[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 79 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H5898-H5901]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 454, WEAPON 
                 SYSTEM ACQUISITION REFORM ACT OF 2009

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 463

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 454) to improve the organization and procedures of 
     the Department of Defense for the acquisition of major weapon 
     systems, and for other purposes.   All points of order 
     against the conference report and against its consideration 
     are waived.   The conference report shall be considered as 
     read.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may postpone further consideration of 
     the conference report to such time as may be designated by 
     the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutierrez). The gentlewoman from Maine 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 463 provides for 
consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 454, the WASTE 
TKO Act of 2009.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the conference report to 
accompany S. 454, the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. 
Last week, the House took an important step toward sending this 
legislation to the President when it passed H.R. 2101, the WASTE TKO 
Act of 2009, as amended, by a vote of 428-0. I would like to thank my 
colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Skelton, 
Ranking Member McHugh, Representative Andrews, and Representative 
Conaway, for their tireless work on this bill.

[[Page H5899]]

  The conference report before us today includes three key provisions 
from H.R. 2101. First, it requires the Secretary of Defense to 
designate one official as the principal expert on performance 
assessment in acquisition.
  Second, the agreement mandates that weapons systems which are not 
meeting the standards set in statute or which have incurred critical 
Nunn-McCurdy breaches will receive additional reviews, along with 
increased oversight from Congress and the necessary corrective measures 
to ensure that these programs succeed.
  Lastly, the agreement requires the Department of Defense to develop a 
system for tracking cost growth and schedule changes before a weapons 
systems moves into the systems development phase.
  With these key provisions, the conference agreement includes the 
strengths, ideas, hard work, and spirit of both H.R. 2101 and S. 454. 
It is the culmination of the thoughtful and thorough efforts of the 
House and Senate Armed Services Committees, and it is a noteworthy 
example of what the Congress can accomplish with a focused bipartisan 
and bicameral effort.
  However, while I am proud of my colleagues, I am truly excited about 
what this legislation will accomplish on behalf of the American people. 
According to the GAO, the Department of Defense is the largest buying 
enterprise in the world. What this means is that the American taxpayer 
is truly invested, in every sense of the word, in the capability, 
efficiency, and accountability of the Department of Defense.
  In March 2009, the GAO identified $296 billion in cumulative cost 
growth on 96 major defense acquisition programs. Mr. Speaker, let me 
put this in perspective. We are spending more on cost overruns than the 
amount that we spend on salaries and health care for the entire 
American military for 2 full years.
  The GAO also found that these major weapons programs were behind 
schedule, on average, by 22 months.
  This is shocking and unacceptable to the American public, especially 
in such challenging economic times. We can do better than this. We can 
do better than $300 billion over budget and nearly 2 years behind 
schedule at a time when our Nation's resources are limited, our men and 
women in uniform are in harm's way, and our family budgets are being 
cut back to provide only the bare necessities.
  In my home State, Mainers have always lived with an ethic of hard 
work, a spirit of responsibility, and a determination to provide the 
best they can with what they have.
  This legislation was crafted in that very same spirit. By ensuring 
accurate assessments in the performance of a weapons systems and 
accurate assessments in its cost, a taxpayer can be certain that they 
are getting the best bang for their buck by providing ``intensive 
care'' for sick programs, and our soldiers can be assured that they 
receive the necessary capabilities and appropriate technology to defend 
our country and themselves. In short, this legislation keeps the 
taxpayer in mind and the men and women of the Armed Forces at heart.
  I look forward to completing the work on this bill.
  And I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation 
to my very good friend and new colleague from Maine for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by apologizing for being tardy 
as I came to the floor here. I was downstairs meeting with the very 
distinguished Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald 
George's colleague, Justice Ming Chin, and several other staff members 
about very important foster care programs, and so I appreciate the 
understanding of the House as I was making my way through the corridors 
and up here to the House floor.
  This is very important legislation that we are addressing today, Mr. 
Speaker. As was said in the testimony delivered by both the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, our friend from Lexington, Missouri, Mr. 
Skelton, and the very distinguished ranking member, Mr. McHugh, this 
really is Congress at its best. We share a strong commitment to our 
Nation's national security. I know that the President of the United 
States is delivering a speech at the Archives about the very great 
importance of national security and its relationship to the very 
important civil rights that the American people cherish and revere.
  I know that it is an ongoing challenge, but as we deal with the issue 
of national security and our Nation's Armed Services, it is important 
for us to do everything that we can to ensure that we have a cost-
effective national defense. When we are debating defense issues, Mr. 
Speaker, I regularly like to say the five most important words in the 
middle of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the 
common defense.'' And I point to those because when one thinks about 
virtually everything that the Federal Government does, most all of it 
could be handled either by family members and local communities, at the 
city level, at the county level, and at the State level. But there is 
one thing that cannot be handled by families, communities, cities, 
counties, or States, and that is the national security of the United 
States of America. That is solely a Federal responsibility. And that is 
why I believe when we look at what we as a Congress are doing, as the 
Federal legislature is doing, it seems to me that our responsibility is 
to do everything that we can to provide for the common defense as 
directed in the Preamble of the Constitution.
  As we do that, we have to recognize that there is a great deal of 
attention focused, Mr. Speaker, on the challenging economic times that 
we face. In fact, many people today are arguing, and we might have a 
tendency to say, that our number one priority is dealing with getting 
our economy back on track. And it is clearly what we are spending most 
of our time and effort discussing and debating as to which path we take 
to get our economy back on track. But we cannot forget that as 
important as it is for us to get our economy back on track, it comes in 
second to our national security. Some argue that if we spend too much 
money on national defense what is it that we would lose? We lose some 
money. If we spend too little on our national security, what is it that 
we lose? We lose this very precious experiment known as the United 
States of America.
  Today, as we look at the challenges that exist around the world, the 
fact is that unlike wars in the past--and I did a telephone town hall 
meeting last night and was discussing this with a number of my 
constituents, who pointed to the fact that we don't have adversaries 
who are wearing uniforms or represent a nation. As we continue to try 
to work in a bipartisan way to prosecute this war against radical 
extremism, we have conflicts today that are much different than those 
that we as a Nation had faced in the past. But we also, as I said, are 
facing extraordinarily difficult economic times.
  And that gets to the very point of this legislation. While we say we 
want a strong national defense, I always like to have that little 
caveat, ``cost effective.'' We want to make sure that we have a cost-
effective national defense. I'm looking at my colleague from New 
Jersey, my new colleague from Maine, and I don't know if they were 
here, I know my colleague from Maine wasn't here, I don't know if my 
colleague from New Jersey was here, but we had raging debates that took 
place in this institution over $600 hammers and items that people could 
clearly look at as being horrible examples of wasteful spending. And 
they were tangible items that they could see. I mean, $600 for a 
hammer, whatever it was, $800 for a toilet seat, those kind of things 
that came out in the news back then, they led to understandable outrage 
on the part of the American people, and it was reflected in this 
Congress. And so we tried to turn the corner, making sure that we had a 
more cost-effective national defense when it came to those issues.
  Again, I always say when you talk about smaller levels of spending, 
people can relate to them more. What we are here dealing with today are 
ways in which we can bring about reductions in spending for massive 
large weapons systems. That is what this is all about, putting into 
place a structure that will allow that to happen.

[[Page H5900]]

  That is why I am so pleased that Mr. McHugh was able to join with Mr. 
Skelton and our colleagues in the Senate as well, Senators Levin and 
McCain, and work very hard on this. They came together with a 
bipartisan recommendation. It was reported out of this House by a vote 
of 428-0. And I don't recall for sure, I think it must have been 
unanimous in the Senate as well. I don't know if they had a recorded 
vote over there. But I do remember the vote that we had here.
  So here we are today dealing with an area of complete agreement. I 
will say procedurally this conference report could have been passed 
without either of us taking the time of the Rules Committee or standing 
here. All I would have done, all my friend from Maine would do, as 
Rules Committee members, we wouldn't have done it, we would just have 
Mr. Skelton and Mr. McHugh stand up, and Mr. Skelton could propound a 
unanimous consent request that this conference report be adopted, and 
it would be adopted unanimously.
  So I will say procedurally, it is great to have a chance to stand 
here and talk to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I enjoy it probably more 
than they. But the fact is we don't need to be here doing this because 
there is agreement. But it is, I believe, important to focus on the 
fact that we have been able to work in a bipartisan way to do 
everything possible to bring about a more cost-effective national 
defense.
  And when you think about cost effectiveness, it means that resources 
will be able to be utilized for something that we all hold near and 
dear, and that is the men and women in uniform that are out there. I 
remember in debate we had last week one of the amendments that 
unfortunately was not made in order was an amendment by my colleague 
from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, who wanted to have an increase in 
compensation for our men and women in uniform. I strongly supported her 
right to offer that amendment, and I would have supported that 
amendment. I suspect my colleagues would have as well if we had had 
that amendment made in order.
  The fact that we are going to be able to save, and I asked Mr. 
Skelton and Mr. McHugh last night what they believe we would be able to 
save quantifiably with this, and numbers in excess of hundreds of 
billions of dollars were the kinds of numbers thrown out. And so I hope 
very much that we are able to do that and that those resources will be 
able to be used for a much greater purpose, and that is for our men and 
women in uniform who need the kind of continued support that we can 
give in this institution.
  So Mr. Speaker, I am strongly supportive of this legislation. I 
congratulate my Democratic and Republican colleagues for working 
together on this, and by virtue of that, I will be supportive of the 
standard conference report rule that we have here which will allow for 
1 hour of debate for the managers of the legislation, and then we will 
be able to proceed with something that is, I suspect, more 
controversial as we come back after the break.

                              {time}  1045

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I first want to say to my good 
friend and colleague from California, I, too, agree that it is nice to 
be on the floor talking about a wonderful bipartisan effort and having 
such agreement on an issue that is very important to the people of this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, at this moment, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Armed Services 
Committee who did considerable work on the issue we're talking about 
today and made it possible for us to bring it to the floor.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I 
thank my friend from California and all the members of the Rules 
Committee for their cooperation in bringing this conference report to 
the floor.
  We will later speak about the merits substantively on this 
legislation, but I do think my friend from California's remarks merit a 
comment because I think this is a victory for the institution as well. 
This is an institutional process that benefits us as an institution.
  There was a panel created by Chairman Skelton and Mr. McHugh that Mr. 
Conaway and I were fortunate enough to lead that helped generate this 
legislation. We had open hearings. It was followed by two full 
committee hearings that touched on the subject, followed by an open, 
full committee markup in the Armed Services Committee, followed by an 
opportunity on the floor under the suspension rules because it was not 
controversial for us to go forward, followed by very diligent work in 
the conference committee, for which we'd like to thank from the other 
body Chairman Levin and Senator McCain and their colleagues, followed 
by this floor debate.
  The media dwell on our situations where we disagree with each other, 
and disagreement is healthy in democracy. It's very important for us to 
highlight times when we agree with each other, when the process works 
as it should. This is one of those times, and I would like to thank and 
congratulate all Members of both bodies, particularly the Rules 
Committee, for facilitating this success here today.
  Thank you.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other requests for time. As 
I said, there's no controversy on this rule. It's something that could 
have been done. So I'll reserve the balance of my time and see if my 
colleague has any speakers.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I will reserve my time until the gentleman has 
closed. I have no other speakers.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I believe that this is the 
institution at its best. My friend from New Jersey has pointed out the 
work that he and Mr. Conaway did. I congratulate them for their 
tireless efforts in dealing with this, and I hope that we are able to 
save hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that can 
go for a much better purpose than the kind of waste that obviously has 
come forward in the past; but at the same time, it is of the utmost 
importance that we make sure that in so doing that we don't in any way 
take a retrograde step on the national security capabilities of the 
United States of America.
  And I believe passionately that as we look at these challenges that 
exist around the world, it is a very, very dangerous place, this 
planet, and we are the world's only complete superpower: militarily, 
economically, and geopolitically. And we are going through trying times 
here in the United States and around the world economically, and I know 
that the weakened economy could enhance the likelihood of greater 
military challenges ahead.
  And so as the work proceeds of these two entities that are being put 
into place at the Pentagon, I know that they will not in any way take 
steps that diminish our capability to defend the United States of 
America or our interests around the world.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from California 
has mentioned, we have some essential responsibilities as Members of 
Congress. Our constituents have charged us with several 
responsibilities. It would be impossible to list them all today, but I 
think it is essential to highlight three of those charges.
  Our constituents have charged Congress with keeping our country safe 
and secure, from both the threats of today and the threats of tomorrow. 
Our constituents have asked to stand up for and defend our men and 
women in uniform, just as our men and women in uniform have defended 
us. And our constituents have asked us to spend their tax dollars in a 
way that is prudent, productive, and responsible.
  Today, we take a step forward in living up to these responsibilities 
as the House considers the conference report for S. 454, the Weapon 
System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H5901]]



                          ____________________