair resolution of the protest. Such discovery shall be 
     limited to material which is relevant to the grounds of 
     protest or to such affirmative defenses as the executive 
     agency involved, or any intervenor supporting the agency, may 
     raise.
       ``(2) Priority.--The Board concerned shall give priority to 
     protests filed under this section over contract disputes and 
     alternative dispute services. Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3), the Board concerned shall issue its final decision 
     within 65 days after the date of the filing of the protest, 
     unless the Chairman determines that the specific and unique 
     circumstances of the protest require a longer period, in 
     which case the Board concerned shall issue such decision 
     within the longer period determined by the Chairman. An 
     amendment that adds a new ground of protest should be 
     resolved, to the maximum extent practicable, within the time 
     limits established for resolution of the initial protest.
       ``(3) Threshold.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), any protest in which the anticipated value of the 
     contract award that will result from the protested 
     procurement, as estimated by the executive agency involved, 
     is less than $30,000,000 shall be considered under simplified 
     rules of procedure. Such simplified rules shall provide that 
     discovery in such protests shall be in writing only. Such 
     written discovery shall be the minimum necessary for the 
     expeditious, fair, and cost-effective resolution of the 
     protest and shall be allowed only if the Board determines 
     that the written submissions of the parties do not provide an 
     adequate basis for a fair resolution of the protest. Such 
     protests shall be decided by a single Board judge. The Board 
     concerned shall issue its final decision in each such protest 
     within 45 days after the date of the filing of the protest, 
     unless the Chairman determines that the specific and unique 
     circumstances of the protest require a longer period, in 
     which case the Board concerned shall issue such decision 
     within the longer period determined by the Chairman.
       ``(B) If the Chairman of the Board concerned determines 
     that special and unique circumstances of a protest that would 
     otherwise qualify for the simplified rules described in 
     subparagraph (A), including the complexity of a protest, 
     requires the use of full procedures as described in 
     paragraphs (1) 

[[Page H 8919]]
     and (2), the Chairman shall use such procedures in lieu of the 
     simplified rules described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Calculation of time for adr.--In calculating time for 
     purposes of paragraph (2) or (3) of this subsection, any days 
     during which proceedings are suspended for the purpose of 
     attempting to resolve the protest by alternative means of 
     dispute resolution, up to a maximum of 20 days, shall not be 
     counted.
       ``(5) Dismissal of frivolous protests.--The Board concerned 
     may dismiss a protest that the Board concerned determines--
       ``(A) is frivolous,
       ``(B) has been brought or pursued in bad faith; or
       ``(C) does not state on its face a valid basis for protest.
       ``(6) Payment of costs for frivolous protests.--(A) If the 
     Board concerned expressly finds that a protest or a portion 
     of a protest is frivolous or has been brought or pursued in 
     bad faith, the Board concerned shall declare that the 
     protester or other interested party who joins the protest is 
     liable to the United States for payment of the costs 
     described in subparagraph (B) unless--
       ``(i) special circumstances would make such payment unjust; 
     or
       ``(ii) the protester obtains documents or other information 
     after the protest is filed with the Board concerned that 
     establishes that the protest or a portion of the protest is 
     frivolous or has been brought or pursued in bad faith, and 
     the protester then promptly withdraws the protest or portion 
     of the protest.
       ``(B) The costs referred to in subparagraph (A) are all of 
     the costs incurred by the United States of reviewing the 
     protest, or of reviewing that portion of the protest for 
     which the finding is made, including the fees and other 
     expenses (as defined in section 2412(d)(2)(A) of title 28, 
     United States Code) incurred by the United States in 
     defending the protest.
       ``(h) Decisions and Corrective Actions on Protests.--(1) In 
     making a decision on protests filed under this section, the 
     Board concerned shall accord due weight to the goals of 
     economic and efficient procurement, and shall take due 
     account of the rule of prejudicial error.
       ``(2) If the Board concerned determines that a decision of 
     the head of the executive agency is arbitrary or capricious 
     or violates a statute or regulation, the Board concerned may 
     order the agency (or its head) to take such corrective action 
     as the Board concerned considers appropriate. Corrective 
     action includes requiring that the executive agency--
       ``(A) refrain from exercising any of its options under the 
     contract;
       ``(B) recompete the contract immediately;
       ``(C) issue a new solicitation;
       ``(D) terminate the contract;
       ``(E) award a contract consistent with the requirements of 
     such statute and regulation;
       ``(F) implement any combination of requirements under 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E); or
       ``(G) implement such other actions as the Board concerned 
     determines necessary.
       ``(3) If the Board concerned orders corrective action after 
     the contract award, the affected contract shall be presumed 
     valid as to all goods or services delivered and accepted 
     under the contract before the corrective action was ordered.
       ``(4) Any agreement that provides for the dismissal of a 
     protest and involves a direct or indirect expenditure of 
     appropriated funds shall be submitted to the Board concerned 
     and shall be made a part of the public record (subject to any 
     protective order considered appropriate by the Board 
     concerned) before dismissal of the protest.
       ``(i) Authority to Declare Entitlement to Costs.--(1)(A) 
     Whenever the Board concerned determines that a decision of 
     the head of an executive agency is arbitrary or capricious or 
     violates a statute or regulation, it may, in accordance with 
     section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, further declare 
     an appropriate prevailing party to be entitled to the costs 
     of--
       ``(i) filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable 
     attorneys' fees and consultant and expert witness fees, and
       ``(ii) bid and proposal preparation.
       ``(B) No party (other than a small business concern (within 
     the meaning of section 3(a) of the Small Business Act)) may 
     be declared entitled under this paragraph to costs for--
       ``(i) consultant and expert witness fees that exceed the 
     highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the 
     Federal Government, or
       ``(ii) attorneys' fees that exceed $150 per hour unless the 
     Board concerned, on a case by case basis, determines that an 
     increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as 
     the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the 
     proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.
       ``(2) Payment of amounts due from an agency under paragraph 
     (1) or under the terms of a settlement agreement under 
     subsection (h)(4) shall be made from the appropriation made 
     by section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, for the 
     payment of judgments. The executive agency concerned shall 
     reimburse that appropriation account out of funds available 
     for the procurement.
       ``(j) Appeals.--A final decision of the Board concerned may 
     be appealed as set forth in section 8(g)(1) of the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978 by the head of the executive agency 
     concerned and by any interested party, including interested 
     parties who intervene in any protest filed under this 
     section.
       ``(k) Additional Relief.--Nothing contained in this section 
     shall affect the power of the Board concerned to order any 
     additional relief which it is authorized to provide under any 
     statute or regulation.
       ``(l) Nonexclusivity of Remedies.--Nothing contained in 
     this section shall affect the right of any interested party 
     to file a protest with the contracting agency or to file an 
     action in the United States Court of Federal Claims or in a 
     United States district court.''.

     SEC. 425. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 424, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 215. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS.

       ``(a) Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition 
     Threshold.--Notwithstanding section 33 of this Act, the 
     authority conferred on the Defense Board and the Civilian 
     Board by this title is applicable to contracts in amounts not 
     greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.
       ``(b) Contracts for Commercial Items.--Notwithstanding 
     section 34 of this Act, the authority conferred on the 
     Defense Board and the Civilian Board by this title is 
     applicable to contracts for the procurement of commercial 
     items.''.

    Subtitle D--Repeal of Other Statutes Authorizing Administrative 
                                Protests

     SEC. 431. REPEALS.

       (a) GSBCA Provisions.--Subsection (f) of the Brooks 
     Automatic Data Processing Act (section 111 of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949; 40 U.S.C. 
     759) is repealed.
       (b) GAO Provisions.--(1) Subchapter V of chapter 35 of 
     title 31, United States Code (31 U.S.C. 3551-3556) is 
     repealed.
       (2) The analysis for chapter 35 of such title is amended by 
     striking out the items relating to sections 3551 through 3556 
     and the heading for subchapter V.

    Subtitle E--Transfers and Transitional, Savings, and Conforming 
                               Provisions

     SEC. 441. TRANSFER AND ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND 
                   PERSONNEL.

       (a) Transfers.--
       (1) Armed services and corps boards of contract appeals.--
     The personnel employed in connection with, and the assets, 
     liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended 
     balance of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and 
     other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to, 
     or to be made available in connection with the functions 
     vested by law in the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 
     and the board of contract appeals of the Corps of Engineers 
     established pursuant to section 8 of the Contract Disputes 
     Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607) (as in effect on the day before 
     the effective date described in section 451), shall be 
     transferred to the Department of Defense Board of Contract 
     Appeals for appropriate allocation by the Chairman of that 
     Board.
       (2) Other boards of contracts appeals.--The personnel 
     employed in connection with, and the assets, liabilities, 
     contracts, property, records, and unexpended balance of 
     appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds 
     employed, held, used, arising from, available to, or to be 
     made available in connection with the functions vested by law 
     in the boards of contract appeals established pursuant to 
     section 8 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     607) (as in effect on the day before the effective date 
     described in section 451) other than the Armed Services Board 
     of Contract Appeals, the board of contract appeals of the 
     Corps of Engineers, and the Postal Service Board of Contract 
     Appeals shall be transferred to the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals for appropriate allocation by the Chairman 
     of that Board.
       (3) Comptroller general.--(A) One-quarter (as determined by 
     the Comptroller General) of the personnel employed in 
     connection with, and one-quarter (as determined by the 
     Comptroller General) of the assets, liabilities, contracts, 
     property, records, and unexpended balance of appropriations, 
     authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, 
     used, arising from, available to, or to be made available in 
     connection with the functions vested by law in the 
     Comptroller General pursuant to subchapter V of chapter 35 of 
     title 31, United States Code (as in effect on the day before 
     the effective date described in section 451), shall be 
     transferred to the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals for 
     appropriate allocation by the Chairman of that Board.
       (B) Three-quarters (as determined by the Comptroller 
     General) of the personnel employed in connection with, and 
     three-quarters (as determined by the Comptroller General) of 
     the assets, liabilities, contracts, property, records, and 
     unexpended balance of appropriations, authorizations, 
     allocations, and other funds employed, held, used, arising 
     from, available to, or to be made available in connection 
     with the functions vested by law in the Comptroller General 
     pursuant to subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 31, United 
     States Code (as in effect on the day before the effective 
     date described in section 451), shall be transferred to the 
     Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals for 
     appropriate allocation by the Chairman of that Board.
       (b) Effect on Personnel.--Personnel transferred pursuant to 
     this subtitle shall 

[[Page H 8920]]
     not be separated or reduced in compensation for one year after such 
     transfer, except for cause.
       (c) Regulations.--(1) The Department of Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals 
     shall each prescribe regulations for the release of competing 
     employees in a reduction in force that gives due effect to--
       (A) efficiency or performance ratings;
       (B) military preference; and
       (C) tenure of employment.
       (2) In prescribing the regulations, the Board concerned 
     shall provide for military preference in the same manner as 
     set forth in subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 442. TERMINATIONS AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Termination of Boards of Contract Appeals.--Effective 
     on the effective date described in section 451, the boards of 
     contract appeals established pursuant to section 8 of the 
     Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607) (as in effect 
     on the day before such effective date) other than the Postal 
     Service Board of Contract Appeals shall terminate.
       (b) Savings Provision for Contract Dispute Matters Pending 
     Before Boards.--(1) This title and the amendments made by 
     this title shall not affect any proceedings (other than bid 
     protests pending before the board of contract appeals of the 
     General Services Administration) pending on the effective 
     date described in section 451 before any board of contract 
     appeals terminated by subsection (a).
       (2) In the case of any such proceedings pending before the 
     Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or the board of 
     contract appeals of the Corps of Engineers, the proceedings 
     shall be continued by the Department of Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals, and orders which were issued in any such 
     proceeding by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or 
     the board of contract appeals of the Corps of Engineers shall 
     continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or 
     revoked by the Department of Defense Board of Contract 
     Appeals, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by 
     operation of law.
       (3) In the case of any such proceedings pending before an 
     agency board of contract appeals other than the Armed 
     Services Board of Contract Appeals or the board of contract 
     appeals of the Corps of Engineers, the proceedings shall be 
     continued by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, and 
     orders which were issued in any such proceeding by the agency 
     board shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, 
     superseded, or revoked by the Civilian Board of Contract 
     Appeals, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by 
     operation of law.
       (c) Bid Protest Transition Provisions.--(1) No protest may 
     be submitted to the Comptroller General pursuant to section 
     3553(a) of title 31, United States Code, or to the board of 
     contract appeals for the General Services Administration 
     pursuant to the Brooks Automatic Data Processing Act (40 
     U.S.C. 759) on or after the effective date described in 
     section 451.
       (2)(A) In the case of bid protest proceedings pending 
     before the board of contract appeals of the General Services 
     Administration on the effective date described in section 
     451--
       (i) with respect to bid protests involving procurements of 
     the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the 
     Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force, 
     the proceedings shall be continued by the Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals; and
       (ii) with respect to bid protests involving procurements of 
     any other executive agency (as defined by section 4(1) of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1)), 
     the proceedings shall be continued by the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals.
       (B) The provisions repealed by section 431(a) shall 
     continue to apply to such proceedings until the Department of 
     Defense Board of Contract Appeals or the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals, as the case may be, determines such 
     proceedings have been completed.
       (3)(A) In the case of bid protest proceedings pending 
     before the Comptroller General on the effective date 
     described in section 451--
       (i) with respect to bid protests involving procurements of 
     the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the 
     Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force, 
     the proceedings shall be continued by the Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals;
       (ii) with respect to bid protests involving procurements of 
     any other executive agency (as defined by section 4(1) of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1)), 
     the proceedings shall be continued by the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals; and
       (iii) with respect to bid protests involving procurements 
     of an entity that is not an executive agency, the proceedings 
     shall be continued by the Comptroller General.
       (B) The provisions repealed by section 431(b) shall 
     continue to apply to such bid protest proceedings until the 
     Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals, the Civilian 
     Board of Contract Appeals, or the Comptroller General, as the 
     case may be, determines that such proceedings have been 
     completed.

     SEC. 443. CONTRACT DISPUTES AUTHORITY OF BOARDS.

       (a) Section 2 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 601) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``, the United States 
     Postal Service, and the Postal Rate Commission'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (6) to read as follows:
       ``(6) the term `Defense Board' means the Department of 
     Defense Board of Contract Appeals established under section 
     8(a) of this Act;'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraph (7):
       ``(7) the term `Civilian Board' means the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals established under section 8(b) of this Act; 
     and''.
       (b) Section 6(c)(6) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 
     (41 U.S.C. 605(c)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``court or an agency board of contract 
     appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``court, the Defense 
     Board, or the Civilian Board'';
       (2) by striking out ``an agency board of contract appeals'' 
     in the third sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and
       (3) by striking out ``agency board'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the Board concerned''.
       (c) Section 7 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 606) is amended by striking out ``an agency board of 
     contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board''.
       (d) Section 8 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 607), as amended by section 411, is further amended--
       (1) by amending the heading to read as follows:


          ``defense and civilian boards of contract appeals'';

       (2) by striking out subsection (c);
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking out the first sentence and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following:

     ``The Defense Board shall have jurisdiction to decide any 
     appeal from a decision of a contracting officer of the 
     Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the 
     Department of the Navy, or the Department of the Air Force 
     relative to a contract made by that department. The Civilian 
     Board shall have jurisdiction to decide any appeal from a 
     decision of a contracting officer of any executive agency 
     (other than the Department of Defense, the Department of the 
     Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air 
     Force, the United States Postal Service, or the Postal Rate 
     Commission) relative to a contract made by that agency.''; 
     and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking out ``the agency 
     board'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Board 
     concerned'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking out ``An agency board 
     shall provide'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``The Defense 
     Board and the Civilian Board shall each provide,'';
       (5) in subsection (f), by striking out ``each agency 
     board'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Defense Board and 
     the Civilian Board'';
       (6) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking out 
     ``an agency board of contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board, as the 
     case may be,'';
       (B) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (7) by striking out subsection (h) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(h) There is established an agency board of contract 
     appeals to be known as the `Postal Service Board of Contract 
     Appeals'. Such board shall have jurisdiction to decide any 
     appeal from a decision of a contracting officer of the United 
     States Postal Service or the Postal Rate Commission relative 
     to a contract made by either agency. Such board shall consist 
     of judges appointed by the Postmaster General who shall meet 
     the qualifications of and serve in the same manner as judges 
     of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. This Act and title 
     II of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act shall 
     apply to contract disputes before the Postal Service Board of 
     Contract Appeals in the same manner as they apply to contract 
     disputes before the Civilian Board.''; and
       (8) by striking out subsection (i).
       (e) Section 9 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 608) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``each agency 
     board'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Defense Board and 
     the Civilian Board''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking out ``the agency board'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Board concerned''.
       (f) Section 10 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 609) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking out ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     and in'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``In''; and
       (ii) by striking out ``an agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board'';
       (B) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2), and in 
     that paragraph by striking out ``or (2)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking out ``any agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and
       (B) by striking out ``the agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the Board concerned'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking out ``an agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu of each ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and

[[Page H 8921]]

       (B) by striking out ``the agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the Board concerned''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking out ``one or more agency boards'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``the Defense Board or the Civilian 
     Board (or both)''; and
       (B) by striking out ``or among the agency boards involved'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``one or both of the Boards''.
       (g) Section 11 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 610) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking out ``an agency 
     board of contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking out ``the agency 
     board through the Attorney General; or upon application by 
     the board of contract appeals of the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Defense Board 
     or the Civilian Board''.
       (h) Section 13 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 612) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking out ``an agency board of 
     contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking out ``by the board of 
     contract appeals for'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``by the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board from''.

     SEC. 444. REFERENCES TO AGENCY BOARDS OF CONTRACT APPEALS.

       (a) Defense Board.--Any reference to the Armed Services 
     Board of Contract Appeals or the board of contract appeals of 
     the Corps of Engineers in any provision of law or in any 
     rule, regulation, or other paper of the United States shall 
     be treated as referring to the Department of Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals.
       (b) Civilian Board.--Any reference to an agency board of 
     contract appeals other than the Armed Services Board of 
     Contract Appeals, the board of contract appeals of the Corps 
     of Engineers, or the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals 
     in any provision of law or in any rule, regulation, or other 
     paper of the United States shall be treated as referring to 
     the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals.

     SEC. 445. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Title 5.--Section 5372a of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out ``an agency board 
     of contract appeals appointed under section 8 of the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals or the 
     Civilian Board of Contract Appeals appointed under section 
     202 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act or the 
     Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals appointed under 
     section 8(h) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking out ``an agency board 
     of contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals, the Civilian 
     Board of Contract Appeals, or the Postal Service Board of 
     Contract Appeals''.
       (b) Title 10.--(1) Section 2305(e) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``subchapter V of 
     chapter 35 of title 31'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``title II of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act''; 
     and
       (B) by striking out paragraph (3).
       (2) Section 2305(f) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``subparagraphs (A) 
     through (F) of subsection (b)(1) of section 3554 of title 
     31'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 214(h)(2) of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``paragraph (1) of 
     section 3554(c) of title 31 within the limits referred to in 
     paragraph (2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subparagraph 
     (A) of section 214(i)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act within the limits referred to in subparagraph 
     (B)''.
       (c) Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949.--(1) Section 303B(j) (as redesignated by section 
     104(b)(2)) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253b(h)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``subchapter V of 
     chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``title II of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act''; and
       (B) by striking out paragraph (3).
       (2) Section 303B(k) (as redesignated by section 104(b)(2)) 
     of such Act (41 U.S.C. 253b(i)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (F) of subsection (b)(1) of section 3554 of title 
     31, United States Code'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``section 214(h)(2) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``paragraph (1) of 
     section 3554(c) of such title within the limits referred to 
     in paragraph (2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``subparagraph (A) of section 214(i)(1) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act within the limits referred to 
     in subparagraph (B)''.
       (d) Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act.--The table of 
     contents for the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (contained in section 1(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting the following before the item relating to 
     section 1:
         ``TITLE I--FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY GENERALLY''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
                     ``TITLE II--DISPUTE RESOLUTION

                    ``Subtitle A--General Provisions

``Sec. 201. Definitions.
``Sec. 202. Membership.
``Sec. 203. Chairman.
``Sec. 204. Rulemaking authority.
``Sec. 205. Authorization of appropriations.

``Subtitle B--Functions of the Defense and Civilian Boards of Contract 
                                Appeals

``Sec. 211. Alternative dispute resolution services.
``Sec. 212. Alternative dispute resolution of disputes and protests 
              submitted to Boards.
``Sec. 213. Contract disputes.
``Sec. 214. Protests.
``Sec. 215. Applicability to certain contracts.''.
  Subtitle F--Effective Date; Regulations and Appointment of Chairmen

     SEC. 451. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Title II of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, 
     as added by this title, and the amendments and repeals made 
     by this title shall take effect 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 452. REGULATIONS.

       (a) Regulations Regarding Protests and Claims.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Chairman of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals and 
     the Chairman of the General Services Board of Contract 
     Appeals, in consultation with the Comptroller General with 
     respect to protests, shall jointly issue--
       (1) such procedural rules and regulations as are necessary 
     to the exercise of the functions of the Department of Defense 
     Board of Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of Contract 
     Appeals under sections 213 and 214 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (as added by this title); and
       (2) statements of policy of general applicability with 
     respect to such functions.
       (b) Regulations Regarding Appointment of Judges.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (1) the Chairman of the Armed Services Board of Contract 
     Appeals shall issue rules governing the establishment and 
     maintenance of a register of eligible applicants and the 
     selection of judges for the Department of Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals; and
       (2) the Chairman of the General Services Board of Contract 
     Appeals shall issue rules governing the establishment and 
     maintenance of a register of eligible applicants and the 
     selection of judges for the Civilian Board of Contract 
     Appeals.

     SEC. 453. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMEN OF DEFENSE BOARD AND 
                   CIVILIAN BOARD.

       Notwithstanding section 451, not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act--
       (1) the Secretary of Defense shall appoint the Chairman of 
     the Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals; and
       (2) the Administrator of General Services shall appoint the 
     Chairman of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals.
       (2) Page 12, lines 2 and 23, strike out ``chapter'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``title''.
       (3) Page 26, line 18, strike out ``and'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``but''.
       (4) Page 28, line 14, strike out ``and'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``but''.
       (5) Add at the end of section 302 (at the end of page 51) 
     the following:
       (c) Policy of Congress.--Section 29 of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 425) is further 
     amended by adding after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Construction of Certification Requirements.--A 
     provision of law may not be construed as requiring a 
     certification by a contractor or offeror in a procurement 
     made or to be made by the Federal Government unless that 
     provision of law specifically refers to this subsection and 
     provides that, notwithstanding this subsection, such a 
     certification shall be required.
       Page 50, line 18, strike out ``(b)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``(c)''.
       (6) Page 52, line 10, strike out ``August 1, 1995'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``October 1, 1996''.
       Page 52, lines 10 and 11, strike out ``August 1, 2000'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``October 1, 2000''.
       (7) Add at the end of section 306 (at the end of page 65) 
     the following new subsection:
       (e) Repeal of Data Collection Requirement.--Subsection (h) 
     of section 111 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 759) is repealed.
       (8) Strike out section 316 (page 75, line 15, through the 
     end of page 81) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

     SEC. 316. ADDITIONAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PILOT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Authority To Conduct Defense 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.
       (b) Scope of Program.--At a facility designated as a 
     participant in the pilot program, the pilot program shall 
     consist of the following:
       (1) All contracts and subcontracts for defense supplies and 
     services that are performed at the facility.
       (2) All contracts and subcontracts performed elsewhere that 
     the Secretary determines are directly and substantially 
     related 

[[Page H 8922]]
     to the production of defense supplies and services at the facility and 
     are necessary for the pilot program.
       (c) Designation of Participating Facilities.--(1) The 
     Secretary may designate up to two facilities as participants 
     in the defense facility-wide pilot program.
       (2) Subject to subsection (g), the Secretary may determine 
     the scope and duration of a designation made under this 
     paragraph.
       (d) Criteria for Designation.--(1) Not later than 90 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall provide to the congressional defense committees a 
     detailed description of the proposed criteria to be used in 
     selecting facilities for designation as participants in the 
     defense facility-wide pilot program. The Secretary may not 
     select any facilities for participation in the program until 
     at least 30 days have passed after providing such criteria.
       (2) After selecting both facilities for designation as 
     participants in the program, the Secretary shall notify the 
     congressional defense committees of the selection and submit 
     a description--
       (A) of the management goals and objectives intended to be 
     achieved for each facility selected; and
       (B) of the method by which the Secretary intends to monitor 
     and measure the performance of the selected facilities in 
     meeting such management goals and objectives.
       (3)(A) In developing the criteria referred to paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall ensure that such criteria reflect 
     the following objectives:
       (i) A significant reduction of the cost to the Government 
     for programs carried out at the designated facilities.
       (ii) A reduction of the schedule associated with programs 
     carried out at the designated facilities.
       (iii) An increased used of commercial practices and 
     procedures for programs carried at the designated facilities.
       (iv) That the designation of a facility under subsection 
     (c) does not place a competing domestic manufacturer at a 
     significant competitive disadvantage.
       (B) The criteria shall also require that, with respect to 
     any facility designated under subsection (c), 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--
       (i) for the production of supplies or services on a firm-
     fixed price basis;
       (ii) 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
       (iii) 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)).
       (e) 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--
       (1) is within the scope of the pilot program (as described 
     in subsection (b)); and
       (2) is fairly and reasonably priced based on information 
     other than certified cost and pricing data.
       (f) Special Authority.--The authority provided under 
     subsection (a) may include authority for the Secretary of 
     Defense--
       (1) 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
       (2) to apply to a procurement of items other than 
     commercial items under such program--
       (A) 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
       (B) 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.
       (g) Applicability.--(1) Subsections (e) and (f) apply with 
     respect to--
       (A) a contract that is awarded or modified during the 
     period described in paragraph (2); and
       (B) 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.
       (2) The period referred to in paragraph (1) is the period 
     that begins 45 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and ends on September 30, 1998.
       (h) 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.
       (9) In sections 501 and 502 (page 143, line 23, through the 
     end of page 146), strike out ``title'' each place it appears 
     and insert in lieu thereof ``Act''.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1670, the Federal Acquisition 
Reform Act of 1995, which Chairman Spence introduced along with 
Chairman Clinger and a number of other distinguished Members, will 
revamp the current regulatory morass which passes for an acquisition 
system. A significant part of the reform in H.R. 1670 concerns the 
consolidation of title IV of the 11 different agency administrative 
tribunals which currently resolve contract disputes and the two bid 
protests into two boards--one in the Department of Defense to handle 
DOD protests and disputes and one in the General Services 
Administration to handle civilian agency protests and disputes. A 
single set of efficient procedures will govern both.
  The House National Security Committee amendment I propose will 
further refine and streamline the procedures of the two boards with a 
special emphasis on the efficient, fair, and cost-effective resolution 
of protests. Complaints about the current bid protest process have come 
from the administration and from some segments of industry. The 
detractors of the current protest system attack it as too complex, too 
intrusive, and too prudently intensive. Others argue that the current 
protest resolution process is an essential feature of the acquisition 
system and must be maintained with court-like procedures. H.R. 1670 
creates a new consolidated protest resolution process that achieves a 
better balance between the need to ensure the fundamental fairness of 
the Government's acquisition system and the need to acquire the goods 
and services needed by the Government in an efficient manner.
  The main point of the committee amendment is to inject further 
refinement into the new protest resolution system created by H.R. 1670. 
Among other things, it would simplify the standard of review to be used 
for the resolution of protest cases, ensure that board judges permit 
the use of discovery only where necessary to minimize costly 
litigation, increase the use of special simplified procedures for the 
speedy resolution of protests in appropriate cases, provide for the 
selection of judges by the Secretary of Defense for the defense board 
and by the Administrator of General Services for the civilian board, 
and simplify and clarify the process of transitioning from the current 
administrative tribunals to the two new consolidated boards.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again commend Chairmen Spence and 
Clinger for their hard work on bringing this legislation to the floor. 
It represents a responsible, long-overdue approach to Government 
procurement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment which will strengthen 
the reforms already in H.R. 1670 by ensuring a robust, cost-effective, 
and efficient process.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am 
pleased to rise in support of the amendment and I am willing to accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this represents some items that were still left hanging 
after 

[[Page H 8923]]
we reported the bill out of the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] agreed that 
he would not take up the bill in his committee, and we worked together 
to resolve those issues, and I think they have now been resolved, and 
they are incorporated in this amendment, and I am pleased to accept the 
amendment on this side.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment which would eliminate the ability of companies to protest 
against the improper cancellation of a contract by amending the 
definition of ``protest.''
  Congress voted just last year to include this provision as a part of 
the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, after years of careful 
legislative consideration. That bill was overwhelmingly supported by 
Members on both sides of the aisle.
  A business will typically protest the improper cancellation of a 
contract when an agency decides to cancel a contract because the agency 
doesn't like the company that won the contract, or in order to avoid 
litigation.
  For example, suppose a small business wins a contract fair and 
square, but an agency cancels that contract because some contracting 
bureaucrat doesn't want it to go to a small business. Under existing 
practice that small business could protest. The Spence amendment would 
deny the right of that small business to protest.
  No witness has come before the Government Reform and Oversight 
Committee raising any concerns about the ability of businesses to 
protest the improper cancellation of Federal contracts. There has been 
no allegation nor any evidence presented that protesting the improper 
cancellation of contracts is a problem.
  I am also concerned that this amendment would allow discovery only if 
a judge determines it to be necessary. Once again, this amendment 
creates solutions for problems that don't exist. No one testifying 
before the Government Reform Committee has alleged any problems with 
the discovery process. In fact GAO, whose discovery process this bill 
is based on, has been hailed throughout our hearings as a model bid 
protest forum. Why are we now at the 11th hour substituting an untested 
system, for discovery process that works well?
  We talk a lot around here about the need to have Government work in 
the sunshine, and forcing the bureaucracy to operate in the open. This 
amendment is a turn toward Government in the back room and bureaucracy 
operating in secret.
  I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Zeliff

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Zeliff: At the end of title III 
     (page 100, after line 12), add the following new section:

     SEC. 319. COOPERATIVE PURCHASING.
       (a) Delay in Opening Certain Federal Supply Schedules to 
     Use by State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments.--The 
     Administrator of General Services may not use the authority 
     of section 201(b)(2) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481(b)(2)) to 
     provide for the use of Federal supply schedules of the 
     General Services Administration until after the later of--
       (1) the date on which the 14-month period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act expires; or
       (2) the date on which all of the following conditions are 
     met:
       (A) The Administrator has considered the report of the 
     Comptroller General required by subsection (b).
       (B) The Administrator has submitted comments on such report 
     to the congressional committees as required by subsection 
     (c).
       (C) A period of 30 days after the date of submission of 
     such comments to the congressional committees referred to in 
     subsection (d) has expired.
       (b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Administrator of General Services and to the 
     congressional committees referred to in subsection (d) a 
     report on the implementation of section 201(b) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949. The report 
     shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the effect on industry, including 
     small businesses and local dealers, of providing for the use 
     of Federal supply schedules by the entities described in 
     section 201(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949.
       (2) An assessment of the effect on such entities of 
     providing for the use of Federal supply schedules by them.
       (c) Comments on Report by Administrator.--Not later than 30 
     days after receiving the report of the Comptroller General 
     required by subsection (b), the Administrator of General 
     Services shall submit to the congressional committees 
     referred to in subsection (d) comments on the report, 
     including the Administrator's comments on whether the 
     Administrator plans to provide any Federal supply schedule 
     for the use of any entity described in section 201(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949.
       (d) Congressional Committees.--The report required by 
     subsection (b) and the comments required by subsection (c) 
     shall be submitted to the Governmental Affairs Committee of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Government Reform and 
     Oversight of the House of Representatives.
       (e) Calculation of 30-Day Period.--For purposes of 
     subsection (a)(2)(C), the calculation of the 30-day period 
     shall exclude Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, and any day 
     on which neither House of Congress is in session because of 
     an adjournment sine die, a recess of more than 3 days, or an 
     adjournment of more than 3 days.

  Mr. ZELIFF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to state my strong 
support for H.R. 1670, the Federal Acqusition Reform Act of 1995. I 
would also like to commend Chairman Clinger for his leadership on this 
bill. As a member of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, I 
can say with confidence that we have an excellent bipartisan bill 
before us today.
  Throughout the debate, I have heard numerous Members claim that the 
bill is not small business friendly.
  I believe Chairman Clinger has taken into consideration the interests 
of our Nation's small businesses and worked hard to create a reformed 
procurement system designed to assist all businesses.
  With that said, I rise today, Mr. Chairman, to offer an amendment 
which seeks to address small business concerns set forth in FASA, the 
Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994. With my amendment, I 
intend to address a rule currently being promulgated by the General 
Services Administration [GSA] which would implement section 1555.
  Section 1555 allows State and local governments to obtain procurement 
items directly from the GSA's Federal supply schedule [FSS]. Section 
1555, if implemented, would prove disastrous for our small and local 
businesses. Currently, State and local governments obtain their items 
through their own procurement processes. This is almost always through 
local and small businesses.
  It is those businesses that will suffer if suddenly their State and 
local governments do not purchase from them anymore.
  In addition, there are serious concerns regarding the effect of 
guaranteed warranties and servicing agreements. Under section 1555, if 
implemented, there are very real concerns to be addressed as to how 
State and local governments would receive these services through a 
federally operated procurement system. I am afraid the answer would be 
a whole new bureaucracy at GSA in a time when we should be 
streamlining.
  From the local car dealer who supplies and services police cars to 
the local office supply store that supplies the pencils, the effects of 
section 1555 could be disastrous.
  My amendment would delay the opening of the Federal supply schedules 
to use by State and local governments for a total of 14 months.
  It allows all businesses to continue to sell and lease to State and 
local governments--just as they do now.
  It is worth noting that the Senate Treasury/Postal Appropriations 
Committee Report states: ``[we] direct that GSA postpone rules to 
implement section 1555 until a comprehensive analysis of the effect of 
such rules, including the impact on private sector vendors, has been 
completed *  *  *.'' Passage of my amendment will put the House and 

[[Page H 8924]]
Senate on a parallel course on this issue.
  My amendment provides an acceptable compromise between those who 
would prefer a straight repeal of section 1555 and those who believe it 
still has merit. Specifically, my amendment establishes a mere 1-year 
moratorium on the GSA implementation of section 1555 while directing 
the General Accounting Office [GAO] to submit a report to Congress and 
GSA that includes an assessment of the effect on the industry, 
including small businesses, and local dealers, of providing the use of 
Federal supply schedules to State and local entities. Once GSA has 
commented on the report, Congress has a 30-day period in which to take 
additional action or allow GSA's implementation of section 1555. I 
might add that my amendment has the support of Chairman Clinger.
  Let me reiterate to my colleagues that this is a commonsense solution 
to a possible serious problem for our local small businesses. My 
amendment is certainly not harmful to State and local governments since 
they currently do not even have the ability to purchase from the 
Federal supply schedule.
  Now that Congress is aware of the possible consequences for our local 
businesses, we can and should take a step back and examine the effects 
implementation of section 1555 would have on our Nation's small 
business community.
  The purpose of this legislation is most eloquently stated in the 
Government Reform and Oversight's Committee Report, as one of the goals 
of this Congress, to curb the ``Government's inflated cost of doing 
business.'' I believe my amendment is in step with this country's 
desire for less government, less bureaucracy.
  Once again, I want to commend Chairman Clinger for his dedicated 
effort in bringing this reform measure to the floor. And, I want to 
thank him for his continued leadership and support in working with me 
on this amendment.
  Let's send a message to our local businesses back home by allowing 
them to continue to supply State and local governments their goods and 
services.
  We, as responsible policymakers, should take time to review the 
potential negative impact of this regulatory action on those 
businesses.
  Please support your small and local businesses and vote for the 
Zeliff amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ZELIFF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to commend the 
gentleman for his hard work on this amendment and for his willingness 
and tenacity in negotiating what is truly a good compromise, which I 
think has been reached between two different positions.
  I think it is a very good compromise, because it basically delays the 
implementation of this for 1 year. The amendment is well timed in that 
regard, because GSA has not at this point implemented the program as of 
yet or even published regulations to implement it. It is really 
anticipated it is going to take at least a year before GSA would be 
prepared to do this, and in the meantime we would have GAO doing the 
study, which would be very helpful. So I commend you again for your 
efforts in reaching this compromise and I am pleased to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments and I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment. Last year the Congress passed the Federal Acquisition 
Streamlining Act. Through an amendment to the Federal Property Act, it 
gave the General Services Administration new discretionary authority to 
operate what is called the Cooperative Purchasing Program.
  The law permits GSA to allow State and local governments, Indian 
tribes, and some others to purchase commercial goods and services 
through GSA's present Federal Supply Schedule Program, originally 
established for Federal agency use. Potentially eligible entities 
number in the thousands.
  GSA soon plans to issue regulations to implement the new authority; 
but many businesses, including small businesses, are expressing serious 
concern about the impact the Cooperative Purchasing Program would have 
on them. GSA itself recognizes a potential impact on small business.
  The Federal Supply Schedule Program's purpose is to serve Federal 
agency purchasers. Any incidental benefits to the Federal Government 
are, of course, secondary. We do not know at this time how great the 
impact on small business as well as other business will be.
  Certainly, I would like to enable State and local entities to save 
money for their taxpayers, but I do not believe a purchasing program 
designed for Federal agencies should be broadened before it is known 
whether it is likely to be a substantial detriment to small business.
  The amendment by the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff] 
requires at least a 14-month delay in putting the program into effect. 
Within a year, however, GAO must make a study and submit a report to 
GSA and concerned congressional committees. The report will include 
assessments of the potential effect that implementing the new program 
would have on industry, small businesses, and local dealers, as well as 
on the non-Federal entities that would use the program. GSA must then 
submit comments to the committees about plans for program use of any 
schedule.
  The amendment will enable Congress, GSA, vendors, and participating 
entities to gain the understanding they now lack of pitfalls and 
promises in the new ground this program would open up. My decision, 
therefore, is to support the amendment.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Illinois for her comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ZELIFF. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff] 
has been very, very forthcoming, and he and his staff have been very 
helpful in working out this colloquy and also this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has developed positive legislation and 
programs in recent years in the spirit of H.R. 1670 designed to save 
precious fiscal resources of State and local governments. I, myself, 
have had the opportunity to sponsor legislation that enables State and 
local law enforcement agencies to purchase certain items for counter 
drug activities, through the Department of Defense and the GSA.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my support for the gentleman 
from New Hampshire's amendment which will put off implementation of 
section 1555 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 
pending an investigation by GAO on how this provision would impact the 
private sector. This will help to ensure that the current sales system 
is not dismantled at the expense of small business which frequently 
represents a significant portion of these dealers' revenues.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Hampshire's amendment will 
preserve the ability of small businesses to sell and lease equipment to 
State and local governments, while ensuring that programs such as the 
1122 Police Procurement Program will continue to offer sensible support 
for local governments.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman from West Virginia's 
view regarding the importance of this amendment. I agree it is 
important that we do not hamper small businesses or jeopardize 
effective existing programs as we search for practical solutions to the 
Federal Government waste. Mr. Chairman, it is our intent that this 
amendment would not affect existing programs like the 1122 Police 
Procurement Program that the gentleman is concerned about.

[[Page H 8925]]

  I thank the gentleman for bringing this important issue to the 
attention of the House. I compliment the gentleman on the excellent 
work he does on the Nation's work program, and will be happy to work 
with him.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
greatly appreciate the gentleman's efforts on this issue, and 
appreciate his joining me in this colloquy.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff] to postpone the 
implementation of the cooperative purchasing agreement for 1 year, 
until we have had time to study its effect on small businesses which 
stand to lose State and local government customers and on all 
government suppliers who have clearly stated that they cannot offer 
over the long term one set of terms and prices to diverse customers in 
innumerable locations.
  The rationale for extending the GSA schedule to State and local 
governments was a good one, to help those governments save money. But 
if what we are hearing from businesses is correct, such an arrangement 
would be short-lived. Businesses are adamant that a one-price-fits-all 
approach will not work, and that prices will rise.
  As a result, should we proceed to implement the cooperative 
purchasing agreement it is most probable that no government entity 
would save the amount of money envisioned; that it might will cost 
money; and most certainly would adversely impact the small business 
community.
  So this cooperative purchasing agreement was a well-intentioned 
effort, but one which at a minimum should be studied further, which is 
precisely what the Zeliff amendment calls for. I urge support for this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, printed as No. 3 in 
the Record.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Maloney: Strike out section 304 
     (relating to international competitiveness).

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment deals with what sometimes 
lies within so-called procurement reform legislation.
  My amendment deals with a corporate subsidy in this bill that has 
nothing to do with procurement reform.
  The subsidy in question is the elimination of a program that requires 
defense contractors to repay the Government for some of the $30 billion 
annually taxpayers invest in research and development for private 
military contractors.
  The recoupment fee is intended to recoup some of the billions the 
taxpayers have paid to develop major military systems when the defense 
contractor sells this technology to a foreign nation.
  The fee averages just 3 to 5 percent of the gross price of the 
contract.
  The authors of this bill are eliminating the recoupment program 
calling it a tax on American defense contractors.
  I say recoupment gives a fair return for the American taxpayer's 
investment in the research and development of new weapons and 
technology.
  Taxpayer dollars help fund the research and development in the first 
place. There wouldn't be these new weapons systems if it wasn't for the 
american taxpayer.
  This public-private partnership is one of the reasons the United 
States is the world's leading arms exporter, dominating the market with 
70 percent of the world's share.
  We sell more arms than all the other nations of the world combined.
  Some people are saying recoupment makes the U.S. military less 
competitive in the international market.
  My colleagues, over the last 4 years, sales of United States military 
equipment totaled more than the sales of all the most aggressive arms 
exporters--Russia, China, France, and Britain combined.
  In fact, our share is still rising.
  Between 1991 and 1994, our share of the world market increased 62 
percent.
  If the recoupment requirement is making American military equipment 
less competitive in the world market--as the authors of this bill are 
stating--why is our share growing, not shrinking?
  And in cases where the contractor can demonstrate that an individual 
sale is jeopardized, the DOD will grant a waiver.
  In fact, there is already a blanket waiver for all nonmajor items, as 
well as all NATO participants.
  For all these reasons, the deputy inspector general of the Defense 
Department says, and I quote, and ask to place this letter in the 
Record:

       Since the U.S. sales of military hardware exceed all other 
     countries combined, there is in my mind a great deal of doubt 
     about the need to eliminate the recovery requirement when it 
     can be done through waivers, on a case-by-case basis.''

  There's still more.
  The bill before us requires these recoupment losses of more than $1 
billion to be offset from savings in the mandatory spending account at 
the Department of Defense.
  What's in that account? The pensions of our veterans and military 
retirees.
  So the bill before us has the American taxpayer funding research and 
development for private defense contractors, who can turn around and 
make a profit overseas, without returning a penny to the Treasury.
  And--we'll pay for the lost revenue by cutting the pension benefits 
of our military retirees.
  It's wrong.
  It's unwise.
  My amendment saves recoupment and the pensions of our veterans.
  I ask for Members' support of the Maloney amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will preserve 
the current recoupment requirements eliminated by H.R. 1670. Recoupment 
will allow the Federal Government to continue to recover that portion 
of the over $30 billion in annual research and development costs that 
would otherwise be lost when foreign governments purchase our weapons.
  The opponents of the Maloney amendment argue that recoupment fees 
raise the price of U.S. weapons and make them uncompetitive on the 
international market, but the facts indicate otherwise. According to 
the Congressional Research Service, the United States secured over 70 
percent of all arms sales worldwide in 1993, and sold $12.8 billion of 
arms through foreign military sales in 1994. This hardly seems like an 
industry in need of more Federal assistance.
  Moreover, at a time when we are considering severe cuts in Medicare 
and Medicaid, and the reduction in student loans and welfare benefits, 
how can we justify a massive new direct subsidy to the arms industry, 
which currently has 70 percent of all arms sales worldwide?
  Eliminating recoupment fees also makes absolutely no sense in view of 
our current budget deficit. Over the past 5 years, foreign governments 
have paid nearly $1 billion in recoupment fees to the U.S. Treasury. 
Over the next 5 years, recoupment fees are expected to again amount to 
$1 billion. If we are serious about deficit reduction, the bill's 
provision eliminating recoupment fees is the wrong way to go.
  Mr. Chairman I strongly support the Maloney amendment, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly oppose the 
gentlelady's amendment to strike the provisions in section 304 of H.R. 
1670 which would restructure this country's current policy with regard 
to recoupment charges on military equipment sales to foreign 
governments.
  Mr. Chairman, these recoupment charges were initially instituted in 
the early 1960's. The intent of these recoupment charges was to enable 
our 

[[Page H 8926]]
Government to recover part of the cost of developing the technology 
needed to fight and win the cold war with our NATO allies. However, 
those allies--the British, French, Italians, and others have now become 
our economic competitors. Now when American corporations attempt to 
sell military goods, their products are burdened with a surcharge that 
makes American products less competitive.
  Let us bear in mind that these exports create and protect thousands 
of American jobs and contribute billions of dollars to our national 
economy. Lowering barriers and expanding opportunities for American 
companies to trade abroad is critical to America's long term well being 
and international competitiveness.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition 
to the gentlelady's amendment.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, for years and years the Department of Defense out of 
simple basic prudence has retained the right to recoup some of the 
billions of dollars that we invest, the U.S. Government invests, 
through the Department of Defense in the development of highly 
technical and highly sophisticated military systems. In order to 
facilitate the sale of nonmajor pieces of equipment, a blanket waiver 
has been in effect for some time so that these items, items of 
electronics gear and what have you of not major cost, can be sold 
without any issue of recoupment being collected.
  In addition, the Department, out of ordinary prudence, has also said 
to defense contractors, if it is necessary to make the deal, if you 
need to have the recoupment waived in order to be price competitive, 
then you can apply to us. And in fact the record shows that recoupment 
is routinely waived, almost invariably waived. The Department of 
Defense has in fact waived $773 million in these nonrecurring cost 
charges from 1991 through 1994 alone. So whenever it is necessary to 
waive it, it is there, no further statutory authority is necessary for 
that purpose, and it is routinely and liberally granted in order to 
make the sale go.
  So we have before us a statutory provision in a bill that is supposed 
to save the Government money that would waive this authority 
altogether.
  Why do we want to wipe out the authority to recoup some of the 
investment that we, the United States, has made in these systems, that 
is about to be cashed in by the defense contractors when they sell the 
system abroad?
  Let me give you one particular case why I do not think clearly we 
need to waive the recoupment. Let us assume we have a very unique 
system for which there is no competition, no match anywhere else in the 
world, there is not even a question of price competitiveness, and 
another country wants to buy that system, and they come to the 
Department of Defense for approval to make the sale. Why should not 
DOD, why should not the American people collect some percentage of what 
we invested to develop that unique system?
  If we wipe out as a matter of statutory law the provision that allows 
DOD to exact this charge, 3 to 5 percent on military sales, then we 
will forego that opportunity altogether, willy-nilly across the board.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the 
recoupment provision is waived only for our NATO ally countries, and 
the rest of the world it is not waived for, is that correct?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my 
understanding. It is waived on a case-by-case basis obviously. It is 
not waived as a blanket matter except for nonmajor pieces of equipment.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to respond to the 
point of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. The only plausible 
argument that I have heard to justify providing this subsidy for arms 
exports is to make our products competitive with other nations. The 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has pointed out very 
effectively that there are a number of items where we are essentially 
the best in the world, we are either the sole supplier or have such a 
qualitative advantage in the product, there is no other serious 
competitor, and, therefore, there is no need to remove this recoupment 
of the subsidy that that exporter has.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, especially when it is 
liberally waived in the discretion of the Secretary of Defense whenever 
required.
                              {time}  1415

  Mr. BERMAN. The gentleman from Indiana sought to try and make a 
point, I think, by implication, that this is only done for NATO 
countries, not for other purchasers of arms. But that is not correct.
  The law allows a case-by-case waiver anytime we want to give an 
advantage to our exporter over a competitive exporter from another 
country that perhaps is being subsidized by that country. The 
Department of Defense has the authority right now to waive this.
  The strangest thing in the world, we are coming in the context of 
trying to balance the budget, our majority would say in 7 years, with 
massive cuts in all kinds of discretionary programs, with an effort to 
because they think it is important to expand what we are spending on 
defense, with major slashes in Medicare and other entitlement programs, 
and reinstating for the first time since the 1960's in commercial arms 
sales a subsidy to defense contractors, not just to win the particular 
sale but whether there is competition or not for that sale.
  It is not just for NATO countries. It allows that waiver any other 
time. There is no reason in the world to go with this blanket repeal 
which will require an offset to make up for the loss of revenue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Spratt] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Berman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Spratt was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is really for informational 
purposes. Has any country outside of a NATO country benefited from the 
recoupment provision we are talking about? I know the gentleman is 
saying it is not limited just to NATO. What I would like to know is, 
has any other country really benefited because our own Government 
waived that provision?
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
am told the answer is yes, that the recoupment provision has been 
waived in the case of arms sales, commercial arms sales to Israel. And 
the key thing is not what has happened in the past. The law allows 
case-by-case waivers. If the French notorious subsidizers of their 
defense industries decide in a product which they are competitive to 
compete with an American exporter and are subsidizing that sale, the 
law right now allows the Department of Defense to waive it so that the 
American company can make that sale. It is in there.
  Why would we want to repeal the law which allows us to grab back the 
subsidies that otherwise the foreign country that wants to buy the 
goods is willing to pay when there is no meaningful competition? We are 
either the sole supplier or our particular weapons system is so much 
better than any other ones. This is really ridiculous.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me also point out 
that the cost of this waiver, depending, could be as much as a billion 
over the next 5 years. That has to be recovered under the budget rules 
from some source. The rule book solution to that is it must be 
recovered from mandatory spending. If it comes out of DOD's mandatory 
spending, that means it comes out of personnel retirement accounts. It 
is the only place we have got any real mandatory or direct spending in 
the DOD budget. The offset, therefore, requirement to make 

[[Page H 8927]]
this waiver possible will be DOD retirement programs.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the recoupment amendment. What we 
have here, it appears, is a type of corporate welfare. We have a sector 
of American industry which is faring extremely well in global 
competition. It has increased its market share dramatically.
  At the same time we are attempting to balance the budget, we are 
asking veterans, we are asking students, we are asking farmers, we are 
asking seniors, we are asking many sectors of our society to take deep 
dramatic cuts in programs that they have historically found extremely 
important.
  And here, over a 5-year period of time we are offering to essentially 
forgive, as a revenue opportunity for the Federal Government, $1 
billion. I cannot see that, if we are asking the Nation to tighten its 
belts in the spirit of shared sacrifice, that we can with any 
credibility reject the amendment that has been offered. I urge support 
of this amendment.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  First, I would like to praise the gentlewoman from New York for 
offering this amendment. I think that it is an excellent one, one that 
must be passed. Second, I noticed that the provision in the bill that 
would repeal the recoupment provision is under the title 
competitiveness.
  Everything can be done under the umbrella of competitiveness, but I 
think very often improperly so. I just came from a luncheon meeting of 
the Competitiveness Policy Council which issued its fourth annual 
report today. I started promoting the creation of the Competitiveness 
Policy Council back in the early 1980's. The competitiveness issue has 
been near and dear to my heart.
  Not once in the past decade and a half did I ever hear any contractor 
object to this provision of the law because it hindered their 
competitiveness, especially given the ability of the administration to 
waive it, if that ever was a factor.
  Most importantly, perhaps, though, is we are dealing right now with 
the great problem of the budget deficit. We are hearing proposals from 
the GOP for cuts in Medicare of $270 billion over the next several 
years, cuts in Medicaid of about $180 billion, cuts in the earned 
income tax credit, et cetera. And now we want to increase the deficit 
by eliminating this recoupment fee. That is ironic. It is an anomaly, 
it ought not to happen.
  In this morning's paper we saw that the GOP is now considering 
abolishing corporate welfare, primarily through provisions of the Tax 
Code which gives them tax incentives, their tax expenditures. If they 
bring such a bill to the floor, then perhaps we could consider the 
abolition of the recoupment fee in concert with the repeal of all the 
corporate welfare provisions, but not right now. Right now this is 
simply a gift to corporate America at the expense of the taxpayer. We 
should support the Maloney amendment.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Members that one of the 
reasons we really decided to revisit procurement reform in the first 
place and the reason we have this bill on the floor is because that was 
an issue that was considered in the last Congress, one of the items 
that was not included in the bill that we brought to the floor last 
year.
  This measure, this repeal of the recoupment provision is strongly, 
and I repeat that, strongly supported by this administration who feels 
that it has really been a very severe impediment to the ability to have 
military sales.
  It was also supported prior to that by the Bush administration. So 
this is not a partisan issue. It has been one that has been supported 
by the executive branch under both Republicans and Democrats. So it is 
one that we felt needed to be addressed. I think it is important that 
we have this debate because I think there is no question in my mind 
that there is a strong disincentive for dealing with Americans on these 
issues because of the recoupment clause. I know that
 we have had testimony, discussion here the other way.

  I think the other point I wanted to address was that the argument is 
made that this is somehow going to encourage arms sales. We are going 
to become an arms merchant, that we are going to contribute to the 
escalation of arms sales all over the world if this recoupment 
provision is repealed.
  I think that is just absolutely not true. The fact is that the 
decision as to whether or not to buy a particular weapons system is not 
made in this context at all. This is an issue that arises only after 
the decision has been made to buy the system. Then it becomes a 
question of who do we deal with.
  So the fact that we have somehow taken off the recoupment is in no 
way going to act as an incentive for a spur to additional arms sales. 
It will, however, have the result of making us much more competitive in 
terms of being able to compete with those people who used to be our 
allies in the world and are now our competitors. We really enacted this 
provision primarily for their benefit, to enable our NATO allies to 
have these weapons.
  Now that is no longer the case. They are our competitors, and in many 
cases they are having us for lunch on some of these arms sales. This is 
a question of jobs, Mr. Chairman. We really are jeopardizing a number 
of jobs, many many jobs in this country by retaining this----
  Ms. HARMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMON. Mr. Chairman, is it not also a question of national 
security in this sense, that if we can keep these aerospace companies 
and defense contractors healthy doing things that are fully 
circumscribed by U.S. foreign policy constraints, then they will be 
alive to produce weapons and defense assets for the future in the event 
that we should need them in an increasingly unstable world?
  Mr. CLINGER. The gentlewoman makes a very, very strong point. This is 
one way that we can help preserve the industrial base. If we see that 
shrink dramatically, it would, in fact, jeopardize us in the event we 
have hostilities somewhere else in the world. So it really has national 
security implications.
  It has jobs implications, economic implications for this country. And 
it really will not, in any way, enhance or increase the number of 
sales. It just makes it more competitive in the world market. That is 
what we are dealing in. We are dealing in a world market in these 
areas.
  I must regretfully oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, one of the problems, when we say that it 
does not make us as competitive, No. 1, we dominate the world market 
with over 70 percent of sales. We have to remember that it is American 
tax dollars that create the research and development that makes our 
companies so successful in the world market.
  We allocate well over $30 billion a year to research and development. 
The moneys that come back to the Department of Defense then go back 
into research and development. I must tell the gentleman that the 
offset would come out of a mandatory spending in the Defense 
Department, which would be military pensions.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not the case. 
In fact, the offsets can come, when this happens, if the President 
decides to waive it now, he, under this bill, would be required to 
provide the offset.
  We could make it very clear that they were not to be taken out of 
military spending or out of defense spending or anything else. I think 
it misrepresents to say it would necessarily work to the detriment of 
any group.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
the offset must come out of mandatory spending. Mandatory spending in 
the Defense Department is overwhelming, all mandatory spending is the 
quality of living.
  Mr. CLINGER. But it does have to be the Defense Department.
  Mrs. MALONEY. This comes from the staff of the Department of Defense.
  
[[Page H 8928]]

  Mr. CLINGER. But it does not have to be Defense Department. Mandatory 
spending is all across the board.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Let me say first of all, one of the things that has not been 
discussed is the amount of jobs that would be lost. For each $1 billion 
in sales, these are big ticket items, these things cost 25, 30, 100 
million a copy. For each $1 billion in sales that are lost, we lose 
16,000 jobs.
  I wish the gentlewoman would listen to this, the gentlewoman who has 
been involved in this discussion.
  For each $1 billion in sales that are lost, we lost 16,000 jobs. If 
we put a pencil to it, for each 1 percent of unemployment, it costs the 
Treasury about $42 billion for each 1 percent of unemployment. So one 
of the things that needs to be factored into the equation is the number 
of jobs that are lost and what kind of an impact that has on the 
national unemployment rate which also has a bearing on the deficit that 
we face every year in the Treasury. So there are other things that need 
to be factored in.
  Let me read something out of statutes. There has been some 
misunderstanding, I believe, on whether or not we can sell these 
products and of the recoupment provision being employed outside of 
NATO. Let me read what the law says. The law says: The President may 
reduce or waive the charge or charges which would otherwise be 
considered appropriate under paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) for particular 
sales that would, if made, significantly advance the United States 
Government interests in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
standardization, standardization with the armed forces of other 
countries, Japan, Australia or New Zealand and in furtherance of the 
mutual defense treaties between the United States and those countries 
or foreign procurement in the United States under coproduction 
arrangements.
                              {time}  1430

  Even now, when the gentleman from California a while ago was talking 
about Israel, I believe that is as a direct result of a coproduction 
arrangement on weapons systems that we did sell and the recoupment 
feature was employed, because of that coproduction. But there are many 
countries, many countries, that we may sell products to that do not 
fall into any of these categories. If that is the case, then there is 
no latitude in the law for the recoupment provisions to be waived. This 
may involve billions of dollars of sales to countries that are not 
NATO, that are not part of an agreement that we have for a mutual 
defense treaty, or a country under which there was a coproduction 
arrangement. So the fact of the matter is there are limitations for the 
recoupment procedures to be employed outside of the countries I just 
mentioned.
  Now, let us say that there is a large number of these countries that 
do want to buy products from the United States, but the French, for 
instance, are trying to sell us a French Mirage and we are trying to 
sell them an F-16 fighter plane. The French would have a distinct 
advantage if this recoupment provision was not able to be removed, and 
under current law, the way I read it, it cannot be removed. So the fact 
of the matter is this legislation which the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has been talking about is necessary to make us competitive, not just 
with our NATO allies, not just with those that have a mutual defense 
treaty, and not with those where we have a coproduction agreement, but 
with the rest of the world.
  Some of these bids, as I understand it, are time-sensitive. The 
French may say, ``Hey, we want to sell you a French Mirage,'' and we 
may want to sell them an F-16, and there is a time frame under which 
they have to make an agreement in a fairly rapid manner. There is no 
provision in the law for the recoupment provision to be employed, so 
that sale by default would go to the French. And along with it would go 
American jobs, and along with those American jobs would be a higher 
rate of unemployment, which would translate into additional 
expenditures from the Treasury, which would exacerbate the deficit.
  So the fact of the matter is my good friends, for whom I have the 
highest respect, are only telling half of the story. The other half is 
that the law needs to be changed in order to make us competitive 
worldwide.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense Deputy 
Inspector General, when he testified before the Committee on Small 
Business, stated that it could be waived on a case-by-case basis, and 
invariably it is always waived when you can show there is some 
detriment to achieving the sale.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to direct the 
gentlewoman's attention to page 725 and page 726 of title II of the 
U.S. Code. It is right there in black and white. I will be happy to 
bring it over to the gentlewoman and let her read it.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I think there has been some problem in the 
course of this debate. First of all, if we are going to change the law 
we ought to be able to point out a problem. I do not see anyone who has 
identified a problem that contractors have had with these recoupment 
fees. I have yet to hear of a case where a contractor has lost a 
contract because of this recoupment fee. That is point No. 1.
  Point No. 2, the gentleman is charging that the ability to waive 
under the law is narrowly circumscribed. We argue that it has 
invariably been granted. We know of no instance when a request for a 
waiver has been denied. If, however, the gentleman is correct on that 
issue, then the cure is to broaden the waiver authority.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is what we are trying to do.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, no, he is 
not broadening the waiver authority, he is repealing the fee. He is 
throwing the baby out with the bath water.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No, we are not.
  Mr. LaFALCE. The totality of the argument went to what the gentleman 
saw is the narrowness of the waiver authority. We do not think it is 
narrow, we think it is extremely broad. If in fact you are correct, 
however, then come in with an amendment to broaden the waiver authority 
but not to repeal the basic recoupment fee.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If I may reclaim my time, I think we are 
splitting hairs here. The fact of the matter is that is what we are 
doing by repealing this law, what we are doing is we are making 
American industry competitive around the world with any foreign 
competitor. The people who used to be our allies, as the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman] said a while ago, now are our economic 
competitors. We have to be competitive. This provision, which the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] is trying to get repealed 
will make sure that takes place, that there is no advantage for any 
other country.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. I would like to make two points. First of all, we are 
the only nation in the world that has a recoupment provision of this 
sort. Clearly it is making us noncompetitive.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is our competitors 
are getting better and better all the time. They are getting more and 
more competitive. This looms as a problem in the future much greater 
than perhaps it does now. It is really going to set us very much at a 
disadvantage in 

[[Page H 8929]]
terms of world sales. Why should we be the only one that disadvantages 
ourselves and our American workers when we do not need to, and when we 
really need to be more competitive at this stage of the game.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just conclude by restating what my 
colleague just said. I hope Members hear this very clearly. We are the 
only country that has this recoupment provision in law, the only 
country. Our competitors subsidize their military production, their 
military equipment, which they sell around the world, but they do not 
have that recoupment provision. As a result, it does give them a 
distinct advantage. So I think that my colleague's legislation is well 
founded. I hope my colleague will support it.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's view and want to 
associate myself with it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 1 additional minute.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I see these advantages in promoting foreign 
military sales that are definitely circumscribed by our limitations on 
arms exports, and these are carefully circumscribed. We are not 
changing the rules with respect to what can be exported and to whom. We 
are just making it easier to export.
  If we encourage appropriate commercial foreign military sales, we do 
three things. Jobs is one. The second thing is we save the industrial 
base, which, as I mentioned before, we can use to our advantage later 
as national security problems arise. Third, and this is very important 
in terms of saving money for the government, we are able to manufacture 
more units of whatever is exported, because of the exports, and we 
lower by that means of the per-unit cost of the airplane or whatever 
the item is, which means that when the U.S. Government purchases that 
item in the future, for example, the C-17, the per----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed 
for 30 additional seconds.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, the per unit cost of the C-17 or whatever 
it might be is lower to the U.S. Government so, bottom line, we save 
jobs, we save the industrial base, we lower the cost of defense 
purchases for the U.S. Government. For all these reasons I think this 
proposed change in the law is a good idea, and I oppose the amendment 
being offered by my very good friends over here.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment being offered 
by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] which strikes a section 
of the bill before us repealing the recoupment fees provision of the 
Arms Control Export Act. I would also like to commend our colleague, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], for his leadership, his 
ongoing leadership, on this important issue.
  As we know, recoupment fees are intended to reimburse the U.S. 
taxpayer for some of the $35 billion spent annually on research and 
development costs for major weapons systems. These fees are then built 
into the cost of these weapons when they are sold to foreign countries.
  Mr. Chairman, foreign governments have paid nearly $1 billion in 
recoupment fees for the last 5 years. According to the Congressional 
Research Service, collections over the next 5 years will also amount to 
approximately $1 billion. Failure to pass this amendment will not only 
shortchange the U.S. taxpayer, but it will guarantee the highly 
successful defense industry yet another corporate subsidy.
  Mr. Chairman, corporate recoupment fees also act as an important 
check on weapons proliferation. Without such fees we will in effect 
further subsidize foreign military sales and regional arms races. Our 
foreign military sales programs allows the United States control over 
who may take advantage of subsidized purchases of weapons systems.
  By striking recoupment fees, we are relinquishing this control. Every 
potential purchaser would be able to take advantage of this taxpayer-
funded largesse. A vote for this amendment is a vote for greater 
accountability and control over these weapons systems. It is also a 
vote for greater financial accountability and a vote against corporate 
welfare.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to, as I continue my remarks, comment on 
some of what I have heard from recent speakers, all of whom, let us all 
stipulate, we respect, and we are all distinguished representatives of 
our constituents.
  Having said that, I would like to take issue with some of the 
statements that have been made. One is that this recoupment fee, 
eliminating it will make us more competitive. In fact, as it has been 
stated, does not the recoupment requirement make the U.S. military 
equipment less competitive in international markets, depriving our 
contractors of their foreign sales needed?
  No, no, no, for several reasons. U.S. military equipment simply 
dominates the world market. It is just too good, dollar for dollar. 
Sales data confirms this. Each year sales of United States military 
equipment was more than the combined sales of all other countries 
combined, including France, Great Britain, Russia, China, the most 
aggressive arms exporters, referencing all of those countries combined. 
During the fiscal year 1991 to 1994 period, sales of U.S. equipment 
would increase 62 percent over the previous 4-year period, while total 
world purchases have declined 42 percent.
  There is a case-by-case waiver authority. It is generally granted, so 
when others, in addition to the competitive argument, say there cannot 
be a waiver, in the law itself there is a case-by-case waiver. It is 
generally granted if the contractor can demonstrate to DOD that 
recoupment is the difference between making a foreign sale or no 
foreign sale.
  The issue of jobs has come up. When are we going to stop having our 
economy be based on a military and defense economy only? Why are we not 
talking about developing other kinds of exports?
  As far as the industrial base is concerned, we spend a quarter of a 
trillion dollars a year on defense. A great deal of that is invested 
into our industrial base. We do not need to have further underwriting 
and corporate welfare there.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to reference a letter from the deputy 
inspector general, who has confirmed some of what I have said. He said, 
``Since the U.S. sales of military hardware exceeds all other countries 
combined, there is in my mind a great deal of doubt about the need to 
eliminate the recovery requirement when it can be done through waivers 
of a case-by-case basis.''
  I say, referencing further his testimony before the Congress, he said 
``We disagree with the change,'' and this is the inspector general, the 
deputy inspector general of the Department of Defense, he said ``We 
disagree with the change. The current law and regulations allow the 
charge to be waived if the charge is an impediment to the sale. Request 
for waivers are invariably granted.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Pelosi was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I urge our colleagues to support the 
Maloney amendment. The recoupment fee issue is corporate welfare, it is 
back door military assistance. It contributes to arms proliferation. It 
is not about competition, and it will be much more costly than its 
proponents suggests.
  Let us not have this House of Representatives be the handmaiden of 
the military industrial complex. Let us have a strong national defense. 
Let us 

[[Page H 8930]]
try to end the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, here 
we are talking international, but we sell far too many of those and we 
have a moral responsibility to hold that in check.
  The CHAIRMAN. That time of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Pelosi] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Pelosi was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CLINGER. Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the point 
that the Defense Security Assistance Agency and the administration 
strongly support repeal of this. I would just question the 
appropriateness of the inspector general making policy in these kinds 
of areas. It seems to me it is the policymakers of the Department of 
Defense who really should be paid attention to in this area.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I was referencing the letter from the 
deputy inspector general of the Department of Defense when I talked 
about the use of the waiver.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I really want to rise to question what is really broke 
here. If we say that the military defense industry is broke because 
they cannot compete in the world, then we have to look at the fact that 
70 percent of the world market is controlled by U.S. industry, so we 
would not say that U.S. industry is really hurting there.
  If we say, well, this is an impact on American industry that other 
foreign competitors do not have, we have to look at the way this 
industry generates its revenue. The taxpayers of this country have put 
forth $30 billion in R&D military research money. The law, which has 
been in effect for a number of years, estimates that in the next 5 
years it is going to recoup from that $30 billion investment $1 
billion. That is certainly not a very good return on the taxpayers' 
investment.
  I think we have to also compare that we put a lot of money into 
universities. When universities come up with an idea and invent it, 
they patent it, and that goes into marketing that idea and the 
university is able to recoup over time the invention, the effort in 
that invention. I mean, they own it.
  What we are saying here is that the American taxpayers own this 
invention, They put the money in and they ought to get something back 
for it.
  The defense industry, I think this is a weak issue to be pleading on. 
I come from California where the majority of defense contract dollars 
go. We get 23 percent of the entire defense contracts, and I think New 
York was second with 12 percent. We got about as much in defense 
contracting a few years ago that equaled the entire State budget.
  The industry has not been moving out of California. The tax base in 
California is very high. Labor costs in California are very high. The 
next thing we are going to hear is, let us repeal all of those local 
taxes and those job incentives because the industry has got to leave.
  I rise in support of the Maloney-DeFazio-Berman amendment because I 
want to support the American taxpayers who are the real shareholders in 
the defense industry, and they ought to get a return on their 
investment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 259, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 662]

                               AYES--164

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clement
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ehrlich
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gibbons
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--259

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Conyers
     Frost
     McDade
     Meek
     Mineta
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Sisisky
     Solomon
     Tucker
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1509

  Mr. SHADEGG and Ms. JACKSON-LEE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Florida changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page H 8931]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title III?
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the distinguished 
chairman regarding one specific area of Federal contracts, the 
acquisition and management of the cars and trucks used by the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, As chairman of the Subcommittee on Government 
Management, Information and Technology, I would be pleased to have a 
colloquy with the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I 
introduced a bill, H.R. 1981, that would bring much needed reform to 
the way that the Federal Government buys and manages its fleets of 
almost 400,000 vehicles at an annual cost in excess of a billion 
dollars. This bill, the Efficient Fleet Management Act of 1995, would 
require all Federal agencies to obey a 1985 law demanding a full 
account of their fleet operations cost and to make all related contract 
decisions based on fully developed cost comparisons of both public and 
private vendors.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, at my request, the GAO 
submitted a report last December on the poor compliance with that 1985 
law and the poor cost of accounting that still plagues the Government's 
fleet management. My bill would address many of the problems that the 
GAO identified in that report.
  Instead of offering my bill as an amendment to the bill today, I look 
for assurances from the committee that it will address these problems.
  Mr. HORN. I commend my distinguished colleague from New Jersey for 
his innovative bill, H.R. 1981. I agree with the gentleman that the 
current lack of clear cost accounting and real cost comparisons are a 
very troubling problem. Many agencies simply cannot track those costs 
by activity. Any business in America can do that, but only a handful of 
Federal agencies can make the same claim.
  As the gentleman knows, the Committee on Government Reform and 
Oversight is in the process of reviewing how the General Services 
Administration and other agencies administer their fleets. The GSA 
fleet covers 30 percent of all Federal vehicles. This investigation is 
taking more time than we had hoped, since we are awaiting the release 
of the Arthur Anderson business line review of GSA's operations.
  In due course, the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information 
and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight will 
have a hearing on GSA's restructuring of its fleet management 
operations. In this context, we will certainly examine the gentleman 
from New Jersey's bill and see what the General Accounting Office has 
to say on the same subject. I am optimistic we can resolve this matter 
before too many months have gone by.
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from California and Chairman Clinger, and I look forward to working 
with the gentleman on making certain Government agencies reform the way 
they conduct their fleet management operations.
  Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  1515

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:
              TITLE IV--STREAMLINING OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
                     ``TITLE II--DISPUTE RESOLUTION
                    ``Subtitle A--General Provisions

     ``SEC. 201. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) The term `Defense Board' means the Department of 
     Defense Board of Contract Appeals established pursuant to 
     section 8(a) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     607).
       ``(2) The term `Civilian Board' means the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals established pursuant to section 8(b) of the 
     Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607).
       ``(3) The term `Board judge' means a member of the Defense 
     Board or the Civilian Board, as the case may be.
       ``(4) The term `Chairman' means the Chairman of the Defense 
     Board or the Civilian Board, as the case may be.
       ``(5) The term `Board concerned' means--
       ``(A) the Defense Board with respect to matters within its 
     jurisdiction; and
       ``(B) the Civilian Board with respect to matters within its 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(6) The term `executive agency'--
       ``(A) for purposes of contract disputes under section 213--
       ``(i) with respect to contract disputes under the 
     jurisdiction of the Defense Board, means the Department of 
     Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the 
     Navy, or the Department of the Air Force; and
       ``(ii) with respect to contract disputes under the 
     jurisdiction of the Civilian Board, has the meaning given by 
     section 2(2) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     601(2)) except that the term does not include the Department 
     of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the 
     Navy, and the Department of the Air Force; and
       ``(B) for purposes of protests under section 214--
       ``(i) with respect to protests under the jurisdiction of 
     the Defense Board, means the Department of Defense, the 
     Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, or the 
     Department of the Air Force; and
       ``(ii) with respect to protests under the jurisdiction of 
     the Civilian Board, has the meaning given by section 4(1) of 
     this Act except that the term does not include the Department 
     of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the 
     Navy, and the Department of the Air Force.
       ``(7) The term `alternative means of dispute resolution' 
     has the meaning given by section 571(3) of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(8) The term `protest' means a written objection by an 
     interested party to any of the following:
       ``(A) A solicitation or other request by an executive 
     agency for offers for a contract for the procurement of 
     property or services.
       ``(B) The cancellation of such a solicitation or other 
     request.
       ``(C) An award or proposed award of such a contract.
       ``(D) A termination or cancellation of an award of such a 
     contract, if the written objection contains an allegation 
     that the termination or cancellation is based in whole or in 
     part on improprieties concerning the award of the contract.
       ``(9) The term `interested party', with respect to a 
     contract or a solicitation or other request for offers, means 
     an actual or prospective bidder or offeror whose direct 
     economic interest would be affected by the award of the 
     contract or by failure to award the contract.
       ``(10) The term `prevailing party', with respect to a 
     determination of the Board under section 214(h)(2) that a 
     decision of a contracting officer violates a statute or 
     regulation, means a party that demonstrated such 
     violation.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) is further 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting the following before section 1:
           ``TITLE I--FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY GENERALLY'';
     and
       (2) in section 4, by striking out ``As used in this Act:'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``Except as otherwise 
     specifically provided, as used in this Act:''.
 Subtitle B--Establishment of Civilian and Defense Boards of Contract 
                                Appeals

     SEC. 411. ESTABLISHMENT.

       Subsections (a) and (b) of section 8 of the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607) are amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) There is established in the Department of Defense a 
     board of contract appeals to be known as the Department of 
     Defense Board of Contract Appeals.
       ``(b) There is established in the General Services 
     Administration a board of contract appeals to be known as the 
     Civilian Board of Contract Appeals.''.

     SEC. 412. MEMBERSHIP.

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

     ``SEC. 202. MEMBERSHIP.

       ``(a) Appointment.--(1)(A) The Defense Board shall consist 
     of judges appointed by the Chairman, without regard to 
     political affiliation and solely on the basis of the 
     professional qualifications required to perform the duties 
     and responsibilities of a Defense Board judge, from a 
     register of applicants maintained by the Defense Board.
       ``(B) The Civilian Board shall consist of judges appointed 
     by the Chairman, without regard to political affiliation and 
     solely on the basis of the professional qualifications 
     required to perform the duties and responsibilities of a 
     Civilian Board judge, from a register of applicants 
     maintained by the Civilian Board.
       ``(2) The members of the Defense Board and the Civilian 
     Board shall be selected and appointed to serve in the same 
     manner as administrative law judges appointed pursuant to 
     section 3105 of title 5, United States Code, with an 
     additional requirement that such members shall have had not 
     fewer than five years of experience in public contract law.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) and subject to 
     subsection (b), the following persons shall serve as Board 
     judges:

[[Page H 8932]]

       ``(A) For the Defense Board, any full-time member of the 
     Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals serving as such on 
     the day before the effective date of this title.
       ``(B) For the Civilian Board, any full-time member of any 
     agency board of contract appeals other than the Armed 
     Services Board of Contract Appeals serving as such on the day 
     before the effective date of this title.
       ``(C) For either the Defense Board or the Civilian Board, 
     any person serving on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of this title in a position at a level of assistant 
     general counsel or higher with authority delegated from the 
     Comptroller General to decide bid protests under subchapter V 
     of chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code.
       ``(b) Removal.--Members of the Defense Board and the 
     Civilian Board shall be subject to removal in the same manner 
     as administrative law judges, as provided in section 7521 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(c) Compensation.--Compensation for the Chairman of the 
     Defense Board and the Chairman of the Civilian Board and all 
     other members of each Board shall be determined under section 
     5372a of title 5, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 413. CHAIRMAN.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 412, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 203. CHAIRMAN.

       ``(a) Designation.--(1)(A) The Chairman of the Defense 
     Board shall be designated by the Secretary of Defense to 
     serve for a term of five years. The Secretary shall select 
     the Chairman from among sitting judges each of whom has had 
     at least five years of service--
       ``(i) as a member of the Armed Services Board of Contract 
     Appeals; or
       ``(ii) in a position at a level of assistant general 
     counsel or higher with authority delegated from the 
     Comptroller General to decide bid protests under subchapter V 
     of chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code (as in effect 
     on the day before the effective date of this title).
       ``(B) The Chairman of the Civilian Board shall be 
     designated by the Administrator of General Services to serve 
     for a term of five years. The Administrator shall select the 
     Chairman from among sitting judges each of whom has had at 
     least five years of service--
       ``(i) as a member of an agency board of contract appeals 
     other than the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals; or
       ``(ii) in a position at a level of assistant general 
     counsel or higher with authority delegated from the 
     Comptroller General to decide bid protests under subchapter V 
     of chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code (as in effect 
     on the day before the effective date of this title).
       ``(2) A Chairman of a Board may continue to serve after the 
     expiration of the Chairman's term until a successor has taken 
     office. A Chairman may be reappointed any number of times.
       ``(b) Responsibilities.--The Chairman of the Defense Board 
     or the Civilian Board, as the case may be, shall be 
     responsible on behalf of the Board for the executive and 
     administrative operation of the Board, including functions of 
     the Board with respect to the following:
       ``(1) The selection, appointment, and fixing of the 
     compensation of such personnel, pursuant to part III of title 
     5, United States Code, as the Chairman considers necessary or 
     appropriate, including a Clerk of the Board, a General 
     Counsel, and clerical and legal assistance for Board judges.
       ``(2) The supervision of personnel employed by or assigned 
     to the Board, and the distribution of work among such 
     personnel.
       ``(3) The operation of an Office of the Clerk of the Board, 
     including the receipt of all filings made with the Board, the 
     assignment of cases, and the maintenance of all records of 
     the Board.
       ``(4) The prescription of such rules and regulations as the 
     Chairman considers necessary or appropriate for the 
     administration and management of the Board.
       ``(c) Vice Chairmen.--The Chairman of the Defense Board or 
     the Civilian Board, as the case may be, may designate up to 
     four other Board judges as Vice Chairmen. The Chairman may 
     divide the Board into two divisions, one for handling 
     contract disputes and one for handling protests, and, if such 
     division is made, shall assign a Vice Chairman to head each 
     division. The Vice Chairmen, in the order designated by the 
     Chairman, shall act in the place and stead of the Chairman 
     during the absence of the Chairman.''.

     SEC. 414. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 413, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 204. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY.

       ``The Chairman of the Defense Board and the Chairman of the 
     Civilian Board shall jointly issue and maintain--
       ``(1) such procedural rules and regulations as are 
     necessary to the exercise of the functions of the Boards 
     under sections 213 and 214; and
       ``(2) statements of policy of general applicability with 
     respect to such functions.''.

     SEC. 415. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 414, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     1997 and each succeeding fiscal year such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. Funds 
     for the activities of each Board shall be separately 
     appropriated for such purpose. Funds appropriate pursuant to 
     this section shall remain available until expended.''.
   Subtitle C--Functions of Defense and Civilian Boards of Contract 
                                Appeals

     SEC. 421. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 415, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle B--Functions of the Defense and Civilian Boards of Contract 
                                Appeals

     ``SEC. 211. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES.

       ``(a) Requirement To Provide Services Upon Request.--The 
     Defense Board and the Civilian Board shall each provide 
     alternative means of dispute resolution for any disagreement 
     regarding a contract or prospective contract of an executive 
     agency upon the request of all parties to the disagreement.
       ``(b) Personnel Qualified To Act.--Each Board judge and 
     each attorney employed by the Board concerned shall be 
     considered to be qualified to act for the purpose of 
     conducting alternative means of dispute resolution under this 
     section.
       ``(c) Services To Be Provided Without Charge.--Any services 
     provided by the Board concerned or any Board judge or 
     employee pursuant to this section shall be provided without 
     charge.
       ``(d) Recusal of Certain Personnel Upon Request.--In the 
     event that a matter which is presented to the Board concerned 
     for alternative means of dispute resolution, pursuant to this 
     section, later becomes the subject of formal proceedings 
     before such Board, any Board judge or employee who was 
     involved in the alternative means of dispute resolution 
     shall, if requested by any party to the formal proceeding, 
     take no part in that proceeding.''.

     SEC. 422. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES AND 
                   PROTESTS SUBMITTED TO BOARDS.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 421, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 212. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES AND 
                   PROTESTS SUBMITTED TO BOARDS.

       ``With reasonable promptness after the submission to the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board of a contract dispute 
     under section 213 or a bid protest under section 214, a Board 
     judge to whom the contract dispute or protest is assigned 
     shall request the parties to meet with a Board judge, or an 
     attorney employed by the Board concerned, for the purpose of 
     attempting to resolve the dispute or protest through 
     alternative means of dispute resolution. Formal proceedings 
     in the appeal shall then be suspended until such time as any 
     party or a Board judge to whom the dispute or protest is 
     assigned determines that alternative means of dispute 
     resolution are not appropriate for resolution of the dispute 
     or protest.''.

     SEC. 423. CONTRACT DISPUTES.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 422, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 213. CONTRACT DISPUTES.

       ``The Defense Board shall have jurisdiction as provided by 
     section 8(a) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     601-613). The Civilian Board shall have jurisdiction as 
     provided by section 8(b) of such Act.''.
     SEC. 424. PROTESTS.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 423, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 214. PROTESTS.

       ``(a) Review Required Upon Request.--Upon request of an 
     interested party in connection with any procurement conducted 
     by an executive agency, the Defense Board or the Civilian 
     Board, as the case may be, shall review, as provided in this 
     section, any decision by the head of the executive agency 
     alleged to violate a statute or regulation. A decision or 
     order of the Board concerned pursuant to this section shall 
     not be subject to interlocutory appeal or review.
       ``(b) Standard of Review.--In deciding a protest, the Board 
     concerned may consider all evidence that is relevant to the 
     decision under protest. It shall accord a presumption of 
     correctness to the decision under protest. The protester may 
     rebut such presumption by showing, by a preponderance of the 
     evidence, that the decision was arbitrary or capricious or 
     violated a statute or regulation.
       ``(c) Notification.--Within one day after the receipt of a 
     protest, the Board concerned shall notify the executive 
     agency involved of the protest.
       ``(d) Suspension of Contract Award.--(1) Except as provided 
     in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a contract may not be 
     awarded in any procurement after the executive agency has 
     received notice of a protest with respect to such procurement 
     from the Board concerned and while the protest is pending.
       ``(2) The head of the procuring activity responsible for 
     award of a contract may authorize the award of the contract 
     (notwithstanding a protest of which the executive agency has 
     notice under this section)--
       ``(A) upon a written finding that urgent and compelling 
     circumstances which significantly affect interests of the 
     United States will not permit waiting for the decision of the 
     Board concerned under this section; and
       ``(B) after the Board concerned is advised of that finding.
       ``(3) A finding may not be made under paragraph (2)(A) of 
     this subsection unless the award 

[[Page H 8933]]
     of the contract is otherwise likely to occur within 30 days after the 
     making of such finding.
       ``(4) The suspension of the award under paragraph (1) shall 
     not preclude the executive agency concerned from continuing 
     the procurement process up to but not including the award of 
     the contract.
       ``(e) Suspension of Contract Performance.--(1) A contractor 
     awarded an executive agency contract may, during the period 
     described in paragraph (4), begin performance of the contract 
     and engage in any related activities that result in 
     obligations being incurred by the United States under the 
     contract unless the contracting officer responsible for the 
     award of the contract withholds authorization to proceed with 
     performance of the contract.
       ``(2) The contracting officer may withhold an authorization 
     to proceed with performance of the contract during the period 
     described in paragraph (4) if the contracting officer 
     determines in writing that--
       ``(A) a protest is likely to be filed; and
       ``(B) the immediate performance of the contract is not in 
     the best interests of the United States.
       ``(3)(A) If the executive agency awarding the contract 
     receives notice of a protest in accordance with this section 
     during the period described in paragraph (4)--
       ``(i) the contracting officer may not authorize performance 
     of the contract to begin while the protest is pending; or
       ``(ii) if authorization for contract performance to proceed 
     was not withheld in accordance with paragraph (2) before 
     receipt of the notice, the contracting officer shall 
     immediately direct the contractor to cease performance under 
     the contract and to suspend any related activities that may 
     result in additional obligations being incurred by the United 
     States under that contract.
       ``(B) Performance and related activities suspended pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A)(ii) by reason of a protest may not be 
     resumed while the protest is pending.
       ``(C) The head of the procuring activity may authorize the 
     performance of the contract (notwithstanding a protest of 
     which the executive agency has notice under this section)--
       ``(i) upon a written finding that urgent and compelling 
     circumstances that significantly affect interests of the 
     United States will not permit waiting for the decision 
     concerning the protest by the Board concerned; and
       ``(ii) after the Board concerned is notified of that 
     finding.
       ``(4) The period referred to in paragraphs (2) and (3)(A), 
     with respect to a contract, is the period beginning on the 
     date of the contract award and ending on the later of--
       ``(A) the date that is 10 days after the date of the 
     contract award; or
       ``(B) the date that is 5 days after the debriefing date 
     offered to an unsuccessful offeror for any debriefing that is 
     requested and, when requested, is required.
       ``(f) The authority of the head of the procuring activity 
     to make findings and to authorize the award and performance 
     of contracts under subsections (d) and (e) of this section 
     may not be delegated.
       ``(g) Procedures.--
       ``(1) Proceedings and discovery.--The Board concerned shall 
     conduct proceedings and allow such discovery to the minimum 
     extent necessary for the expeditious, fair, and cost-
     effective resolution of the protest. The Board concerned 
     shall limit discovery to material which is relevant to the 
     grounds of protest or to such affirmative defenses as the 
     executive agency involved, or any intervenor supporting the 
     agency, may raise.
       ``(2) Priority.--The Board concerned shall give priority to 
     protests filed under this section over contract disputes and 
     alternative dispute services. Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3), the Board concerned shall issue its final decision 
     within 65 days after the date of the filing of the protest, 
     unless the Chairman determines that the specific and unique 
     circumstances of the protest require a longer period, in 
     which case the Board concerned shall issue such decision 
     within the longer period determined by the Chairman. An 
     amendment that adds a new ground of protest should be 
     resolved, to the maximum extent practicable, within the time 
     limits established for resolution of the initial protest.
       ``(3) Threshold.--(A) Except as provided in subparagraph 
     (B), any protest in which the anticipated value of the 
     contract award that will result from the protested 
     procurement, as estimated by the
      executive agency involved, is less than $20,000,000 shall be 
     considered under simplified rules of procedure. Such 
     simplified rules shall provide that discovery in such 
     protests shall be in writing only. Such protests shall be 
     decided by a single Board judge. The Board concerned shall 
     issue its final decision in each such protest within 40 
     days after the date of the filing of the protest, unless 
     the Chairman determines that the specific and unique 
     circumstances of the protest require a longer period, in 
     which case the Board concerned shall issue such decision 
     within the longer period determined by the Chairman.
       ``(B) If the Chairman of the Board concerned determines 
     that special and unique circumstances of a protest that would 
     otherwise qualify for the simplified rules described in 
     subparagraph (A), including the complexity of a protest, 
     requires the use of full procedures as described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), the Chairman shall use such 
     procedures in lieu of the simplified rules described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(4) Calculation of time for adr.--In calculating time for 
     purposes of paragraph (2) or (3) of this subsection, any days 
     during which proceedings are suspended for the purpose of 
     attempting to resolve the protest by alternative means of 
     dispute resolution, up to a maximum of 20 days, shall not be 
     counted.
       ``(5) Dismissal of frivolous protests.--The Board concerned 
     may dismiss a protest that the Board concerned determines--
       ``(A) is frivolous,
       ``(B) has been brought or pursued in bad faith; or
       ``(C) does not state on its face a valid basis for protest.
       ``(6) Payment of costs for frivolous protests.--(A) If the 
     Board concerned expressly finds that a protest or a portion 
     of a protest is frivolous or has been brought or pursued in 
     bad faith, the Board concerned shall declare that the 
     protester or other interested party who joins the protest is 
     liable to the United States for payment of the costs 
     described in subparagraph (B) unless--
       ``(i) special circumstances would make such payment unjust; 
     or
       ``(ii) the protester obtains documents or other information 
     after the protest is filed with the Board concerned that 
     establishes that the protest or a portion of the protest is 
     frivolous or has been brought or pursued in bad faith, and 
     the protester then promptly withdraws the protest or portion 
     of the protest.
       ``(B) The costs referred to in subparagraph (A) are all of 
     the costs incurred by the United States of reviewing the 
     protest, or of reviewing that portion of the protest for 
     which the finding is made, including the fees and other 
     expenses (as defined in section 2412(d)(2)(A) of title 28, 
     United States Code) incurred by the United States in 
     defending the protest.
       ``(h) Decisions and Corrective Actions on Protests.--(1) In 
     making a decision on protests filed under this section, the 
     Board concerned shall accord due weight to the goals of 
     economic and efficient procurement, and shall take due 
     account of the rule of prejudicial error.
       ``(2) If the Board concerned determines that a decision of 
     the head of the executive agency violates a statute or 
     regulation, the Board concerned may order the agency (or its 
     head) to take such corrective action as the Board concerned 
     considers appropriate. Corrective action includes requiring 
     that the executive agency--
       ``(A) refrain from exercising any of its options under the 
     contract;
       ``(B) recompete the contract immediately;
       ``(C) issue a new solicitation;
       ``(D) terminate the contract;
       ``(E) award a contract consistent with the requirements of 
     such statute and regulation;
       ``(F) implement any combination of requirements under 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E); or
       ``(G) implement such other actions as the Board concerned 
     determines necessary.
       ``(3) If the Board concerned orders corrective action after 
     the contract award, the affected contract shall be presumed 
     valid as to all goods or services delivered and accepted 
     under the contract before the corrective action was ordered.
       ``(4) Any agreement that provides for the dismissal of a 
     protest and involves a direct or indirect expenditure of 
     appropriated funds shall be submitted to the Board concerned 
     and shall be made a part of the public record (subject to any 
     protective order considered appropriate by the Board 
     concerned) before dismissal of the protest.
       ``(i) Authority To Declare Entitlement to Costs.--(1)(A) 
     Whenever the Board concerned determines that a decision of a 
     contracting officer violates a statute or regulation, it may, 
     in accordance with section 1304 of title 31, United States 
     Code, further declare an appropriate prevailing party to be 
     entitled to the costs of--
       ``(i) filing and pursuing the protest, including reasonable 
     attorneys' fees and consultant and expert witness fees, and
       ``(ii) bid and proposal preparation.
       ``(B) No party (other than a small business concern (within 
     the meaning of section 3(a) of the Small Business Act)) may 
     be declared entitled under this paragraph to costs for--
       ``(i) consultant and expert witness fees that exceed the 
     highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the 
     Federal Government, or
       ``(ii) attorneys' fees that exceed $150 per hour unless the 
     Board concerned, on a case by case basis, determines that an 
     increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as 
     the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the 
     proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.
       ``(2) Payment of amounts due from an agency under paragraph 
     (1) or under the terms of a settlement agreement under 
     subsection (h)(4) shall be made from the appropriation made 
     by section 1304 of title 31, United States Code, for the 
     payment of judgments. The executive agency concerned shall 
     reimburse that appropriation account out of funds available 
     for the procurement.
       ``(j) Appeals.--A final decision of the Board concerned may 
     be appealed as set forth in section 8(g)(1) of the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978 by the head of the executive agency 
     concerned and by any interested party, including interested 
     parties who intervene in any protest filed under this 
     section.
       ``(k) Additional Relief.--Nothing contained in this section 
     shall affect the power of the Board concerned to order any 
     additional relief which it is authorized to provide under any 
     statute or regulation.
       ``(l) Nonexclusivity of Remedies.--Nothing contained in 
     this section shall affect the right of any interested party 
     to file a protest with the contracting agency or to file an 
     action in the United States Court of Federal Claims or in a 
     United States district court.''.

     SEC. 425. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 401 
     et seq.), as amended by section 424, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
     
[[Page H 8934]]


     ``SEC. 215. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONTRACTS.

       ``(a) Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition 
     Threshold.--Notwithstanding section 33 of this Act, the 
     authority conferred on the Defense Board and the Civilian 
     Board by this title is applicable to contracts in amounts not 
     greater than the simplified acquisition threshold.
       ``(b) Contracts for Commercial Items.--Notwithstanding 
     section 34 of this Act, the authority conferred on the 
     Defense Board and the Civilian Board by this title is 
     applicable to contracts for the procurement of commercial 
     items.''.
    Subtitle D--Repeal of Other Statutes Authorizing Administrative 
                                Protests

     SEC. 431. REPEALS.

       (a) GSBCA Provisions.--Subsection (f) of the Brooks 
     Automatic Data Processing Act (section 111 of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949; 40 U.S.C. 
     759) is repealed.
       (b) GAO Provisions.--(1) Subchapter V of chapter 35 of 
     title 31, United States Code (31 U.S.C. 3551-3556) is 
     repealed.
       (2) The analysis for chapter 35 of such title is amended by 
     striking out the items relating to sections 3551 through 3556 
     and the heading for subchapter V.
    Subtitle E--Transfers and Transitional, Savings, and Conforming 
                               Provisions

     SEC. 441. TRANSFER AND ALLOCATION OF APPROPRIATIONS AND 
                   PERSONNEL.

       (a) Transfers.--
       (1) Armed services board of contract appeals.--The 
     personnel employed in connection with, and the assets, 
     liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended 
     balance of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and 
     other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to, 
     or to be made available in connection with the functions 
     vested by law in the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 
     established pursuant to section 8 of the Contract Disputes 
     Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607) (as in effect on the day before 
     the effective date of this Act), shall be transferred to the 
     Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals for 
     appropriate allocation by the Chairman of that Board.
       (2) Other boards of contracts appeals.--The personnel 
     employed in connection with, and the assets, liabilities, 
     contracts, property, records, and unexpended balance of 
     appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and other funds 
     employed, held, used, arising from, available to, or to be 
     made available in connection with the functions vested by law 
     in the boards of contract appeals established pursuant to 
     section 8 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 
     607) other than the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 
     (as in effect on the day before the effective date of this 
     Act), shall be transferred to the Civilian Board of Contract 
     Appeals for appropriate allocation by the Chairman of that 
     Board.
       (3) Comptroller general.--(A) One-third (as determined by 
     the Comptroller General) of the personnel employed in 
     connection with, and one-third (as determined by the 
     Comptroller General) of the assets, liabilities, contracts, 
     property, records, and unexpended balance of appropriations, 
     authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, held, 
     used, arising from, available to, or to be made available in 
     connection with the functions vested by law in the 
     Comptroller General pursuant to subchapter V of chapter 35 of 
     title 31, United States Code (as in effect on the day before 
     the effective date of this Act), shall be transferred to the 
     Civilian Board of Contract Appeals for appropriate allocation 
     by the Chairman of that Board.
       (B) Two-thirds (as determined by the Comptroller General) 
     of the personnel employed in connection with, and two-thirds 
     (as determined by the Comptroller General) of the assets, 
     liabilities, contracts, property, records, and unexpended 
     balance of appropriations, authorizations, allocations, and 
     other funds employed, held, used, arising from, available to, 
     or to be made available in connection with the functions 
     vested by law in the Comptroller General pursuant to 
     subchapter V of chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code 
     (as in effect on the day before the effective date of this 
     Act), shall be transferred to the Department of Defense Board 
     of Contract Appeals for appropriate allocation by the 
     Chairman of that Board.
       (b) Effect on Personnel.--Personnel transferred pursuant to 
     this title shall not be separated or reduced in compensation 
     for one year after such transfer, except for cause.
       (c) Regulations.--(1) The Department of Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals 
     shall each prescribe regulations for the release of competing 
     employees in a reduction in force that gives due effect to--
       (A) efficiency or performance ratings;
       (B) military preference; and
       (C) tenure of employment.
       (2) In prescribing the regulations, the Board concerned 
     shall provide for military preference in the same manner as 
     set forth in subchapter I of chapter 35 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 442. TERMINATIONS AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Termination of Boards of Contract Appeals.--On the 
     effective date of this title, the boards of contract appeals 
     established pursuant to section 8 of the Contract Disputes 
     Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 607) (as in effect on the day before 
     the effective date of this Act) shall terminate.
       (b) Savings Provision for Contract Dispute Matters Pending 
     Before Boards.--(1) The provisions of this title shall not 
     affect any proceedings (other than bid protests pending 
     before the board of contract appeals of the General Services 
     Administration) pending on the effective date of this Act 
     before any board of contract appeals described in subsection 
     (a).
       (2) In the case of any such proceedings pending before the 
     Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the proceedings 
     shall be continued by the Department of Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals, and orders which were issued in any such 
     proceeding by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals 
     shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, 
     superseded, or revoked by the Department of Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by 
     operation of law.
       (3) In the case of any such proceedings pending before an 
     agency board of contract appeals other than the Armed 
     Services Board of Contract Appeals, the proceedings shall be 
     continued by the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, and 
     orders which were issued in any such proceeding by the agency 
     board shall continue in effect until modified, terminated, 
     superseded, or revoked by the Civilian Board of Contract 
     Appeals, by a court of competent jurisdiction, or by 
     operation of law.
       (c) Bid Protest Transition Provisions.--(1) No protest may 
     be submitted to the Comptroller General pursuant to section 
     3553(a) of title 31, United States Code, or to the board of 
     contract appeals for the General Services Administration 
     pursuant to the Brooks Automatic Data Processing Act (40 
     U.S.C. 759) on or after the effective date of this Act.
       (2) In the case of bid protest proceedings pending before 
     the board of contract appeals of the General Services 
     Administration on the effective date of this Act, the 
     proceedings shall be continued by the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals. The provisions repealed by section 431(a) 
     shall continue to apply to such proceedings until the 
     Civilian Board of Contract Appeals determines such 
     proceedings have been completed.
       (3) The provisions repealed by section 431(b) shall 
     continue to apply to proceedings pending on the effective 
     date of this title before the Comptroller General pursuant to 
     those provisions, until the Comptroller General determines 
     such proceedings have been completed.

     SEC. 443. CONTRACT DISPUTES AUTHORITY OF BOARDS.

       (a) Section 2 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 601) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (6) to read as follows:
       ``(6) the term `Defense Board' means the Department of 
     Defense Board of Contract Appeals established under section 
     8(a) of this Act;'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new 
     paragraph (7):
       ``(7) the term `Civilian Board' means the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals established under section 8(b) of this Act; 
     and''.
       (b) Section 6(c)(6) of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 
     (41 U.S.C. 605(c)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking out ``court or an agency board of contract 
     appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``court, the Defense 
     Board, or the Civilian Board'';
       (2) by striking out ``an agency board of contract appeals'' 
     in the third sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and
       (3) by striking out ``agency board'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the Board concerned''.
       (c) Section 7 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 606) is amended by striking out ``an agency board of 
     contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board''.
       (d) Section 8 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 607), as amended by section 411, is further amended--
       (1) by amending the heading to read as follows:


          ``defense and civilian boards of contract appeals'';

       (2) by striking out subsection (c);
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking out the first sentence and inserting in 
     lieu thereof the following:

     ``The Defense Board shall have jurisdiction to decide any 
     appeal from a decision of a contracting officer of the 
     Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the 
     Department of the Navy, or the Department of the Air Force 
     relative to a contract made by that department. The Civilian 
     Board shall have jurisdiction to decide any appeal from a 
     decision of a contracting officer of any executive agency 
     (other than the Department of Defense or the Department of 
     the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force) relative to a contract 
     made by that agency.''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking out ``the agency 
     board'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Board 
     concerned'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking out ``An agency board 
     shall provide'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``The Defense 
     Board and the Civilian Board shall each provide,'';
       (5) in subsection (f), by striking out ``each agency 
     board'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Defense Board and 
     the Civilian Board'';
       (6) in subsection (g)--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking out 
     ``an agency board of contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board, as the 
     case may be,'';
       (B) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2); and
       (7) by striking out subsections (h) and (i).
       (e) Section 9 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 608) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking out ``each agency 
     board'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Defense Board and 
     the Civilian Board''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking out ``the agency board'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Board concerned''.
       (f) Section 10 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 609) is amended--

[[Page H 8935]]

       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking out ``Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     and in'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``In''; and
       (ii) by striking out ``an agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board'';
       (B) by striking out paragraph (2); and
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (2), and in 
     that paragraph by striking out ``or (2)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking out ``any agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and
       (B) by striking out ``the agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the Board concerned'';
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking out ``an agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu of each ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and
       (B) by striking out ``the agency board'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``the Board concerned''; and
       (4) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking out ``one or more agency boards'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``the Defense Board or the Civilian 
     Board (or both)''; and
       (B) by striking out ``or among the agency boards involved'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``one or both of the Boards''.
       (g) Section 11 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 610) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking out ``an agency 
     board of contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``the Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking out ``the agency 
     board through the Attorney General; or upon application by 
     the board of contract appeals of the Tennessee Valley 
     Authority'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the Defense Board 
     or the Civilian Board''.
       (h) Section 13 of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 
     U.S.C. 612) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking out ``an agency board of 
     contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(2), by striking out ``by the board of 
     contract appeals for'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``by the 
     Defense Board or the Civilian Board from''.

     SEC. 444. REFERENCES TO AGENCY BOARDS OF CONTRACT APPEALS.

       (a) Defense Board.--Any reference to the Armed Services 
     Board of Contract Appeals in any provision of law or in any 
     rule, regulation, or other paper of the United States shall 
     be treated as referring to the Department of Defense Board of 
     Contract Appeals.
       (b) Civilian Board.--Any reference to an agency board of 
     contract appeals other than the Armed Services Board of 
     Contract Appeals in any provision of law or in any rule, 
     regulation, or other paper of the United States shall be 
     treated as referring to the Civilian Board of Contract 
     Appeals.

     SEC. 445. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Title 5.--Section 5372a of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking out ``an agency board 
     of contract appeals appointed under section 8 of the Contract 
     Disputes Act of 1978'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals or the 
     Civilian Board of Contract Appeals appointed under section 
     202 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act''; and
       (2) in subsection (a)(2), by striking out ``an agency board 
     of contract appeals'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``the 
     Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals or the 
     Civilian Board of Contract Appeals''.
       (b) Title 10.--(1) Section 2305(e) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``subchapter V of 
     chapter 35 of title 31'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``title II of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act''; 
     and
       (B) by striking out paragraph (3).
       (2) Section 2305(f) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``subparagraphs (A) 
     through (F) of subsection (b)(1) of section 3554 of title 
     31'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 214(h)(2) of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``paragraph (1) of 
     section 3554(c) of title 31 within the limits referred to in 
     paragraph (2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``subparagraph 
     (A) of section 214(i)(1) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act within the limits referred to in subparagraph 
     (B)''.
       (c) Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949.--(1) Section 303B(j) (as redesignated by section 
     104(b)(2)) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253b(h)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``subchapter V of 
     chapter 35 of title 31, United States Code'' and inserting in 
     lieu thereof ``title II of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act''; and
       (B) by striking out paragraph (3).
       (2) Section 303B(k) (as redesignated by section 104(b)(2)) 
     of such Act (41 U.S.C. 253b(i)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``in subparagraphs 
     (A) through (F) of subsection (b)(1) of section 3554 of title 
     31, United States Code'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``section 214(h)(2) of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``paragraph (1) of 
     section 3554(c) of such title within the limits referred to 
     in paragraph (2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``subparagraph (A) of section 214(i)(1) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act within the limits referred to 
     in subparagraph (B)''.
       (d) Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act.--The table of 
     contents for the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (contained in section 1(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting the following before the item relating to 
     section 1:
           ``TITLE I--FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY GENERALLY'';
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
                     ``TITLE II--DISPUTE RESOLUTION

                    ``Subtitle A--General Provisions

``Sec. 201. Definitions.
``Sec. 202. Membership.
``Sec. 203. Chairman.
``Sec. 204. Rulemaking authority.
``Sec. 205. Authorization of appropriations.

``Subtitle B--Functions of the Defense and Civilian Boards of Contract 
                                Appeals

``Sec. 211. Alternative dispute resolution services.
``Sec. 212. Alternative dispute resolution of disputes and protests 
              submitted to Boards.
``Sec. 213. Contract disputes.
``Sec. 214. Protests.
``Sec. 215. Applicability to certain contracts.''.
       Subtitle F--Effective Date; Interim Appointment and Rules

     SEC. 451. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title and the amendments made by this title shall take 
     effect on October 1, 1996.

     SEC. 452. INTERIM APPOINTMENT.

       (a) Defense Board.--The judge serving as chairman of the 
     Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act shall serve as Chairman of the 
     Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals during the 
     two-year period beginning on the effective date of this 
     title, unless such individual resigns such position or the 
     position otherwise becomes vacant before the expiration of 
     such period. The authority vested in the Secretary of Defense 
     by section 203(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (as added by section 413) shall take effect upon the 
     expiration of such two-year period or on the date such 
     position is vacated, whichever occurs earlier.
       (b) Civilian Board.--The judge serving as chairman of the 
     board of contract appeals of the General Services 
     Administration on the date of the enactment of this Act shall 
     serve as Chairman of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals 
     during the two-year period beginning on the effective date of 
     this title, unless such individual resigns such position or 
     the position otherwise becomes vacant before the expiration 
     of such period. The authority vested in the Administrator of 
     General Services by section 203(a) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (as added by section 413) shall take 
     effect upon the expiration of such two-year period or on the 
     date such position is vacated, whichever occurs earlier.

     SEC. 453. INTERIM RULES.

       (a) Rules of Procedure.--Until such date as rules of 
     procedure are promulgated pursuant to section 204 of the 
     Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (as added by section 
     414)--
       (1) for protests, the rules of procedure of the board of 
     contract appeals of the General Services Administration, as 
     in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act, 
     shall be the rules of procedure for both the Department of 
     Defense Board of Contract Appeals and the Civilian Board of 
     Contract Appeals; and
       (2) for contract disputes--
       (A) the rules of procedure of the board of contract appeals 
     of the General Services Administration, as in effect on the 
     day before the effective date of this Act, shall be the rules 
     of procedure for the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; and
       (B) the rules of procedure of the Armed Services Board of 
     Contract Appeals, as in effect on the day before the 
     effective date of this Act, shall be the rules of procedure 
     for the Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals.
       (b) Rules Regarding Board Judges.--(1) Until such date as 
     the Department of Defense Board of Contract Appeals (in this 
     paragraph referred to as the ``Defense Board'') promulgates 
     rules governing the establishment and maintenance of a 
     register of eligible applicants and the selection of Board 
     judges, the rules of the Armed Services Board of Contract 
     Appeals governing the establishment and maintenance of a 
     register of eligible applicants and the selection of board 
     members (as in effect on the day before the effective date of 
     this Act) shall be the rules of the Defense Board governing 
     the establishment and maintenance of a register of eligible 
     applicants and the selection of Board judges, except that any 
     provisions of the rules of the Armed Services Board of 
     Contract Appeals that authorize any individual other than the 
     chairman of such board to select a Defense Board judge shall 
     have no effect.
       (2) Until such date as the Civilian Board of Contract 
     Appeals (in this paragraph referred to as the ``Civilian 
     Board'') promulgates rules governing the establishment and 
     maintenance of a register of eligible applicants and the 
     selection of Board judges, the rules of the board of contract 
     appeals of the General Services Administration governing the 
     establishment and maintenance of a register of eligible 
     applicants and the selection of board members (as in effect 
     on the day before the effective date of this Act) shall be 
     the rules of the Civilian Board governing the establishment 
     and maintenance of a register of eligible applicants and the 
     selection of Board judges, except that any provisions of the 
     rules of the board of contract appeals of the General 
     Services Administration that authorize any individual other 
     than the chairman of such board to select a Civilian Board 
     judge shall have no effect.


[[Page H 8936]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:
              TITLE V--EFFECTIVE DATES AND IMPLEMENTATION

     SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE AND APPLICABILITY.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     title, this title and the amendments made by this title shall 
     take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Applicability of Amendments.--(1) An amendment made by 
     this title shall apply, in the manner prescribed in the final 
     regulations promulgated pursuant to section 502 to implement 
     such amendment, with respect to any solicitation that is 
     issued, any unsolicited proposal that is received, and any 
     contract entered into pursuant to such a solicitation or 
     proposal, on or after the date described in paragraph (3).
       (2) An amendment made by this title shall also apply, to 
     the extent and in the manner prescribed in the final 
     regulations promulgated pursuant to section 502 to implement 
     such amendment, with respect to any matter related to--
       (A) a contract that is in effect on the date described in 
     paragraph (3);
       (B) an offer under consideration on the date described in 
     paragraph (3); or
       (C) any other proceeding or action that is ongoing on the 
     date described in paragraph (3).
       (3) The date referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) is the 
     date specified in such final regulations. The date so 
     specified shall be October 1, 1996, or any earlier date that 
     is not within 30 days after the date on which such final 
     regulations are published.
     SEC. 502. IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS.

       (a) Proposed Revisions.--Proposed revisions to the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation and such other proposed regulations 
     (or revisions to existing regulations) as may be necessary to 
     implement this title shall be published in the Federal 
     Register not later than 210 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Public Comment.--The proposed regulations described in 
     subsection (a) shall be made available for public comment for 
     a period of not less than 60 days.
       (c) Final Regulations.--Final regulations shall be 
     published in the Federal Register not later than 330 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (d) Modifications.--Final regulations promulgated pursuant 
     to this section to implement an amendment made by this title 
     may provide for modification of an existing contract without 
     consideration upon the request of the contractor.
       (e) Savings Provisions.--(1) Nothing in this title shall be 
     construed to affect the validity of any action taken or any 
     contract entered into before the date specified in the 
     regulations pursuant to section 501(b)(3) except to the 
     extent and in the manner prescribed in such regulations.
       (2) Except as specifically provided in this title, nothing 
     in this title shall be construed to require the renegotiation 
     or modification of contracts in existence on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Except as otherwise provided in this title, a law 
     amended by this title shall continue to be applied according 
     to the provisions thereof as such law was in effect on the 
     day before the date of the enactment of this Act until--
       (A) the date specified in final regulations implementing 
     the amendment of that law (as promulgated pursuant to this 
     section); or
       (B) if no such date is specified in regulations, October 1, 
     1996.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title V?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  Mr. Chairman. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 219, he 
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
                             recorded vote

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 423, 
noes 0, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 663]

                               AYES--423

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     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
     Chenoweth
     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
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     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
     Gibbons
     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
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     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
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton

[[Page H 8937]]

     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Frost
     Meek
     Mineta
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Royce
     Scarborough
     Sisisky
     Solomon
     Tucker
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1534

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________