erations in formulating H.R. 3425. The major management reforms contained in this legislation may save millions of taxpayer dollars and enhance the ability of the Department to fulfill its mission to protect the environment and public health. Major features of the bill include:

Development of a strategic business plan and performance measurement system to ensure effective programs and efficient use of the Department's resources.

Establishment of a Chief Information Officer [CIO], with the rank of Assistant Secretary, to ensure that the Department's offices collect needed information in an efficient manner and that information system procurements are cost-effective.

Improved public access to environmental information to assist businesses and the public in adhering to environmental regulations and expanding awareness of environmental problems.

Creation of a Bureau of Environmental Statistics that will improve the analysis of environmental conditions and trends in order to better determine the effectiveness of environmental policies and programs.

Establishment of an Office of Environmental Justice, to be headed by a high-level political appointee, and an advisory committee, charged with developing a strategy to improve coordination of existing programs in order to better promote environmental justice for all people, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or national origin.

Establishment of an Office of Environmental Risk, with an advisory committee, charged with developing a strategy to attain the greatest reductions in risk to human health and the environment that are practical given the available resources.

Strengthening scientific integrity at the Department to ensure that the scientific information prepared by the Department is credible and unbiased.

Strengthening the integrity of the Department's advisory committees by requiring members to identify potential conflicts of interest and to disclose financial interests that are relevant to the work of an advisory committee.

Reforms to inadequate contracting procedures that have resulted in the Federal Government reimbursing government contractors for questionable or expressly unallowable expenses and undermined program integrity. In particular, costs of entertainment, gifts, or recreation for contractor employees and their families are made explicitly unallowable.

The intent of the committee in this legislation was not to amend underlying substantive law administered by EPA; nor did the committee seek to legislate new environmental policy.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of implementing H.R. 3425 at $10-$11 million per year in outlays through 1998. There was no estimated cost to State or local governments.

The Subcommittees on Legislation and National Security [LNS] and Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources [EENR] held two joint hearings to consider elevating EPA to cabinet status. On March 29, 1993, a hearing was conducted to review EPA organizational, contracting, information systems, and administrative prob

lems in order to formulate cabinet legislation that could effectively address and correct those problems (see Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources, "other investigations" section).

The Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security held a separate hearing on April 28, 1993, to review issues relating to the disproportionate impact of environmental pollution on minority and low-income populations and the need for policies and programs to address the burden on these populations. EPA has acknowledged that minorities and low-income Americans are disproportionately exposed to pollution, and established a nonstatutory Office of Environmental Equity headed by a career official to coordinate work in the area. Studies have found that minority communities suffer from unequal enforcement measures compared to more affluent and nonminority communities. A major finding at the hearing is that much more research is needed on the issue of environmental justice.

Testimony was received from a wide range of witnesses including Representatives John Lewis (D-GA) and Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, executive director of the NAACP, health and research specialists, and community leaders.

A second joint LNS-EENR Subcommittees hearing was held on May 6, 1993, to review Chairman Conyers' "discussion draft” legislation elevating EPA to cabinet status. The draft formed the basis of the final legislation approved by the committee in November. Testimony was received from Energy and Commerce Chairman Dingell, EPA Administrator Browner, GAO General Counsel James Hinchman, EPA Inspector General John Martin, Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator Dr. Allan Burman, and environmental and industry witnesses.

On November 4, 1993, the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee considered H.R. 3425. An amendment in the nature of a substitute, based on H.R. 824, the Department of Environmental Protection Act, offered by Mr. Clinger, which provided for a simple elevation of the Agency, was rejected by a recorded vote of 3 ayes and 7 noes. The subcommittee then approved H.R. 3425 and reported the bill favorably to the standing committee by voice vote.

On November 4, 1993, the committee considered H.R. 3425, as reported by the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee. Six amendments were adopted by voice vote, including one offered by Mr. Zimmer that established an Office of Environmental Risk. An amendment in the nature of a substitute, based on H.R. 824, the Department of Environmental Protection Act, offered by Mr. Clinger, which provided for a simple elevation of the Agency, was rejected by voice vote. With a reporting quorum present, the committee approved H.R. 3425, as amended, and reported the bill favorably to the House by a recorded vote of 31 ayes and 11 noes. On November 10, 1993, the committee filed a report, with minority and additional views, on H.R. 3425 (H. Rept. 103-355).

On November 17, 1993, the Committee on Rules reported H. Res. 312 providing a rule for consideration of H.R. 3425. The House did not act on H.R. 3425 prior to adjournment.

c. Federal Acquisition Improvement Act of 1993; H.R. 2238.—H.R. 2238, the Federal Acquisition Improvement Act of 1993, introduced by Chairman Conyers and the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, is based on H.R. 3161, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Authorization Act of 1992, which was passed by the House late in the 102d Congress. Like H.R. 3161, H.R. 2238 included important Federal procurement reforms, including provisions designed to alleviate barriers to commercial item acquisition, enhance competition, streamline and simplify thousands of small purchases, and strengthen the bid protest process. The bill also authorized functions under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, including certain operations of the General Services Administration, through the end of fiscal year 1993.

The badly needed procurement reform provisions included in H.R. 2238 represented what is perhaps the most comprehensive effort to reform the Federal procurement process since the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. In the committee's view, this reform is overdue and sorely needed.

The procurement reforms in the bill resulted, in large part, from meetings held by committee staff with industry and public interest groups during the 102d and 103d Congresses. H.R. 2238 addressed in statute many of the problems which currently face the Federal procurement system. The following were some of the most important procurement reforms in H.R. 2238:

Title I of H.R. 2238 amended Federal procurement laws to alleviate barriers to commercial product acquisition by establishing a preference for procurement of commercial products and mandating the use of simplified commercial-type contracts. The purchase of "commercial products," defined as products that can be purchased off the shelf with little or no development, should abolish the current practice in the Federal Government of buying expensive, specially designed products when off the shelf, less expensive commercial products would do the job just as well.

Part A of title I was adopted substantially from S. 260, 102d Congress, as passed by the Senate. S. 260, which was substantially similar to S. 1957, passed by both the House and Senate in the 101st Congress, would have adopted current provisions in title 10 applicable to the Department of Defense, and applied them to the civilian sector of the Federal Government.

Part B of title I included several miscellaneous amendments to law that, although not limited in effect solely to "commercial item" acquisitions, were designed to enhance competition in Federal contracting and thereby make acquisition of commercial items more likely.

Title II of the bill will amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 by raising the threshold for obtaining cost or pricing data from vendors under the Truth in Negotiations Act in title 41 of the United States Code. The cost or pricing data threshold will increase from $100,000 to $500,000 through December 31, 1995, when it will revert to $100,000. In the interim, the committee will study the effects of this increase and consider making the increase permanent.

This change will align title 41 with title 10 which also has a $500,000 threshold and a similar sunset provision, and is designed to encourage the acquisition of commercial items by Federal agencies.

Title IV of H.R. 2238 included a series of amendments to the Brooks ADP Act, most of which clarified or enhanced the powers of the GSA Board of Contract Appeals over ADP bid protests. Matters dealt with included jurisdiction of the Board, and powers of the Board to order certain remedies. Many of the Brooks ADP Act amendments were designed to counter recent decisions of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that have been unreasonably hostile to the Board's powers.

Title V of H.R. 2238 included various miscellaneous provisions. One provision amends section 3554 of title 31 of the United States Code by requiring agency procurement heads to report to the Comptroller General if the agency fails to implement GAO recommendations regarding protests within 60 days after the recommendation is received. This provision is designed to strengthen the GAO bid protest process by involving the Congress when GAO recommendations are ignored. The amendment also eliminates an alleged constitutional conflict between the executive and legislative branches of the Government by making clear that GÃO cost awards are only recommendations. This change was recommended by House counsel to moot the Justice Department lawsuit that was recently dismissed by the Federal court.

H.R. 2238 added a new section to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act to provide for detailed post-award briefings in procurements over $5 million. In any such procurement, an agency, at the request of any offeror, would have been required to provide a comprehensive, detailed debriefing at which certain minimum information would be provided. The failure of an agency to provide a debriefing meeting minimum requirements would have been subject to protest.

H.R. 2238 increased the small purchase threshold from $25,000 to $50,000. The committee believed that this increase would substantially increase opportunities for small business in the Federal marketplace by doubling the "small business reserve." In addition, increasing the small purchase threshold would permit greater use of small purchase procedures, thereby simplifying procurements and reducing administrative burdens.

The bill provided for a small purchase threshold increase to $100,000 once an agency establishes and implements a system by which solicitations can be made and offers from industry received through the use of an electronic data interchange system [EDI]. EDI is intended to provide prospective offerors, especially small businesses and small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged persons, with improved access to information regarding small purchase procurement opportunities.

The bill authorizes the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to conduct up to six test programs to identify alternative and innovative procurement procedures. The tests must comply with certain limitations related to, among other things, duration, contract dollar, and programming.

Lastly, H.R. 2238 would have replaced the GSA's current permanent authorization, thereby placing the agency on a normal, cyclical authorization cycle. A recurring authorization would have afforded the cognizant congressional oversight committees better opportunity to fulfill their oversight responsibilities.

The committee has received considerable testimony relating to substantial management problems that plague GSA. At hearings on H.R. 3161, for example, the General Accounting Office testified to internal confusion at GSA regarding that agency's function, pervasive management information problems, ineffective oversight of procurement delegations, and difficulties in managing the FTS 2000 governmentwide telecommunications program, the largest civilian procurement ever attempted by the Federal Government.

The Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security of the Government Operations Committee held hearings on H.R. 3161 (and S. 260) on October 29 and 31, 1991. Testimony was received from the Honorable John Glenn, chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee; the Honorable Richard Austin, Administrator of General Services; the Honorable Allan Burman, Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy; Mr. Ray Kline of the National Academy of Public Administration; Messrs. L. Nye Stevens and Jack Brock, Jr., of the General Accounting Office; Mr. Don Scott of GSA; Ms. Stephanie Biddle, executive vice president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association [CCIA]; Ms. Luanne James, president of the Computer Software & Services Industry Association [ADAPSO]; Mr. John F. McGiver, Jr., chairman, committee on government procurement, Computer & Business Equipment Manufacturers Association [CBEMA]; and Mr. Dan C. Heinemeier, vice president, government relations, Electronic Industries Association.

On November 13, 1991, the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security reported H.R. 3161 to the full committee, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. That amendment, offered by the chairman and ranking minority member, made several significant changes in H.R. 3161 to reflect the testimony of witnesses at the hearings on the bill, as well as substantial other input received by the committee from industry and the executive branch.

Also, on November 13, 1991, H.R. 3161 was reported to the House by the full committee. The committee report on H.R. 3161 was filed on November 23, 1991. (H. Rept. 102-364, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. (1991)).

After H.R. 3161 was reported, the committee worked closely with Chairman Aspin of the Armed Services Committee and with Chairman Mavroules of the Subcommittee on Investigations to address concerns raised by the Department of Defense on H.R. 3161. The committee also worked to address concerns raised by the Office of Management and Budget. These discussions resulted in several amendments to the bill.

On October 2, 1992, the committee received from the Office of Management and Budget a "Statement of Administration Policy" supporting enactment of H.R. 3161.

An amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3161 was offered on the floor by Chairman Conyers on October 3, 1992, and passed by the House under suspension of the rules. (Cong. Rec.