[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 28, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2952-H2954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5013, IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT FOR
PERFORMANCE AND RELATED REFORMS TO OBTAIN VALUE IN EVERY ACQUISITION
ACT OF 2010
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1300 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1300
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5013) to amend title 10, United States Code,
to provide for performance management of the defense
acquisition system, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question. All
points of order against such amendments are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. The Chair may entertain a motion that the
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee
on Armed Services or his designee. The Chair may not
entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the
bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr.
Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate
only.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to
insert extraneous materials into the Congressional Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. The
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It makes in
order the committee amendment as an original bill and provides that the
bill shall be considered as read.
The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment
except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in
order the 16 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report and
waives all points of order against those amendments except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.
The rule provides the Chair may entertain a motion that the committee
rise only if offered by the Chair of the Committee on Armed Services or
a designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the
enacting words of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, over the years we have watched as countless stories
revealed flaws in the military's procurement operation. Disappointment
with the way the Department of Defense manages the money we appropriate
it reflects poorly not just on the Pentagon, but on Congress as well.
The $640 toilet seat is now the stuff of legend, but sadly it is often
just the tip of the iceberg.
In recent years, excesses stemming from the ill considered rush
towards privatization championed by the previous administration have
become increasingly common. The push to contract out nearly every part
of the military's mission has inevitably led to waste, fraud, and abuse
involving some of the biggest corporate names in this country. Sadly, I
believe that many years from now historians will associate a
significant part of the war in Iraq with wasteful and poorly managed
contracts that made private companies millions of dollars, billions of
dollars, actually, often at the expense of our own men and women in
uniform and certainly of taxpayers.
Two years ago in Congress, I was here on the floor as the House
debated H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act. That, too,
was intended to save taxpayer money. Earlier in the 110th Congress, I
worked with my friend, Ms. Schakowsky, on H.R. 897, the Iraq and
Afghanistan Contractor Sunshine Act. I hesitate to say that those and
other efforts towards contracting reform have been unsuccessful.
Clearly, we have made significant reforms and part of our work in
Congress involves regular and diligent oversight. It is a never-ending
process.
For my part, one of my proudest efforts during my career in Congress
has been to force the Pentagon to acknowledge that some of the testing
done on body armor for troops during an early part of the war was
deeply flawed. My work on this issue grew out of a 2006 audit that I
read about in The New York Times that found that 80 percent of marines
who had died in Iraq of upper body wounds would have survived with the
proper body armor. I waited for other committees to take the lead, but
no one came to the floor.
We are still working on this issue, but we have come a very long way.
Major changes have been made in testing labs, some of them taken back
into the Army rather than contracted out, which in this case did not
work. Thankfully, however, the work did accomplish one thing: the
military agreed to no more poorly managed deals for outside contractors
to test the body armor. All current and future body armor testing will
be conducted internally by the Department of Testing and Evaluation
within the DOD with strict standards to ensure our troops receive
nothing but the highest quality of body armor.
When it comes to the safety of our troops, which we send into battle,
it is foolish to put the bid out to the lowest-priced contractor.
But today we have moved into a new chapter of oversight and reform,
and I am happy to see it come. This morning we are bringing up an
important piece of legislation intended to help the Pentagon reform
inefficient procurement
[[Page H2953]]
operations. It's called the Implementing Management for Performance and
Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010,
otherwise known as the IMPROVE Act. This bill will help the Defense
Department immediately, once this is signed, to crack down on cost
overruns and lax oversight of contractors. Not only that, but the bill
should help reduce our dangerous reliance oftentimes on outside
companies to do so many varied functions on behalf of the military.
It is hard to overstate how important this bill is. My colleague, Mr.
Conaway of Texas, who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services
Committee Defense Acquisition Panel, offered the following testimonial
on how urgent the need is for contracting and acquisition reform. He
said: ``The Department of Defense is the largest agency in the Federal
Government, owning 86 percent of the government's assets, estimated at
$4.6 trillion. Over the last two decades, millions of dollars have been
spent by DOD in the quest to obtain auditable financial statements.''
Yet getting those numbers has proven elusive, if not at times
impossible. No more, Mr. Speaker, after this bill is signed.
This bill mandates that the Pentagon consider shifting work away from
contractors if they don't meet the cost goals. It will set up a new
system of cost objectives and schedules which DOD procurement officers
would have to follow. The bill says that by 2017 Pentagon agencies must
prepare records that can be audited and draft a new policy that
wouldn't reward those who don't meet requirements. These are simple,
sensible reforms that the American people can understand and
appreciate.
{time} 1130
No matter what anyone in Congress thinks of the ongoing wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, all of us know that the men and women who are
serving overseas rely on the equipment, and they deserve to know that
the funds for their equipment are not being squandered and that they
are given equipment of the highest quality.
Another bright note on this legislation is that, when it was approved
by the Armed Services Committee, the vote was 56-0. Such bipartisanship
is rare in the House these days, and I am happy to speak on a bill that
all of us can agree on. Although there is not currently any pending
movement on the bill in the Senate, it is my hope a decisive and strong
bipartisan vote today on this bill will spur the Senate into action.
Billions of taxpayer dollars and the trust of our troops depend on it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from New York for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the underlying bill we have
before us today is being brought forward under a structured rule,
adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the
Democrats have arbitrarily used since they have been in the majority.
Today, the Democrats in charge have rejected nine amendments offered
by their colleagues, and they have refused to allow these amendments to
be debated and for their colleagues' voices to be heard. Democrats have
chosen to stifle and control the debate today, presenting the Congress
with another structured rule, eliminating the ability of both the
Republicans and the Democrats to offer important amendments affecting
their constituents.
After promising to have the most honest and open Congress in history,
why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are the
Democrats in charge shutting off debate and silencing their colleagues
on both sides of the aisle? Are they afraid of debate? Are they
protecting their Members from tough votes?
Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in
charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow
their Representatives to offer their amendments on the floor of the
people's House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject
this structured rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to the gentlewoman that there were
26 amendments offered on this bill. Only one was a Republican
amendment. Ten amendments were not allowed, but the Republican
amendment was. We are not afraid of debate. We are not afraid of
discussion. As a matter of fact, I am somewhat taken aback by your
calling for a ``no'' vote on this rule given that this legislation
passed unanimously out of the committee.
I have no further requests for time, so I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I do realize that the bill passed out of committee
unanimously, and I am sure it is going to receive strong support on the
floor. Yet we know that providing protection for our Nation is one of
the few jobs specifically assigned to the Federal Government by the
U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the Federal Government is the only level of
government that can provide for the defense of this Nation. However,
based on the policies of this administration and the Democrats in
charge, who have slashed defense spending even in the midst of ongoing
terror threats, only to increase domestic spending and our national
debt, you would never know this was true.
I am very concerned about the backward spending priorities of this
administration and of the Democrats in charge. While the defense budget
proposed by the administration is flat, growing only by 1 percent last
year, automatic spending grew by $77 billion, or 5 percent. Military
spending represents less than one-fifth of the Federal budget and
approximately half of the average level of defense spending during the
Cold War as a percentage of our economy. Meanwhile, Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security, and the President's new health care takeover are on
course to consume the entire Federal budget, including defense.
According to the Heritage Foundation, under current projections, it is
expected that the Federal Government will spend more on interest
payments for the national debt than on defense by the year 2015, if not
sooner.
The Obama administration's recently released Nuclear Posture Review
and New START agreement will weaken national security, and it will make
our Nation less safe. It will cause the U.S. to fall dangerously behind
at a time when other countries are seeking to strengthen and to develop
their own nuclear weapons. The President seems to believe that the
power of New START's example will somehow encourage Iran and North
Korea to surrender their ambitions, but there is no evidence to believe
this is the case. Since the end of the Cold War, these countries have
only increased their attempts to gain nuclear weapons even as the U.S.
and Russia have been reducing their supplies.
What would do far more good is a loud and clear declaration that the
U.S. and Russia will stop Iran from gaining a nuclear military
capability by whatever means necessary. The NPR references existing
treaties that our enemies disregard and treaties that have yet to be
negotiated, which will take years of diplomatic effort to achieve but
will do little to make America more secure.
The threat to international nonproliferation is a nuclear Iran, not
the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons are an inevitable truth in
our modern-day world, so, unfortunately, they are essential to our
national survival. As long as they exist, we must have the world's most
effective nuclear arsenal and possess a missile defense system to
protect ourselves against any actor that employs nuclear weapons. This
is necessary in order to comply with the Constitution's requirements to
provide for our common defense.
The NPR signifies that the Obama administration plans to neglect this
responsibility. The administration's NPR provides many carrots but few
sticks. It commits the U.S. to unilateral disarmament while hoping that
this will give incentives to other nations to do the same, which it
will not. It leaves the U.S. with no deterrent against rogue nations,
such as North Korea and Iran, which continue to develop nuclear
arsenals and to assert they will use nuclear weapons if they so much as
feel threatened by the U.S.
A ``nuclear zero,'' which the Obama administration talks eloquently
about, cannot be achieved unilaterally or even bilaterally. It will
require many countries to make the strategic decision
[[Page H2954]]
that nuclear weapons are unnecessary for their security. Yet the rest
of the world, including our allies, friends and foes, see the
continuing value in nuclear weapons.
Winston Churchill once warned the U.S. to ``be careful, above all
things, not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure and more
than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.''
We are not even close to meeting Churchill's requirement, because we
have not yet found an alternative basis for preventing war. Weakening
our nuclear arsenal will stop us from being able to follow through on
our commitments to our allies. Many of our closest allies see U.S.
nuclear weapons as a large component of their security and the reason
they remain nonnuclear. Without the U.S. nuclear umbrella, they may
fear that they lack security and, thus, will develop their own
alternative nuclear deterrent capabilities.
As the late British nuclear expert, Sir Michael Quinlan, stated,
``Better a world with nuclear weapons but no major war than one with
major war but no nuclear weapons.''
Nuclear weapons have served our Nation as a primary deterrent and are
the reason we have not had a world war since their inception. Without
them, we will lose our ability to deter rogue nations from attacking us
or our allies. Thus, we will lose the ability to lead our world towards
peace.
Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Democrats in charge were outspoken
critics of the Bush administration's spending. However, it is clear
that these same Democrats either have very short memories or their
criticism was all for show because, since being in charge, they have
not only failed to improve our current economic situation but have
undeniably made it worse. While both Republicans and Democrats need to
work to hold the line on spending, it is only appropriate that the
Democrats in charge be reminded of their criticisms of deficit spending
under a Republican Congress, which their own spending under their
Democrat Congress now dwarfs.
In 2006, then-Minority Leader Pelosi stated, ``When Republicans spend
the Federal budget into the red, the U.S. Treasury borrows money from
foreign countries. Our national debt is a national security issue.
Countries that own our debt will not only be making our toys, our
clothes, and our computers, pretty soon, they will be making our
foreign policy.''
Actions speak louder than words. If only Speaker Pelosi still held
these beliefs today, maybe our fiscal situation would look quite
different.
Again in 2006, Minority Leader Pelosi is quoted as saying, ``If
something is important to you, figure out how to pay for it, but do not
make my children and grandchildren have to pay for it or anybody's
children or grandchildren have to pay for it. It is immoral for us to
heap these deficits on our children.''
How ironic, Mr. Speaker, to have had those words spoken by now
Speaker Pelosi.
In 2006, then-Minority Whip Hoyer told Republicans, ``You have voted
for budgets which have provided the largest deficits in our history.
You are in charge of the House; you are in charge of the Senate, and
you have the Presidency.''
I would tell the majority leader today to heed his own words and to
ask himself if his Democrat Congress is doing the right thing by the
American people, by our children, and by our grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on both 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.
____________________