On the recordJuly 10, 1997
I have sympathy for what the Senator from Iowa is saying. The fact of the matter is the amendment doesn't accomplish what he wants to accomplish. We will be back here next year, if the Senator's amendment passes, with the same because all the Senator's amendment does is limit cost-type contracts. It does not limit those contracts in which we purchase things from contractors for a fixed price. We tell them when we purchase it for a fixed price, You can pay whoever you want. You can pay whatever you want for the material. You can pay the executives anything as long as you deliver the product at this price. So they allocate some substantial portion or what looks like at least some portion of these contract dollars. That is perfectly legal. If the Senator wants to say that we should not do any fixed-price contracts, come with an amendment that says that. If he comes with amendment that says we don't limit fixed contracts --I don't think he would support it, but the Senator from California supports it--then we can deal with this issue. But if all you are going to deal with is one type of contract which is cost, then go out and show compensation levels that include moneys from fixed-pricing contracts. That is what they have done. So for all of the passion--and I believe in the passion of the Senator from Iowa, and the Senator from California--it doesn't solve the problem; at least what they perceive as the problem.
Source
govinfo.gov




