Public Contract Law Technical Corrections

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COHEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 1107 codifies into positive law as title 41, United States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to public contracts. It is a rather extensive bill, fairly dry bill, that doesn't do much in the way of substance but does many technical corrections.

It was prepared by the Office of Law Revision Counsel in coordination with our Judiciary Committee.

This bill is not intended to make substantive changes in the law, but as is typical with the codification process, a number of nonsubstantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent overall structure. But these changes are not intended in any way to have any substantive effect, simply procedural, and make the code more easily used.

The bill has been subject to extensive review in the previous two Congresses, by relevant congressional committees, agencies, and practitioners, as well as the public.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note a question that has come to our attention with respect to a reporting requirement found in 41 U.S.C. 405b(d) of the present law and restated as 41 U.S.C. 2304(c)(2) in the bill. There is a question whether that reporting requirement is still effective.

Section 3003 of the Federal Reports Elimination and the Sunset Act of 1995, 31 U.S.C. 1113 note, stated that each provision of law requiring the submission to Congress of any annual, semiannual, or other regular periodic report specified in a list that had been prepared by the House Clerk would cease to be effective as of May 15, 2000.

The provision in question is listed on page 156 of that document.

In this regard, it should be noted that, as positive law codification bills do not change substantive law, the restatement of a revision does not revive it if it has otherwise become ineffective.

Thus, the reporting requirement, as restated, is effective to the extent, and only to the extent, that it was effective under the underlying source law on the day before the restatement was enacted.

That is a matter for the agency and the committee of substantive jurisdiction to work out. If legislation removing that requirement from the text of the underlying law is enacted before final enrollment of this bill, that change can be reflected at that time, if and when it occurs.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that shows bipartisanship. Mr. Issa has done a wonderful job representing his side of the aisle. I am proud to represent mine. Republicans and Democrats have come together on this bill. I would ask for a positive, unanimous vote on this important legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source