[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S1657]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        THE FAIR COMPETITION IN FEDERAL PROCUREMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this is a matter of importance to my 
State. Senator Kerry and I are offering legislation to prevent a 
serious injustice in the Federal Government. Congressman John Olver is 
introducing identical legislation in the House of Representatives.
  This issue has come to our attention in the context of the Bureau of 
Engraving and Printing contract for U.S. currency paper production, but 
it could arise in other contexts that would pose similar inequities.
  A respected and longstanding family-owned business in Dalton, MA, 
Crane and Company, has supplied currency paper for the Treasury for the 
past 117 years. Crane has been a trusted supplier to the Federal 
Government, providing high-quality products on a timely basis. It has 
negotiated reasonable terms with the Government, keeping its price 
increases below the rate of inflation, and has made substantial 
investments over the years to ensure the sophisticated equipment needed 
to produce the currency, including the special security features now 
built into the paper itself.
  This year, however, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has proposed 
to go to extraordinary lengths to create alternative sources for the 
currency paper production. The Bureau has proposed subsidies to other 
companies to help them become competitive and buy the state-of-the-art 
equipment that Crane bought on its own.
  This is not fair competition. It is a misguided policy that will give 
other companies an unfair advantage and create an unlevel playing 
field.
  Our legislation is straightforward. It amends section 303 of the 
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to prohibit 
nondefense agencies in the executive branch from financing equipment or 
facilities to help a contractor compete against an existing contractor 
in Federal procurement.
  With all the pressures of the deficit, we should not be spending 
taxpayers' money on this sort of sham competition. It is unfair to 
leading-edge firms like Crane that invested their own resources to 
obtain Government contracts. It is hard to see how any taxpayers will 
benefit. Crane is in a class by itself. There is no suggestion of 
antitrust problems. Crane wins these contracts fair and square against 
potential competitors, and it should not have to compete with Uncle 
Sam.
  I urge the Congress to enact this legislation and prevent an 
extremely unfair and unwise policy from moving forward at the Treasury 
Department or at other Federal agencies.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 354

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CONTRACT PROVISION FOR 
                   PURPOSE OF INCREASING COMPETITION BY 
                   ESTABLISHING ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF SUPPLY.

       Section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(j) In conducting a procurement of property or services 
     covered by this section, an executive agency may not award a 
     contract that contains a provision allowing for the 
     contractor to acquire, at Government expense, production, 
     construction, or technical equipment or facilities to carry 
     out the contract, if the principal purpose of such provision 
     is to increase competition by establishing an alternative 
     source of supply for that property or service.''.

                          ____________________