[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H5524-H5530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR PASSAGE OF H.R. 2101, WEAPONS ACQUISITION SYSTEM REFORM 
    THROUGH ENHANCING TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE AND OVERSIGHT ACT OF 2009

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 432) providing for passage of the bill (H.R. 
2101) to promote reform and independence in the oversight of weapons 
system acquisition by the Department of Defense, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 432

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, the House 
     shall be considered to have (1) passed the bill (H.R. 2101) 
     to promote reform and independence in the oversight of 
     weapons system acquisition by the Department of Defense, as 
     amended by the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now 
     printed in the bill; (2) taken from the Speaker's table S. 
     454; (3) adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of H.R. 2101 as passed by the House 
     pursuant to this resolution; (4) passed such bill, as 
     amended; and (5) insisted on its amendment and requested a 
     conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong support of this measure, the Weapons Acquisition 
System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act 
of 2009 and, of course, H. Res. 432, under which we will consider the 
bill today.
  By voting for H. Res. 432, we will be adopting the bill reported out 
of the House Armed Services Committee 59-0, and initiating a conference 
with the Senate and their related bill, S. 454, which passed the Senate 
on a vote of 93-0. This legislation is in keeping with the best 
bipartisan traditions of the Congress, and the bipartisan leadership of 
both the House and Senate have committed to passing this legislation as 
quickly as possible.
  The need for this legislation is urgent. It's indisputable. GAO tells 
us that the Department of Defense currently estimates it will exceed 
its original cost estimates on 96 major weapons systems by $296 
billion. That's more than 2 years of pay and health care for all of our 
troops. Much of this cost growth is already baked into the pie because 
of decisions made that will be difficult or impossible to reverse. At 
the same time, however, a lot of this is money that we have not yet 
actually spent, meaning we will feel the effects of this waste for 
years. We cannot wait to take corrective measures.
  On April 27 Ranking Member McHugh from New York and I, along with our 
partners, Rob Andrews and Mike Conaway, the leaders of our panel on 
Defense Acquisition Reform, introduced the WASTE TKO Act. After 
introducing the bill, the committee held two hearings on the bill and 
held a markup. On the basis of the testimony we received and on the 
basis of the committee's long experience on acquisition reform issues, 
I can say with confidence that this legislation will substantially 
improve the oversight of major weapons system acquisition.
  Let me briefly summarize the bill's provisions. It requires the 
Secretary of Defense to assign responsibility to independent officials 
within his office for oversight of cost estimation, systems 
engineering, and performance assessment. It also assigns additional 
responsibility to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering for 
assessing technological maturity and to the unified combatant 
commanders for helping to set requirements.

                              {time}  1530

  It promotes competition in our acquisition strategies, and it 
promotes the consideration of tradeoffs between cost, schedule, and 
performance. It limits organizational conflicts of interest and 
tightens the Nunn-McCurdy process.
  Perhaps most importantly, it requires an increased focus on programs 
in the early stages of acquisition when most costs are determined, and 
it focuses oversight on programs which have demonstrated poor 
performance.
  Lastly, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Defense to award 
excellence in acquisition.
  Let me clarify an important issue about this bill that has arisen. 
Mr. McHugh and I have worked to make clear that this bill is tailored 
to match the scope of S. 454 in the Senate. We did this to speed its 
enactment into law.
  As a result, like S. 454, it deals almost exclusively with major 
weapons systems acquisition, which is only 20 percent of the total that 
the Department of Defense spends on acquisition on an annual basis. 
There are also serious problems with the other 80 percent of the 
acquisitions systems. As a result, we established the Panel on Defense 
Acquisition Reform in our committee, led by Rob Andrews and Mike 
Conaway.
  They did excellent work on this bill, and we will get a lot more good 
work out of them before the day is done. We are fully committed to 
continuing the work on these issues in the upcoming National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and in subsequent legislation.
  I ask all Members of the House to support H. Res. 432 and the 
underlying bill and vote to move it forward to a conference with the 
Senate on this very, very vital matter.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McHUGH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of this very important 
piece of legislation, H.R. 2101, the Weapons Acquisition System Reform 
through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009.
  I want to begin where thanks are truly due, and that is with my good 
friend, my distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), who provided the inertia and the great leadership in putting 
together the team that has worked so hard to bring this bill to the 
floor, and a particular tip of the hat to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) and my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway), for

[[Page H5525]]

their roles as the chairman and the ranking member in our special 
oversight committee. They really have done yeoman's work, supported by 
very able members, as they advanced a great piece of legislation.
  Obviously, as you have heard, we consider this matter to be of utmost 
importance. The United States taxpayers deserve to get the most bang 
for their buck. It's a trite saying, but very true, especially when 
matters of national security are involved. What's more, there is an 
enormous opportunity cost when major defense systems miss and overrun 
their budgets.
  The Government Accountability Office found that as of 2009 the 
Department of Defense had, as the chairman so correctly stated, some 
$296 billion of cost growth on just 96 major weapons systems. And even 
if most of this growth is due to poor initial estimates or requirement 
changes and not to waste or mismanagement, the fact remains that the 
Department of Defense was unable to spend hundreds of billions of 
dollars on other planned priorities.
  It's in the interest of a strong national defense, therefore, that we 
in Congress do all that we can to rein in cost growth in the 
development of major weapons programs.
  This national security imperative is also what has driven us to 
quickly mark up, and hopefully pass today, H.R. 2101. But I would note, 
despite the speed with which this body has moved, the legislation we 
have before us is a sound and well-crafted product.
  We have the benefit of feedback from the industry, from the 
Department, and from members of our Defense Acquisition Reform Panel. 
Speaking on my own behalf, I believe this feedback has allowed our 
committee to draft truly a superior piece of legislation.
  I don't want to be taken wrong here, the Senate, the other body, has 
passed a solid piece of legislation as well, S. 454. But it's important 
for the House Members to recognize that the legislation we have before 
us today will take us immediately into conference with the Senate and, 
quite likely, to the President's desk in just a matter of weeks.
  Which is why we all believe it's all the more important to get a 
strong vote in support of this bill, to guarantee the voice of the 
House is heard in this debate, so that this body will remain on the 
forefront of ensuring we deliver the right capability to our war 
fighters at the right time and at the best value.
  As my chairman, Mr. Skelton, has indicated, this legislation focuses 
on reforms on the early stage of the acquisition system, requiring the 
evaluation of alternative solutions and more critical points and 
independent oversight earlier in the process. A focus on early stage 
acquisition is vital. As we know, as we heard from my chairman, the 
sins which cause most cost overruns are generally created in the 
initial stages of the acquisition process.
  It also increases the level of independent scrutiny major weapons 
programs receive, not because our program managers are incapable, but 
because we recognize that it's an unfair burden to require program 
managers to be both a leading advocate for and an independent evaluator 
of the program.
  The legislation also seeks to address concerns we have had heard 
about minimizing bureaucracy and continuing to give the Secretary of 
Defense the flexibility he needs to manage his own office. Despite the 
impressive list of reforms carried in this bill, it really is 
relatively narrow in scope.
  Some, including The New York Times Editorial Board, have criticized 
us for focusing only on acquisition of major weapons systems, stating, 
and I quote from one of their editorials, ``Unfortunately, the House 
version, to be voted on later, applies to only about 20 percent of 
acquisitions.''
  Although, with due respect to The Gray Lady, maybe $296 billion 
doesn't sound like a lot of money to The New York Times, but as I 
previously noted, that's just the cost of overruns on these 96 
programs. The total planned outlay for those 96 programs is some $1.6 
trillion.
  I have to say that I am fairly comfortable with taking on reforms to 
$1.6 trillion in government spending as just a first step this year.
  In addition, we deliberately narrowed the scope of our bill in order 
to keep the legislation aligned with the Senate and to send this bill 
to the President as soon as possible. The remaining 80 percent of DOD 
programs will not go unaddressed. If truth be told, acquisition 
workforce issues and acquisition of services have been addressed in 
prior years' bills, but we will not be satisfied with resting on the 
laurels that I think this body will accrue today in supporting this 
legislation.
  These issues will continue to be considered by the Defense 
Acquisition Reform Panel, which will carry on with its mandate to 
consider initiatives that could be addressed by the committee as part 
of the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reemphasize that I give my full 
support to this bill. We owe a great debt of gratitude to those Members 
who worked so hard to bring it to the floor today and do so with such a 
quality product behind it.
  I am honored to stand with them in this well this afternoon, and I 
look forward to a strong vote in support of this worthy piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2101, the Weapons Acquisition 
System Reform through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act 
of 2009. As my friend and Chairman, Ike Skelton, has so ably described, 
this bill, which was unanimously adopted by the House Armed Services 
Committee, takes aim at reforming the process used by the Department of 
Defense to acquire major weapons systems.
  We consider this matter to be of the upmost importance. The United 
States taxpayers deserve to get the most bang for their buck--
especially when national security matters are involved. What's more, 
there is an enormous opportunity cost when major defense weapons 
systems miss overrun their budgets. The Government Accountability 
Office found that as of 2009 the Department of Defense had $296 billion 
of cost growth on 96 major weapons systems. Even if most of this growth 
is due to poor initial estimation or requirements changes, and not to 
waste or mismanagement, the fact remains that the Department of Defense 
was unable to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on other planned 
priorities. Therefore, in the interest of a strong national defense, 
Congress must do all it can to reign in cost growth in the development 
of major weapons programs.
  This national security imperative is also what has driven us to 
quickly mark up and, hopefully, pass H.R. 2101. Despite the speed with 
which this body has moved, the legislation before us is a sound, well-
crafted product. We have had the benefit of feedback from industry, 
from the Department, and from the members of our Defense Acquisition 
Reform Panel. Speaking for myself, I believe this feedback has allowed 
our Committee to draft a superior piece of legislation.
  Don't get me wrong. The Senate has already passed a solid piece of 
legislation, S. 454. But it is important for the members of the House 
to recognize that the legislation we have before us today will take us 
immediately into conference with the Senate, and quite likely to the 
President's desk in a matter of weeks. Which is why I believe it is all 
the more important to get a strong vote in support of this bill, to 
guarantee the voice of the House is heard in this debate and so this 
body will remain on the forefront of ensuring we deliver the right 
capability to our warfighters at the right time and at the best value.
  As Chairman Skelton has indicated, this legislation focuses reforms 
on the early stages of the acquisition system, requiring the evaluation 
of alternative solutions at more critical points and independent 
oversight earlier in the process. A focus on early stage acquisition is 
vital, because we know from experience that the sins which cause cost 
overruns are generally created in the initial stages of the acquisition 
process. It also increases the level of independent scrutiny major 
weapons programs receive--not because our program managers are not 
capable, but because we recognize that it is an unfair burden to 
require program managers to be both the leading advocate for a program 
and an independent evaluator of the program. The legislation also seeks 
to address concerns we have heard about minimizing bureaucracy and 
continuing to give the Secretary of Defense the flexibility he needs to 
manage his own office.
  Despite the impressive list of reforms carried in this bill, our 
legislation is relatively narrow in scope. Some, including the New York 
Times Editorial Board, have criticized us for focusing only on the 
acquisition of major weapons systems, stating, ``Unfortunately, the 
House version, to be voted on later, applies only to about 20 percent 
of acquisitions.'' Maybe $296 billion doesn't sound like a lot of money 
to the New York Times, but as I've previously noted--that's just the 
cost overruns on those 96 programs. The total planned outlay for those 
96 programs is $1.6 trillion. I

[[Page H5526]]

have to say that I'm fairly comfortable with taking on reforms to $1.6 
trillion in Government spending, as a first step this year.
  In addition, we deliberately narrowed the scope of our bill in order 
to keep our bill aligned with the Senate bill and to send this 
legislation to the President as soon as possible. The remaining 80 
percent of DoD acquisition programs will not go unaddressed. If truth 
be told, acquisition workforce issues and acquisition of services have 
been addressed in prior year bills. But we will not be satisfied with 
resting on our laurels. These issues will continue to be considered by 
the Defense Acquisition Reform Panel--which will carry on with its 
mandate to consider initiatives that could be addressed by the 
Committee as part of the FY2011 National Defense Authorization Act.
  Ironically, others have suggested that additional legislation is not 
warranted. The outgoing Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology, and Logistics recently told reporters, ``I just do not 
think you can mandate a process that will ensure successful defense 
acquisition . . . The bottom line is people run programs, not documents 
[or] processes.'' I think few can argue with this assessment. In the 
end, implementation of sound acquisition policies and maintaining a 
skilled workforce is more important than passing new reforms. 
Nevertheless, we continue to see poor outcomes that could have been 
avoided if there had been a stronger independent voice, earlier in the 
program and the warfighters had a clear role in establishing the 
requirements up front.
  Moreover, we have repeatedly heard testimony before the Armed 
Services Committee that the reforms contained in this bill are 
practical, necessary, and can be implemented. We heard testimony from a 
panel of outside experts, many of them former senior officials from 
DoD, and the new Deputy Secretary of Defense, who were highly 
complimentary of this legislation. The Department is on-board with 
these changes--many of which they have recently committed to internal 
policy guidance.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I give my full support to this bill. In 
conclusion, I thank all of the members, but especially Chairman 
Skelton, for collaborating so closely with me, and Rob Andrews and Mike 
Conaway who lead our Defense Acquisition Reform Panel, for their 
participation in this process and for helping to make this the 
strongest possible product. I have absolute confidence that the members 
of the Panel will continue in their endeavors and provide the Armed 
Services Committee with a number of additional recommendations when 
they have fulfilled their mandate. We appreciate their hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 2101.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. First I want to again thank the ranking member, my good 
friend, John McHugh, for the good work on this excellent legislation, 
as well as his hard work on the Armed Services Committee. It is very 
much appreciated.
  I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the kind colleague and the chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee on the Special Oversight Panel on 
Defense Acquisition Reform, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rob 
Andrews.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, there is an understandable frustration 
and cynicism in our country about our political system. There are 
people who believe that all we do is argue, that the two parties never 
agree on anything. And when we do agree on something, it's on something 
symbolic or inconsequential.
  I think beyond the value of the substance of this legislation is the 
value of showing how those caricatures of the American political 
process are not always true. This has been a very substantive and very 
significant process, and it was led by outstanding bipartisan 
leadership from Mr. Skelton, the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, who had the foresight to put together this panel and empower 
us with the staff, resources, and time to do the job well; and Mr. 
McHugh, who loaned both his expertise and his personal credibility to 
this effort, both of which are in significant supply.
  I would also like to thank Mr. Conaway from Texas, the ranking member 
of the panel, for his outstanding contributions; each member of the 
panel, both Republican and Democratic, for their diligence in this 
effort; and most assuredly, the hardworking staff people who made the 
product possible: Erin Conaton and Andrew Hunter, Jenness Simler, Nat 
Bell from my office. We appreciate very much their efforts and many 
others.
  You have heard the chairman and others say earlier that the 
Government Accountability Office has identified $296 billion in cost 
overruns, that's just overruns, in major weapons systems. And as the 
chairman said, had we not incurred these overruns, that's enough money 
to pay for the salaries of the troops and the health benefits for the 
troops and their families for nearly 2\1/2\ years. That's the 
opportunity cost for the problem that we are facing today.
  The House is encouraged to pass this bill because we believe it faces 
that problem by implementing four very important changes. The first has 
to do with independence. The people who will be doing cost estimates, 
engineering and conceptual scientific evaluations, and scheduling 
analyses will not be people vested in the success of the weapons 
system. They will be people vested in protection of the taxpayer dollar 
and providing the very best value for those who wear the uniform.
  The second principle is looking very critically at the development of 
these weapons systems as early as possible in the process. By the time 
10 percent of the money is spent on these weapons systems, 70 percent 
of the money is obligated. That is to say, on or before the time that 
we decide to build or not build a weapons system, we are already far 
into the process, whereby a political constituency builds up, hundreds 
of thousands of workers, thousands of contractors, political 
constituencies around the country, who understandably advocate for 
these programs as if they were a public works project. Well, they are 
not. The idea behind these programs is to provide the very best tools 
to those who wear the uniform of this country at the appropriate price 
for the taxpayer.
  By getting involved earlier in the process, we make it far more 
likely that when a bad judgment has been made, when we set off on the 
wrong course, that course can be reversed or terminated, as it should 
be.
  The third principle in this bill is to give intensive attention, 
intensive care, to weapons systems that have been permitted to go 
forward even though they have not yet met all of the criteria to go 
forward.
  If there is a true national security reason that those weapons 
systems should go forward beyond that milestone, it is very important 
that they be looked at carefully and on an ongoing basis. That is what 
this bill provides.
  And in those, unfortunately, many instances where the programs far 
exceed the cost that's originally estimated, by 25 percent, by 50 
percent, this legislation says that if the programs are not terminated, 
and if they are not terminated because there is a strong national 
security reason not to terminate them or a strong economic reason not 
to terminate them, they must be watched with great intensive attention.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Finally, the product before us has a very strong but 
flexible provision to prohibit undue conflicts of interest.
  Frankly, this body does not aspire to micromanage the process of who 
can participate and contract and who cannot. What we are committed to 
is that all of those who are serving the public in this process serve 
only one master, that they are acting on behalf of the uniformed 
personnel and the taxpayers and not on behalf of anyone else who has an 
economic interest in the outcome of their deliberations.
  This is a substantive piece of legislation that happened because the 
two parties worked together, because they listened to the best experts, 
and because we had put aside the squabbling in which we sometimes all 
engage to do what is right with our country.
  It's an honor to work with my friends on this. I would urge my 
Members to vote ``yes'' and move this process forward.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. McHUGH. I want to again thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
his great effort and leadership and clearly associate myself with his 
comments about the staff, some of whom are beside and behind me here, 
as they are

[[Page H5527]]

behind the chairman and others on the other side. Everything good that 
we achieve comes from their efforts. Everything that is not so good is 
certainly because we fail to listen to them. Certainly, in this bill, 
we listened to them very carefully. That, in large measure, is why it's 
such a great product.
  With that, I'm proud to yield 4 minutes to our leader on our side of 
the aisle, a man whom I asked if he would not think about leading our 
efforts from the minority side, and was anxious to go forward and 
really underscored why he was the only choice, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding time on 
this issue. I rise today to lend another bipartisan voice to support 
for the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical 
Knowledge and Oversight Act, giving rise to the best acronym yet in 
this Congress--the WASTE TKO Act.
  As a member of the HASC Defense Acquisition Reform Panel, I feel a 
deep sense of obligation to both our men and women in uniform and my 
constituents back home to get this right and to give the Defense 
Department the tools and the manpower it needs to get the acquisition 
process right.
  As with almost all work on the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased 
that we are able to work in a bipartisan manner, and I thank Chairman 
Skelton, Ranking Member McHugh, and Chairman Andrews for their 
leadership throughout this process.
  Last month, the GAO reported that the ``major weapons programs 
continue to cost more, take longer, and deliver fewer quantities and 
capabilities than originally planned.'' The GAO goes on to find fault 
in the ``planning, execution, and oversight,'' of major weapon 
programs. Congress' inability to realistically plan for the future is 
slowly strangling our ability to govern, and in no place is that more 
apparent than in how we procure military hardware.
  The legislation introduced by Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 
McHugh represents an important first step towards our final goal of 
creating an end-to-end acquisition process that is most responsive to 
the needs of the warfighter and responsible to the financial burdens of 
the taxpayer.
  The WASTE TKO Act will ensure that new major weapons programs begin 
on a solid foundation; with accurate cost estimation and realistic 
performance goals developed before the program progresses into the 
system development and demonstration phase marked milestone B.
  This legislation will institute clear lines of accountability and 
authority within the Pentagon, and establish the policies and 
procedures that are necessary to create a truly knowledge-based 
assessment of weapons programs.
  By doing our homework upfront, our armed services will be better able 
to prepare for the future, our warfighters will be better equipped, and 
we will be better stewards of the limited resources entrusted us by the 
taxpayers.
  It is our responsibility to ensure the warfighter receives the best 
weapon systems to perform their mission, while at the same time 
ensuring that the taxpayers get the most bang for their buck.
  The WASTE TKO Act addresses how we procure major weapon systems and 
provides much promise in resolving the enormous cost overruns that 
embarrass the government and infuriate the public.
  Our bill is a step in the right direction, but we all know there is 
much more to be done to refocus the acquisitions process on supporting 
the warfighter first.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing to work with you and 
Chairman McHugh and Rob Andrews and the members of the committee and 
Acquisition Reform Panel as we complete this important task.
  I want to thank our staff--both those of the committee and personal 
offices--who have done such great work on this bill. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. May I inquire as to the number of minutes I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9 minutes.
  Mr. SKELTON. Before I yield to the next speaker, I wish to add to 
what my colleagues on the other side have said. What outstanding work 
our staff has done on this legislation--complicated. And they glued it 
together and the jigsaw puzzle has an absolute clear picture as to 
acquisition reform. We hope to go from here to conference with the 
Senate with a successful outline.
  I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-
Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 
in support of the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing 
Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act of 2009. This legislation is an 
important first step in reforming the defense acquisitions process.
  We know that due to insufficient oversight, acquisition programs have 
continued to skyrocket in costs. The cost growth of weapons systems 
acquisition has been a huge drain on taxpayer dollars--with minimal 
growth estimates of at least $166 billion. A 20 percent improvement in 
these numbers could save the taxpayers up to $30 billion.
  This legislation ensures accuracy in performance assessments by 
designating an official to conduct performance assessments. In 
addition, it establishes additional annual reviews from oversight 
officials for problem contracts. These reviews, coupled with additional 
congressional oversight of the ailing programs, will help keep programs 
on track.
  Finally, this legislation creates a better system to track cost 
growth during early contract development. By the time system 
development begins, 75 percent of the costs are already in place. By 
regulating cost growth in the early development, we will have true cost 
estimates and we can seek alternative solutions if it's necessary.
  This legislation puts in place essential internal controls to the 
defense acquisition process. I will continue to advocate for fiscally 
responsible programs that provide optimal equipment for our Nation's 
military.
  I thank the chairman and all those who worked on this bill.
  Mr. McHUGH. At this time I'd be happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to our ranking member on the Air and Land Subcommittee, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT. I strongly encourage my colleagues to pass H.R. 2101, a 
much needed acquisition reform bill. This bill will help facilitate a 
strong national defense, while reining in out-of-control cost growth in 
the development of major weapons systems.
  This bill is a result of an intensive, cooperative, and collaborative 
bipartisan and bicameral effort to improve and modernize the 
procurement and acquisition process for our Armed Forces.
  I want to recognize in particular the efforts of Chairman Ike 
Skelton, Ranking Member John McHugh, and the members of the Defense 
Acquisition Reform Panel led by Chairman Robert Andrews and Ranking 
Member Mike Conaway.
  Additionally, I would like to thank the unusually talented staff for 
their tireless work and contributions to this legislation.
  H.R. 2101 is a much needed response to help minimize cost overruns 
and increase oversight and transparency in the way the Defense 
Department buys big-ticket weapons programs. I'm confident this 
legislation will provide a positive step forward for our military that 
will save taxpayers billions of dollars.
  Moreover, this piece of legislation strategically addresses many of 
the issues I have long raised as concerns, including requirements 
creep, delivery delays, overly optimistic cost estimates, and the need 
for an independent broker to advise the military and Congress.
  Two weeks ago during our HASC full committee hearing on Reform of 
Major Weapons Systems Acquisition, I posed a question before our 
distinguished panel of experienced acquisition experts regarding how 
they would weigh the causes of program cost overruns.
  I asked them to record percentages based on what I called 
requirements creep, intentional underbidding, and, three, optimistic or 
incompetent cost estimating.
  In short, what I took away from our expert panelists' answers was 
that fixing a broken defense acquisition system heavily lies with the 
requirements

[[Page H5528]]

process. I believe H.R. 2101 will help define requirements better 
upfront and establish a managed process for our military and defense 
contractors.
  This bill will also address cost and schedule delays on programs 
early on. This bill will force the DOD to assess alternatives as soon 
as any major program starts going off track. Currently, this assessment 
is not required unless the program incurs a Nunn-McCurdy breach, which 
usually doesn't happen until a program is close to production.
  Nunn-McCurdy has been a useful tool. It requires notification of 
Congress for programs that exceed cost estimates by 15 percent and 
termination of programs that exceed cost estimates by 25 percent unless 
certified by the Secretary of Defense that it's in our national 
security interest. H.R. 2101 provides tools and teeth to better manage 
and control costs of major programs from the very beginning.
  Additionally, this bill elevates the importance and role of the 
independent cost estimator. This person gets to select the confidence 
level that all cost estimates will be developed to and also gets to 
develop his or her own cost estimate.
  Further, the individual has to concur with the choice of the cost 
estimate made by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 
Technology and Logistics, AT&L, in creating a baseline budget for the 
program.
  Lastly, I have been a longtime advocate of independent ``brokers'' to 
advise our talented military and the Congress. Under this bill, 
independent officials would be hired to assess defense acquisition 
performance. The idea would be that this individual does not report to 
the services or to AT&L. They would report to the Secretary and to 
Congress about whether the taxpayers are really getting value for their 
money under a program, or if there are other alternatives or 
requirement trades we should make.
  This bill is very similar but not identical to legislation already 
passed by the Senate, S. 545, under the leadership of Senators Carl 
Levin and John McCain. There are some differences between the House and 
Senate bills. There is unified, bipartisan support for this House bill, 
H.R. 2101.
  It was approved unanimously, and I encourage my colleagues to ratify 
the recommendations of the House Armed Services Committee with the 
strongest show of support for this bill as we go forward in conference 
with the other body.
  In conclusion, I believe H.R. 2101 is a long overdue piece of 
legislation that will greatly benefit the honorable men and women who 
volunteer to serve in our Armed Forces.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil).
  Mr. KRATOVIL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2101 because it 
will save taxpayers billions of dollars while maintaining a strong 
national defense through improved oversight of the acquisition of major 
weapons systems.
  Cost overruns, schedule slips, and performance shortfalls have 
plagued large weapon system acquisition programs since World War II. 
Current major defense acquisition programs continue to experience these 
problems despite mandates from Congress and the Department of Defense. 
This legislation is an essential step to getting back our financial 
house in order.
  As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I recognize that 
we must continue to provide a strong national defense. However, 
taxpayers deserve a smart national defense as well--especially at a 
time when they are being compelled to tighten their belts and make 
difficult financial decisions about how to reduce their own personal 
experiences expenses.
  In light of current economic conditions and the sacrifices by average 
Americans across the country, Congress and the Department of Defense 
must also make a real effort to establish the necessary financial 
discipline, accountability, and oversight of major defense acquisition 
programs.
  The GAO found that as of 2009, the Department of Defense had at least 
$166 billion of cost growth on 96 major weapons systems. A 20 percent 
improvement could save the taxpayer as much as $30 billion.
  The WASTE TKO Act seeks to cut the cost growth in major defense 
acquisition programs in three major ways. First, it requires the 
Secretary of Defense to designate an official expert on cost 
estimation, systems engineering, and performance assessment. This new 
internal oversight function will provide us with independent 
assessments of acquisition programs.
  Second, the bill creates an ``intensive care unit'' for sick 
programs. Programs that are not meeting the standards for system 
deployment or that have had critical Nunn-McCurdy cost breaches will 
get additional scrutiny.
  Finally, it increases oversight of programs in the early stages of 
acquisition. It requires the DOD to set up a new system to track the 
cost growth and schedule changes that happen prior to milestone B--the 
decision point where system development begins.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. KRATOVIL. This Congress needs to control spending across the 
board--and this bill is a necessary step in the area of major defense 
acquisition programs. I strongly support H.R. 2101, and urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. McHUGH. At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to a very able 
member of the Acquisition Reform panel and a proud veteran of our 
United States military, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. I rise in support of H.R. 2101. This 
legislation respects the needs of those who serve in defense of our 
freedom, as well as the taxpayers who are asked to burden the cost.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a combat veteran, with service in both the United 
States Army and the United States Marine Corps. One aspect of this 
legislation that is extremely important to me is a provision that 
formally requires the input of our combatant commanders on the 
acquisition decisions for weapon systems and equipment.

                              {time}  1600

  This will require the views of the end users that are deployed 
soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen in making their voices heard so 
that they can better perform their missions at the least cost in lives.
  Madam Speaker, I stand before you today to express my strong support 
for this important piece of legislation. As a Member of the House Armed 
Services Committee, and a new Member of Congress, I was honored to be 
appointed to the Acquisition Reform Panel.
  As an active participant on the panel, I appreciate this opportunity 
to help ``fix'' an obviously flawed defense acquisition system. My 
emphasis on the Panel has been how to achieve the best use of taxpayer 
dollars to provide the right equipment, at the right time for our 
Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
  As a combat veteran with two tours in Iraq, I realize from personal 
experience just how critical a well-functioning acquisition system is 
to our nation's servicemembers--especially our warfighters in the 
field.
  We must always fully take the ``end user'' into account whenever we 
address the acquisition process and to this end, I was pleased my 
amendment giving the Combatant Commanders (COCOMs) a more defined role 
and input into the process was included. This bill institutes a much 
needed level of focus and precision regarding the input sought from 
Combatant Commanders to best inform the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council as to whether a new program is truly needed and what its 
fungible benefit will be in the current and future battlefield. Such 
precise input aims to prevent the DOD from going down the road of 
spending billions of dollars on unnecessary programs of no real value 
to the warfighter.
  Our legislation addresses acquisition organization, oversight of cost 
estimation, performance assessment, and weapons acquisition oversight, 
and fully takes into account the current problems within the Department 
of Defense Acquisition process.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this well-crafted and 
critical piece of legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and 
colleague, a member of the Armed Services Committee's special oversight 
panel on defense acquisition reform, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Ellsworth).
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for giving me this 
time.
  We hear a lot about waste, fraud and abuse in Federal Government, and 
this bill that I support, H.R. 2101, answers

[[Page H5529]]

just that. I think it is critically important legislation to reform the 
Pentagon's major weapons acquisitions systems.
  By now we have all heard the alarming reports from the GAO, the 
statistics that show that 96 of the Department of Defense's major 
weapons systems experienced $296 billion in cost growth and an average 
of 22 months' delay in delivering these weapons to our warfighters. At 
a time when so much has been asked of the American taxpayer, we can do 
better, and we must do better. Runaway cost growth for many of these 
major weapons systems threatens other vital defense priorities at a 
time when our men and women in uniform are involved in active combat 
both in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McHugh and my colleagues on the 
House Armed Services Committee recognize the Pentagon's acquisition 
process is on an unsustainable path. The most important element to this 
legislation, in my view, is the strict oversight and accountability 
applied to the early development stage of major weapons acquisitions.
  This legislation requires the Department of Defense to track cost 
growth and schedule changes that happen prior to milestone B, the point 
in the process when the systems and development start. This is critical 
because 75 percent of the systems costs are locked in as systems emerge 
from the development stage.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 2101 represents a strong bipartisan approach to 
reforming major weapons systems acquisition. But it is only a start. As 
a member of the Armed Services Committee's Defense Acquisition Panel, I 
will continue to work with Chairman Rob Andrews and Ranking Member Mike 
Conaway to review where action is needed to ensure greater return on 
our investment.
  Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), a 6-year member of the 
Navy and a military family physician.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McHugh and also 
Chairman Skelton. I rise to speak about and to support H.R. 2101.
  We must continue providing a strong national defense while reining in 
out-of-control cost growth in the development of major weapons systems. 
Taxpayers deserve to get the most bang for their buck, especially when 
national security matters are involved. Cost overruns in major defense 
weapons systems are a huge drain on the defense budget.
  This bill accomplishes this in three ways, number one, by ensuring 
accuracy of information for performance assessment; number two, 
providing intensive care to sick programs, sometimes they need just a 
little nudge to get back on track; and, number three, tracking cost 
growth in the early stages of development. By the time a program 
reaches milestone B, 75 percent of its costs are already locked in. 
Currently, there is no process to review alternative solutions when 
cost or schedule growth occurs during this period.
  Now, there is a companion bill in the Senate we have already 
discussed, the Levin-McCain legislation. And members on the House Armed 
Services Committee share the concerns addressed in the Senate bill. By 
comparison, about 25 percent of the two bills are the same, about 50 
percent of the provisions are overlapping, and about 25 percent of our 
solutions on the House side are in addition. H.R. 2101 takes a 
different approach from the Levin-McCain legislation bill in how it 
addresses issues of systems engineering and other matters.
  In summary, Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2101, and I ask that my 
fellow Members support it as well.
  Mr. McHUGH. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHUGH. Madam Speaker, I would yield myself the balance of our 
time.
  Madam Speaker, as you have heard here today through very eloquent and 
insightful comments of Members on both sides of the aisle, this is a 
piece of legislation that we believe very strongly deserves the full 
and enthusiastic support of every Member of this House. And I want to 
close how I opened, and that is a word of thanks to our distinguished 
chairman and to the Chair and ranking member of our special panel, 
Messrs. Conaway and Andrews for their great efforts. And I know today 
that the House will take an important step forward in both serving our 
men and women in uniform better through acquisition reform and equally 
serving the interests of the United States taxpayer.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. I wish to mention, Madam Speaker, that this is landmark 
legislation. It will go a long, long way in making sure we get the best 
weapons systems possible for our men and women who wear the uniform, 
and also more in budget, and it is extremely important. A special 
thanks to Mr. McHugh, to the panel, Mr. Andrews and Mr. Conaway. A 
special thanks to the staff members, Andrew Hunter, especially, and 
Erin Conaton. And we urge a solid vote on this piece of legislation.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise to urge passage of the Weapons 
Acquisition Systems Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and 
Oversight Act of 2009, or the WASTE TKO Act. I want to thank Chairman 
Skelton for his leadership in addressing this critical issue and 
bringing this bill to the floor so quickly and with such strong 
support.
  In today's world, we face a difficult balance between keeping our 
Nation safe and operating within the fiscal constraints of our current 
economic climate. Cost overruns in major defense programs are a drain 
on our limited resources and jeopardize our national security. As of 
2009 the Government Accountability Office found $296 billion in cost 
growth across 96 major weapons systems. We must ensure that money we 
use to protect our Nation is used wisely and efficiently so that 
taxpayer dollars get the most bang for their buck.
  The WASTE TKO Act helps tackle cost growth through ensuring accurate 
performance assessments, providing intensive care to `sick' programs, 
and fighting cost growth in the early stages of development.
  Specifically, this bill will bring oversight to the muddled process 
of performance assessments by requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
designate a principal official to provide unbiased evaluations on the 
success of our acquisitions programs. The bill will also mandate 
additional reviews for programs that fail to meet development 
requirements or have extreme cost growth problems. This gives Congress 
the power to get an honest assessment of a `sick' program's condition 
and decide whether it merits the risks of proceeding with development. 
Finally, the bill requires DOD to track cost growth and scheduling 
changes that take place before the program reaches milestone B, where 
75% of its costs are already locked in place. This allows Congress to 
review alternative solutions to fight cost growth before it becomes a 
permanent drain on a program.
  When cost overruns and schedule delays continue to haunt a program, 
it threatens the ability to provide our men and women in uniform with 
the best equipment possible to protect our Nation. This bill goes a 
long way towards increasing effective Congressional oversight and will 
help us continue to be responsible stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this much-needed 
legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 2101, 
a bill to address waste, fraud and abuse in the government's 
procurement process. This bipartisan measure is an important step in 
the Congressional effort to increase oversight of DoD's procurement 
process and to limit overall defense cost growth.
  For years the American people have watched with frustration as 
exploding contract and procurement costs drive up the cost of 
government. We all remember the $200 toilet seat. This bill is an 
attempt to get such cost overruns and bloat under control at the 
largest agency in the federal government--the DoD.
  The Weapons Acquisition System Reform Act will help fight abuse in 
defense contracting and procurement by establishing a principal 
acquisitions adviser who will monitor costs, oversee performance 
assessments and track cost growth for major DoD programs at the 
beginning of the decision making process, before the final go ahead is 
given.
  The President has proposed a broad and ambitious agenda that will 
require all us to help identify ways to save money and bring down the 
costs of government. This bill is an important step in that direction.
  Mr. SKELTON. With that, I yield back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) that the House

[[Page H5530]]

suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 432.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________