[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 28, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2954-H2986]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT FOR PERFORMANCE AND RELATED REFORMS TO OBTAIN
VALUE IN EVERY ACQUISITION ACT OF 2010
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5013.
{time} 1148
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Kind in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 5013, which is known as the IMPROVE
Acquisition Act of 2010. For many years we've witnessed waste in the
Department of Defense's acquisition system spiral out of control,
placing a heavy burden both on the American taxpayers as well as our
men and women in uniform. Less frequently, but still far too often,
fraud and abuse have crept into the system, as sadly it happened
recently in Iraq. Our troops rely on the acquisition system to buy the
equipment they need to keep them safe on the battlefield as well as to
protect our country. And when that system breaks down, they suffer.
In recent years, I and many of my colleagues on the Armed Services
Committee have become increasingly concerned that this flawed defense
acquisition system was not responsive enough to today's mission needs,
not rigorous enough in protecting the tax dollars of millions of
families who are struggling financially, and not disciplined enough in
the acquisition of weapons systems for tomorrow's wars.
We took action. Mr. Chairman, last year we worked with the Senate to
enact legislation to reform weapons system acquisition, which covers
about 20 percent of all of the military acquisitions. However, weapon
systems make up only a small piece of our defense. That bill was a
great launching pad; however, we need to do more.
In the House, we continued the effort by creating a Panel on Defense
Acquisition Reform, ably led by Congressmen Rob Andrews and Mike
Conaway to carry out a comprehensive review of the current system and
to identify what steps we need to take to make this system work. The
panel could not have done a better job scrutinizing the defense
acquisition system. It deals with everything from paper clips to boots
to food, everything under the acquisition umbrella.
During the course of this past year, this panel held 14 hearings plus
two briefings on a broad range of issues dealing with the acquisition
system, unearthing everything from contract fraud to simple process
errors that led to billions of wasted dollars. They put together an
excellent report with suggestions to fix the system. And we are here
today, with the good will of the House, to pass legislation that will
enact those recommendations as outlined in the panel headed by Mr.
Andrews and Mr. Conaway.
This act will overhaul the defense acquisition system in many
respects. Basically, however, requiring the department to set clear
objectives for the defense acquisition system and manage performance in
achieving those objectives; requiring the department to introduce real
accountability into the requirements process, and create a requirements
process for the acquisition of services; strengthening and revitalizing
the acquisition workforce; requiring the department to develop
meaningful consequences for success or failure in financial management;
and strengthening the industrial base to enhance competition and gain
access to more innovative technology.
In other words, the legislation before us today would require the
Department of Defense to adopt the basic management practices that are
necessary for anything as complex as the acquisitions system to
function properly. These changes will make sure that the men and women
who are risking their lives to protect our country are getting
[[Page H2955]]
the proper equipment they need to do their jobs and to protect
themselves, and that they get it sooner. Additionally, we expect this
bill to prevent the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars over the next
5 years.
This is a bipartisan bill. I am very proud of that fact. It passed
our Armed Services Committee by a vote of 56-0. A great deal of credit
goes to Mr. Rob Andrews and Mr. Mike Conaway. And a special thanks to
my partner, Buck McKeon, the ranking member, the gentleman from
California.
I urge my colleagues to join us in sending the strongest possible
message to the men and women in uniform, as well as to the American
people, that we are serious about protecting the taxpayers' dollars and
making the acquisition system work more smoothly. It's really for them
as well as for our country.
Committee on Ways and Means,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 21, 2010.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Skelton: Thank you for working with the
Committee on Ways and Means (``Committee'') on H.R. 5013, the
``Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms
to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010.'' As you
know, section 403 of H.R. 5013 is of jurisdictional interest
to the Committee as it would require tax return information
to be supplied by the Internal Revenue Service (``IRS'').
Generally, tax return information is confidential. However,
Section 6103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code permits the
Secretary of the Treasury to disclose the tax return
information of a taxpayer to such person as the taxpayer
designates. The Committee continues to monitor the expanding
IRS workload and remains concerned about programs that
greatly increase the agency's workload outside of its core
mission. In calendar year 2009, the IRS made nearly 11,000
tax disclosures under section 6103(c). It is unknown how many
additional disclosures will be made under H.R. 5013. As such,
the Committee worked with the Armed Services Committee to
develop a provision that is administrable by the IRS. The
Committee remains committed to ensuring that any additional
responsibilities imposed on the IRS do not strain agency
resources and welcomes the opportunity to re-evaluate this
provision in the future.
As we have discussed, this exchange of letters will be
placed in the Committee Report on H.R. 5013 and inserted in
the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of this
legislation in the House. Thank you for the cooperative
spirit in which you have worked with the Committee regarding
this matter.
Sincerely,
Sander M. Levin,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 23, 2010.
Hon. Sander Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
5013, the Implementing Management for Performance and Related
Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010. I
agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not
to schedule a mark-up of this bill in the interest of
expediting consideration. I agree that by agreeing to waive
consideration of certain provisions of the bill, the
Committee on Ways and Means is not waiving its jurisdiction
over these matters.
This exchange of letters will be included in the committee
report of the bill and inserted in the Congressional Record
as part of consideration of the bill in the House. Thank you
for your cooperation as we work towards enactment of this
legislation.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 22, 2010.
Hon. Ike Skelton,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Skelton: I am writing about H.R. 5013, the
``Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms
to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010'', which the
Committee on Armed Services ordered reported on April 21,
2010.
I appreciate your efforts to consult with the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform regarding those provisions of
H.R. 5013 that fall within the Oversight Committee's
jurisdiction. These provisions involve the federal workforce
and federal acquisition policy.
In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 5013,
the Oversight Committee will not object to its consideration
in the House. I would, however, request your support for the
appointment of conferees from the Oversight Committee should
H.R. 5013 or a similar Senate bill be considered in
conference with the Senate. Moreover, this letter should not
be construed to prejudice the Oversight Committee's
jurisdictional interest or prerogatives in the subject matter
of H.R. 5013, or any other similar legislation.
I request that you include our exchange of letters on this
matter in the Congressional Record during consideration of
this legislation on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Edolphus Towns,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, April 23, 2010.
Hon. Edolphus Towns,
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding your
Committee's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 5013, the
Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms
to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010.
I appreciate your willingness to support expediting floor
consideration of this important legislation. I acknowledge
that H.R. 5013 contains provisions under the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. I
understand and agree that your willingness to waive further
consideration of the bill is without prejudice to your
Committee's jurisdictional interests in this or similar
legislation in the future. In the event of a House-Senate
conference on this or similar legislation is convened, I
would support your request for an appropriate number of
conferees.
I will include a copy of your letter and this response in
the Congressional Record in the debate on the bill. Thank you
for your cooperation as we work towards enactment of this
legislation.
Very truly yours,
Ike Skelton,
Chairman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today I rise in support of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of
2010. The very first thing I would like do is thank my partner across
the aisle, Chairman Ike Skelton. Chairman Skelton has shown
considerable leadership on this front, as well as the tone he has set
for our committee throughout this Congress. I want to commend him and
his staff for working so closely with us on this bipartisan bill.
Subcommittee Chairman Rob Andrews and Ranking Member Mike Conaway
deserve special recognition as well. I salute the HASC Defense
Acquisition Reform Panel that they have chaired for all of their hard
work. Under the leadership of Congressman Andrews and Congressman
Conaway, this panel and its seven members delved into the complex world
of defense acquisition. Over the last year, the panel held more than 20
events and supported the drafting and passage of the Weapons System
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. Late last month, based upon their
detailed study, the panel released its final report containing
recommendations for improvements to defense acquisition. On April 14, I
was proud to honor their efforts by cosponsoring H.R. 5013, a bill that
implements the panel's recommendations. Moreover, last week's unanimous
committee vote on the bill speaks loudly to the hard work that this
team put into their task.
Last year's Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act reformed the
organization and processes used by the Department of Defense to manage
major weapons programs, which account for approximately 20 percent of
the Pentagon's procurement spending. This year Congressmen Andrews and
Conaway tackled the other 80 percent. When you consider that over 50
percent of the Pentagon's procurement dollars are for services
contracts alone, the legislation we intend to introduce today has the
potential to effect major changes at the Department of Defense and save
taxpayer dollars.
I believe these reforms are just as important as those implemented by
last year's acquisition reform legislation. First, because they address
the remaining 80 percent of defense acquisition, but more notably
because true reform can only be accomplished by the men and women of
the acquisition workforce.
The bill provides tools to enhance the experience and structure of
this workforce. Our legislation will help the Department of Defense
design better ways to measure value within the defense acquisition
system, create a link between financial management and acquisition,
[[Page H2956]]
address the acquisition of services, information technology,
commodities, and commercial parts, and finally, foster a robust
domestic industrial base.
While we may not be able to guarantee a precise level of savings
associated with this bill, I will tell you why I think it's important
to pursue every avenue we can for savings. I personally believe we
should be spending more on our national security. But ultimately, we
have a responsibility to ensure that we spend the money we do have as
wisely as possible. Nobody argues that the Department of Defense faces
rising costs associated with military personnel and health care. When
you couple this reality with the fact that the DOD's operating costs
are migrating from supplemental spending measures into the base budget,
the future for the DOD's investment accounts looks bleak.
I am concerned that the department's ability to invest in technology
options for the future and to procure the equipment needed by our
warfighters will be curtailed. Therefore, anything we can do to save
money and invest that savings back into our top national security
priorities should be viewed as an imperative, not just as a good thing.
In closing, I want to give special acknowledgment to the dedicated
men and women of the defense acquisition workforce. They hold the key
to improving acquisition outcomes and implementing H.R. 5013 without
falling victim to bureaucracy. A significant challenge, but one for
which that department has our full support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1200
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, at this time let me pay tribute to members
of our committee. Buck McKeon, the ranking member, a gentleman of the
first order, is helping so very, very much to achieve end results in a
bipartisan manner. National security is an American challenge. It is
not a Democrat or a Republican challenge but one that is bipartisan.
And I certainly appreciate his efforts.
Rob Andrews, Mike Conaway, and all those on the panel, the bipartisan
panel, which made the recommendations for this legislation did so
unanimously. We had a full hearing, debating the issues that arise in
this bill, and it was passed out to this floor with a vote of 56-0. So
I want to say a special thanks to the members of the Armed Services
Committee, all the members, and especially the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) for his untiring efforts in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and my colleague, who is
also the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, for a bill designed to
increase efficiency, its formal title sure is long, but the acronym
gets straight to the point, just like the legislation itself.
Simply put, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act reduces waste, increases
efficiency, and encourages innovation in the defense marketplace. It
does this by creating a better accountability system, improving the
management of the acquisition workforce, and expanding and
strengthening the industrial base.
I routinely meet with small businesses in San Diego that have so much
to offer the defense world in the form of quality products and
efficient services. Yet it has been frustrating to hear from these very
capable and resourceful companies that they continually run into
barriers.
One example is the negative impact contract bundling has on our
industrial base. Contract bundling is when multiple requirements are
combined into a single contract. While in theory this practice
generates savings and speeds up the procurement cycle, it often forces
out small businesses that can't compete for large contracts. Especially
now, at the brink of economic recovery, our government needs to help
bring more businesses into the DOD procurement system, not push them
out.
So that's why I am so pleased that the amendment I offered in
committee to reduce contract bundling is included in this bipartisan
bill, because smaller firms are hurt when only a select number of
companies are able to bid for DOD projects, and I also must say, so is
the American taxpayer hurt by that.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the IMPROVE Act will help small businesses
and transform the defense acquisition process into a system the
American people can trust.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), a member of the
committee.
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand before you
today in strong support of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of
2010.
As a member of the House Armed Services Defense Acquisition Reform
Panel, I commend Chairman Rob Andrews and Ranking Member Mike Conaway
for their leadership over the past year as we delved into the complex
world of defense acquisition.
Recently, based on our panel's detailed study, we released our final
report containing recommendations for improvements to defense
acquisition. Today's legislation implements our Defense Acquisition
Reform Panel's recommendation, and I am proud to cosponsor this very
important bill. As a result of the panel's efforts, this legislation
reforms the remaining 80 percent of the defense acquisition system not
addressed by last year's Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act. These
measures will potentially save billions of taxpayer dollars.
The primary focus of the bill is to reform defense spending by
identifying cost-saving techniques at the earliest stages of
development. Our goal is to decrease cost overruns exponentially before
they spiral out of control.
I am pleased that many of my acquisition reform priorities are
included in H.R. 5013. There is no doubt that there is a great need for
enhanced accountability within the defense acquisition system.
Maintaining our Nation's defense industrial base is paramount.
Recruiting, training, and retaining a professional and experienced
acquisition workforce within the Department of Defense is crucial to
ensuring the best use of taxpayer dollars in the most cost-effective
way. We must also reemphasize the need for program stability beginning
with realistic requirements and periodic reassessments.
The IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 will cut down on waste, fraud,
and abuse, potentially saving billions of tax dollars. It will also get
the right equipment to our warfighters sooner.
If Representative Gerry Connolly's amendment regarding the
establishment of an Industrial Base Council is adopted today, I
strongly urge that the council consider the issue of supply chain
vulnerability, especially with respect to rare earth metals.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this important
legislation.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me point out that this acquisition legislation is based upon a
complicated set of facts. You just don't go down to the local store and
buy the necessary equipment for the young men and young women in
uniform. Many of the issues deal with the production, with the
purchase, with the right sizing, and all of the intricacies and
technologies of today's high-level type of efforts.
So to explain all of this in much greater detail is the gentleman who
is the key sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman who chaired the
panel, and I compliment him on the excellent job that he and Mr.
Conaway and the other members of the panel did. So I yield at this time
5 minutes to my friend, the sponsor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my chairman and mentor and friend for yielding.
I want to begin by thanking Chairman Skelton and Mr. McKeon for their
guidance and leadership. The two of them have run the Armed Services
Committee as I believe Congress should run, on a factual, nonpartisan
basis, and I appreciate very much the leadership they have shown. I
also want to specifically thank Congressman Mike Conaway of Texas, who
is the senior Republican on the panel, who served
[[Page H2957]]
with tremendous diligence and fortitude and made a tremendous
contribution to this. I do want to thank some other people later in the
debate in detail, and I certainly will.
Here is what this bill is about: The Department of Defense, even
after you take away the purchase of aircraft carriers or fighter jets
or what have you, is spending almost $1 billion every day of the week,
every week of the year. Almost $1 billion. And sometimes the people who
run that system of buying everything from software to lawn mowing
services do a really good job. They provide value to the taxpayer and
great tools for our servicemembers. But that's not always the case.
A few years ago the Air Force went to buy a refrigeration unit to put
on a plane, and they paid $13,000 for the refrigeration unit. Less than
24 months later, they bought exactly the same refrigeration unit for
the same sort of plane and paid $32,000 for the same thing. I would not
want to go home, Mr. Chairman, to my spouse and explain to her I had
done that kind of cost overrun buying anything for our household, and I
don't want to have to explain that to the American taxpayer either.
A few years ago there was a contract let, or at least discussed, to
provide refined petroleum products to truck them from Kuwait up into
Iraq, and it was about a $220 million contract, and $201 million was
paid for and committed before the contract was even signed. This is a
$220 million contract where $201 million was paid out before there was
a written contract even signed. None of us, Mr. Chairman, would buy a
house that way or an automobile that way or have our kitchen remodeled
that way. Neither should the taxpayers here.
When the Department of Defense buys software or hardware, when it
buys information technology, from the time they think of what they need
to the time they actually start to use the technology, it typically
takes 81 months. Now, the way computer technologies work these days is
about every 18 months, computer power doubles, which means that every
36 months or so what was a cutting-edge product is now obsolete. This
would be the equivalent of using a phone that you used in 2003 as the
phone you use today.
The phone that most of us used in 2003 just made phone calls, and we
were happy that it did. Today the little machines that our children and
others carry around can record video, can upload and download video,
they can access the Internet, send text message, e-mails, act as a GPS.
Imagine using a 2003 phone in 2010. That's the equivalent of what we're
doing when it takes us 81 months to go from the idea of a piece of
technology to actually fielding it.
This bill changes that and it has a couple of key ideas. The first
key idea is that the people who are running these procurement
organizations should be held to very high standards in quality and cost
and time, and when they meet these high standards, they should be paid
for it. They should be compensated more for doing a good job and saving
money for the taxpayer. When they fail to do so, however, there should
be significant consequences, and there are.
Another idea in this bill is that if a system would work well for the
Marine Corps or the Air Force, then there ought to be one system, not
two or three or four. And yet another idea is before we buy services,
we ought to think about what we really need before we start spending
money.
The second very good idea comes from Mr. Conaway, an issue he has
pursued his entire time in the Congress, which is that every part of
the Defense Department should be auditable, meaning that auditors and
accountants ought to be able to look at the books and see if the money
is being spent on things it is supposed to be spent on, the way
virtually every business and organization in America is today.
The third idea of this bill is our workforce, that we not only
enlarge the number of people working in our purchasing organizations--
--
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moran of Virginia). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chair.
Not only do we want to increase the number of people working on
solving this problem, we want to increase the quality of their work. So
this bill provides for education and training. It provides for
diversification of our workforce. It provides for the use of the best
and the brightest to get the job done.
The final aspect of this bill is to induce and provide more
competition in the provision of goods and services to our Department of
Defense. You know, somewhere in America today, there are probably a
couple of people who are scientists on a college campus or who are
working in a tool and dye shop somewhere in the country who have a much
better solution to some problem than a person working for an immense
defense contractor. Now, if the immense defense contractor has the best
solution, that's what we ought to buy. But if the three people in the
college lab or the five people in the tool and dye shop have a better
idea, we need to get them into the competition so they can have their
idea heard, have their proposal heard, and if it's the best one for the
servicemembers and for the taxpayers, that's the one that ought to be
chosen. We refer to that as broadening and diversifying the industrial
base.
{time} 1215
I'm especially gratified, Mr. Chairman, that, by my count, 43 Members
of this body will have written a part of this legislation by the time
it reaches final vote later this afternoon. That includes the seven
members of the panel; it includes a number of members of the full
committee who offered amendments in the committee voting process; and
it will include a number of amendments that we will consider here
today. So just as we're trying to get the best and the brightest to
contribute to the process of buying a billion dollars a day worth of
items, we try to get the very best ideas of the Members of this body,
Democrat and Republican, on the committee and not on the committee.
So I'd like to conclude by again thanking Chairman Skelton, Ranking
Member McKeon, and Congressman Conaway for their work in making this
process work. I believe we have come up with a product that will do
very well by our servicemembers and do very well by our taxpayers as
well. I would urge careful consideration of the amendments as we go
through the afternoon, and I would obviously urge a ``yes'' vote from
both parties for final passage of the bill.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman who has served as the ranking member on the
panel, ranking member on the subcommittee that had jurisdiction in this
area, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. I rise today in support of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE
Acquisition Act of 2010. First, I want to thank Chairman Skelton and
Ranking Member McKeon for the trust and confidence they placed in the
Defense Acquisition Reform Panel. I want to give special thanks and
commendation to my good friend, Rob Andrews, for the hard work he did
in leading this effort. He led it very, very well. He proved once and
for all that we can start meetings on time and get our work done, even
if those meetings start at 8 a.m. in the morning. So I have enjoyed
this work with Rob. He and I may not agree on certain things, but in
this arena and most things on the Armed Services, we are in pretty good
agreement, and on this work, full agreement. I want to tell him thank
you very much for the good work and his commitment to making this thing
work.
The panel truly did approach its work on a nonpartisan basis. In
fact, if you were to read the transcript of the hearings and read the
questions without the names attached, you could not tell or distinguish
between a Republican question or a Democratic question. I think that
speaks volumes for the way most of the work on the Armed Services
Committee occurs and in particular the work of our panel. I was very
proud to be a part of that and to lend my efforts.
I also want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for
their generous praise for Rob and me, but I would be remiss if I don't
also acknowledge the other dedicated members of the panel: Jim Cooper,
Duncan
[[Page H2958]]
Hunter, Brad Ellsworth, Mike Coffman, and Joe Sestak. This bill, as Rob
said, bears many fingerprints, but the seven of us have the most
fingerprints on it. And I want to thank my colleagues for work they
have done.
I also want to thank the staff. They did an outstanding job, Andrew
Hunter and Jenness Simler, who made this work--they put this together
and did the heavy drafting--as well as the staff from my office, Serge
Morosoff, for the great job that they did in making this work product
come together as quickly as it did.
As ranking member of the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform, I can
attest that H.R. 5013 will truly be instrumental in reforming the full
range of the defense acquisition system. I believe this bill will
improve the way we measure value in acquisition, create a more
responsive requirements process, sustain the acquisition workforce, and
will manage certain elements of the acquisition system.
My colleague, Mr. Andrews, has talked at length about the reforms the
bill implements, but I would like to speak to one that's a little
dearer to my heart that's a little less obvious but no less important,
a provision that plays a critical role in improving the financial
management practices of the Department of Defense and provides
incentives to achieve an unqualified audit opinion for all of the
Department of Defense. The publication of a clean audit, an unqualified
audit of DOD would finally give the American people the confidence that
their tax dollars are, in fact, being accounted for and spent wisely in
the defense of this great Nation.
Since 1990, there's been a requirement for the Federal Government to
publish audited financial statements, but the Federal Government is not
in compliance with that Federal law. A large share of the
responsibility for that circumstance rests with the Department of
Defense. The Department of Defense is the largest agency in the Federal
Government, owning about 68 percent of the government's assets,
estimated at $4.6 trillion.
Over the last two decades, money has been spent by the Department of
Defense in an unsuccessful quest to obtain auditable financial
statements. There have been good people working very hard on this issue
for a long, long time, and good people today in the Department of
Defense who are working hard at this issue. But we're not there yet. We
have got a lot of work to go. Quite frankly, we cannot allow these past
failures and past unsuccessful efforts to deter us from the heavy lift
that's ahead of us to get this job done.
I'm a CPA and I used to audit entities. And I'm fully aware how hard
this is; it is not an easy task. But it is possible and it's necessary
to implement the financial control systems necessary to generate
auditable financial statements. This bill ensures that DOD is no longer
held to a separate standard from the public business and the rest of
government.
The reliability of financial data is crucial to improve acquisition
outcomes. Without understanding where the money is being spent or
understanding what assets it owns, there will not be the proper
accountability for acquisition costs or new requirements. Perhaps every
dime is in fact being well spent. But we don't know that, the
Department of Defense doesn't know that, and the taxpayer doesn't know
that. Financial accountability must continue to be the high priority.
If correctly implemented, this legislation will allow American tax
dollars to be stretched further and will have a substantial impact on
waste, fraud, and abuse.
I applaud the panel and the House Armed Services Committee for
adopting these recommendations and encourage each of the components of
the Department of Defense to take full advantage of the incentives
provided in this bill to accelerate the auditability of the financial
statements of the Department of Defense. Again, I want to thank my
colleague, Rob Andrews, for the hard work he did in moving this forward
by his strength of will.
In closing, I look forward to the progress this legislation will
allow, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill later on
this afternoon.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chair, this bill has the potential to save $135
billion over 5 years. I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, someone who has made a career-long commitment to fiscal
discipline, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding. I thank Mr. Andrews for
his extraordinary work on making sure that our national defense is
strong and ready and that our troops are provided for as we put them in
harm's way. I thank him for his leadership. I also want to thank Mr.
McKeon for his leadership on the committee in helping to bring this
bill to the floor.
America faces a massive budget challenge, and it must be addressed.
The consequences of our dangerous budgetary situation are truly wide-
ranging. We all know where America's unsustainable path of debt leads.
Among other things, it leads to a dramatically diminished American role
in the world. History has seen time and time again great powers forced
into retreat by unbearable debt. Simply stated, they did not pay
attention to the bottom line.
Democrats take that lesson seriously, which is why we made fiscal
responsibility such a priority under President Obama. We passed the
PAYGO law, which ensures that Congress pays for what it buys. We passed
a health insurance reform bill that significantly cuts the deficit.
President Obama has proposed a budget that freezes non-security
discretionary spending, cuts the deficit by more than half by 2013, and
cuts it by more than $1 trillion over the next decade.
Americans need to know that every dollar in our budget is spent
wisely and that none of them go to waste. We talk a lot about waste,
fraud, and abuse. Administration after administration talk about it;
and then as soon as they leave, we talk again about waste, fraud, and
abuse. Whether it's a Republican administration or Democratic
administration, we all talk about it, and then we immediately talk
about it after the last administration has left. Americans need to know
that their dollars are being spent correctly. That's what this bill is
focused on. Defense acquisition reform is part of that work, because
defense spending accounts for nearly one-fifth of our Federal budget.
We took an important step last year when we passed and the President
signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act.
I see we have now been rejoined by the chairman of the committee, my
good friend, Ike Skelton. Chairman Skelton has been an extraordinary
chairman of that committee, and there is no person in the Congress who
has fought harder to make sure that the quality of life for our members
of our armed services is more attended to than Chairman Ike Skelton of
Missouri. I thank him for that.
But he also understands that we need to spend our defense dollars
smartly, without waste, and make sure that they are effective in
providing our warfighters with the tools that they need but make sure
that the dollars we spend to do that are done so effectively. Today, we
can go a step further than we went last year toward fiscally
responsible defense spending which still ensures that our troops can
accomplish their mission, which is our number one objective.
The IMPROVE Acquisition Act contains a number of important
provisions, Mr. Chair, to eliminate waste without compromising our
military effectiveness. While last year's acquisition reform went a
long way towards eliminating waste in major defense acquisition
programs, this bill recognizes that more than 50 percent of the Defense
Department's procurement budget goes towards service contracts. As a
result, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act requires rigorous accountability
and clear standards for DOD's acquisition of services. The public
expects no less and deserves no less in the care of their dollars. It
creates a better-trained and more professional acquisition workforce,
which ultimately, of course, saves us money, and it brings more
responsible financial management to the Defense Department.
As Chairman Skelton, who worked so hard on this bill, put it: ``This
legislation will require DOD to adopt the basic management practices
that are necessary for anything as complex as the acquisition system to
function properly.'' I congratulate Chairman
[[Page H2959]]
Skelton on those remarks and on his leadership. Those practices will
save taxpayers, as Mr. Andrews just said, billions and billions of
dollars, while getting our troops the equipment and services they
require sooner--and that we want them to have.
Our position in the world is dependent on the brave efforts and
sacrifice of our troops. But it also depends on our demonstrating more
responsibility here at home. Our long-term security rests, to a great
extent, on that challenge. We need a national conversation about
balancing our budget, and this bill is an important part of achieving
that larger goal. I am pleased that we bring it to the floor with
bipartisan support. I'm pleased that we will pass it with bipartisan
support. And I congratulate both the Chair, subcommittee Chair, and
ranking members for their leadership on this bill and urge my
colleagues to strongly support it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. At this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new
member of the committee who clearly understands the balance Mr. Hoyer
just spoke of between a strong national defense and fiscal
responsibility, my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr.
Heinrich).
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, there can be no dispute that our Nation's
warfighters deserve the most state-of-the-art equipment on the
battlefield. They risk their lives in defense of our Nation. In turn,
we must protect them with the most innovative technologies available.
However, far too often the Department of Defense's acquisition system
has been compromised by waste, abuse, and even fraud. I applaud the DOD
acquisition panel for working on this problem.
Last week, in the House Armed Services Committee, we unanimously
passed H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act, to put the panel's
recommendations into action. The IMPROVE Acquisition Act will bring
strategic financial management to the Department's acquisition system
and save taxpayers an estimated $135 billion over the next 5 years.
{time} 1230
This bill will ensure that our servicemembers have the most advanced
resources while making the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Our
men and women in uniform deserve no less, and I would urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. CONAWAY. One comment and then I will reserve, and that is that
some of the criticisms about the multitude of defense acquisition
reform studies and laws and bills that line the shelves of many offices
is that they haven't worked. This one, Mr. Chair, I would argue will
have a better chance of working with proper oversight by the Armed
Services Committee, which I know the chairman and the ranking member
are committed to, because the matrixes that are laid out for the
agencies to abide by are such that we can conduct proper oversight. We
will know that the programs have been put in place, and then we will
also be able to see that the Department of Defense is using them
properly to manage their business. So unlike previous efforts in this
regard, I think these improvements are subject to being properly
oversighted, if that's a proper word, by the Armed Services Committee,
and I know that we are committed to do that.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth), the author of a key provision
in this bill regarding tax cheats and defense contracts.
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman for
yielding the time.
I rise today in strong support of this critically important defense
acquisition reform legislation. Last year, Mr. Chair, Democrats and
Republicans in the House and Senate came together to pass bipartisan
major weapons system acquisition reform legislation. Last year's reform
effort aimed to reel in the cost overruns of approximately $300 billion
in major weapons systems. The bill we are considering today, the
IMPROVE Acquisition Act, serves as a worthy companion to the
acquisition reform overhaul by focusing on how the Department of
Defense procures approximately $200 billion a year in services.
The ideas included in this bill were realized through a year's worth
of hearings held by the Defense Acquisition Reform Panel. I was honored
to participate in the seven-member panel which was tasked by Chairman
Ike Skelton to conduct a comprehensive review of the defense
acquisition system. Thanks to the focused leadership of Chairman Rob
Andrews and Ranking Member Mike Conaway, the panel put forward final
recommendations that have guided us to this point. Today we will be
voting on a reform package that will strengthen the defense acquisition
workforce.
I would also like to thank Chairman Andrews for working with me to
include a commonsense contractor tax compliance provision in this bill.
This is an issue I've been working on for approximately 3 years, and I
will continue to do so until it's fully enacted. The provision is quite
simple. It requires companies seeking a defense contract to prove they
are in good standing with the Internal Revenue Service. To do this, a
company must certify they carry no serious delinquent tax debt. The
Department of Defense will not merely rely on their word. The company
must allow the Treasury Department to verify the certification. False
certification will be reported to a contractor's integrity database.
This is a practical and cost-effective way to ensure all companies
compete on an equal playing field and our tax dollars are being used
wisely.
Every year in April, Mr. Chair, Hoosiers play by the rules and pay
their taxes. They expect companies who do business with the Federal
Government to do the same. It's pretty simple: Bad actors don't just
cheat us, they cheat the government of tax revenue, and they also gain
an unfair advantage over businesses that are doing the right thing.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this provision. Vote for
the IMPROVE Acquisition Act.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), the gentlelady who
built on the work Mr. Ellsworth just talked about to make sure that
same standard applies to subcontractors.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I want to thank Chairman Skelton and everyone who
has worked on the IMPROVE Acquisition Act. This bill cleans up defense
acquisitions spending, saving taxpayers an estimated $27 billion a year
and expediting the process to get necessary equipment to our troops.
Accountability in the contracting process is critical to protect
taxpayer dollars. According to a Government Accountability Office
report, 63,000 Federal contractors had total tax debts of $7.7 billion
in 2007. These contractors profit through taxpayer dollars but refuse
to pay their own taxes. That is why I am pleased that section 403 of
this bill, based on my colleague Mr. Ellsworth's Contracting and Tax
Accountability Act, requires contractors to disclose seriously
delinquent tax debt.
The bill also includes my amendment to hold the first-tier
subcontractors accountable by adding a certification requirement to
ensure they, too, do not have unpaid taxes. Those who have incurred a
significant tax debt and have avoided paying it should not be eligible
for defense contracts. There is no reason for the government to pay
money through a contract to those who owe money to the government in
taxes.
Again, I would like to thank the chairman, ranking member, and
Defense Acquisition Panel for their hard work on this bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my
friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas),
who brought the expertise of a technical base in her district to the
deliberations on this bill.
Ms. TSONGAS. I thank my colleague Mr. Andrews, and I rise today in
support of the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. I applaud the efforts
of my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee and believe we
have made a real step forward in improving the acquisition process, a
process beset by issues such as cost overruns and ever-changing
requirements.
This is good legislation that reflects a bipartisan effort to combat
waste, increase efficiency, and get good value
[[Page H2960]]
for our taxpayer dollars. It builds on what we started last year when
we enacted a bill aimed at weapons systems acquisition reform. This
bill addresses systemwide problems that weren't impacted by that law.
I'm delighted to report, for example, that this bill requires better
communication with and stability for our industrial base. I also
applaud legislative mandates that require contracting for best value
and provisions that enhance the Defense Department's ability to control
costs while, most importantly, protecting our soldiers.
My thanks to the Acquisition Panel members and staff for their hard
work, careful study, and dedicated effort to the task at hand, and I
urge passage of this landmark legislation.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, we have no further speakers at this time,
and we will continue to reserve.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would like to do in
general debate is thank the staff and other Members and read their
names into the Record. With that, we would close general debate.
Mr. McKEON. We are willing to concur in the thanks to the staff and
to all those who have worked so hard. I encourage our colleagues to
vote in support of this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to begin by thanking
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their extraordinary
efforts. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Conaway in
thanking the other panel members--Mr. Cooper, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Sestak
on our side, and Mr. Coffman and Mr. Hunter on the Republican side. The
panel members all worked very hard on this, and we appreciate that.
We obviously want to extend our appreciation to the incredible
members of the staff of the committee and the panel. I want to thank
Andrew Hunter, who did a tremendous job on this; Cathy Garman, who
particularly worked very hard on the issues regarding labor relations;
Jenness Simler, who was an all-star on last year's bill and once again
proved her impeccable credentials; Zach Steacy; Jennifer Kohl; Paul
Arcangeli, who is our brand-new staff director; Bob Simmons; Kevin
Gates; Mary Kate Cunningham; Debra Wada; Megan Howard; Matt Bell, who
worked very tirelessly on this in my office, and I appreciate his
excellent efforts; Phil MacNaughton; and Lara Battles. And if there are
any others, I apologize for that, but there was extraordinary work.
Mr. Chairman, did you want to add anything during general debate?
Mr. SKELTON. No. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey. I have
nothing further to add, except that hopefully this bill will receive a
unanimous vote at a later moment.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your
leadership and hard work on defense acquisition and making sure that
our defense industrial base is working for the national defense and not
for profits.
However, there is a serious problem that minority, women and veteran
companies are not well represented in the contracting of defense
systems and these groups need to be made more of a priority.
The Department of Defense spends billions of taxpayer dollars each
year, but minority, women, and veteran-owned businesses are not getting
to participate. I often use my grandma's sweet potato pie as an
example. We all pay for the ingredients and we should all get a slice.
But they can't even get a sliver. These same big companies keep getting
all the contracts and make little effort to include smaller companies.
This is completely unacceptable.
The Defense Department doesn't need to look any further than the
Department of Transportation in seeking a model for including minority
participation. The DOT has a strong program for inclusion and I would
encourage the Department of Defense to ensure that they develop a
system that included minority, women, and veteran-owned businesses.
These are their tax dollars we are spending and they deserve to be at
the table.
I am pleased to see that Section 401 of the bill expands the
industrial base by identifying non-traditional suppliers and using
tools and resources available within the Federal Government and in the
private sector.
This legislation is a good vehicle to make sure that Congress and the
Department of Defense work to minimize discrimination and include all
companies in the defense of our nation.
Small and minority businesses are the backbone of our economy. We
need to make sure all companies have an opportunity to contribute to
our national defense.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Skelton and
Ranking Member McKeon for their efforts in crafting this important, bi-
partisan bill to reform the acquisition system of the Department of
Defense. I would also like to commend Congressmen Andrews and Conaway
for their leadership and for their many vital contributions to the
legislation.
Reports of waste, fraud and abuse in the DoD acquisition system have
been the source of great concern for Members of Congress for many
years. As a result, a congressional panel was established to carry out
a comprehensive review of the DoD acquisition system. Led by
Representatives Andrews and Conaway, this panel held more than a dozen
hearings exploring a broad range of issues within the acquisition
system. Their findings and recommendations resulted in a report that is
the basis of the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010.
The IMPROVE Act is designed to overhaul the entire defense
acquisition system. It requires DoD to introduce effective
accountability measures into its requirements process to create an
acquisition system with clear objectives and meaningful consequences
for success or failure. Not only will the bill encourage the
development and deployment of improved financial management techniques
within the DoD, it will also enhance competition and increase access to
more innovative technology.
As our Nation struggles through these difficult economic times, this
common sense initiative will both strengthen our defense and save money
for the taxpayer. I commend the members of House Armed Services
Committee for their efforts and encourage my colleagues to join me in
supporting this bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to thank the Members
for their cooperation and for your stewardship of this debate.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 5013
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Implementing Management for
Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every
Acquisition Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES.
In this Act, the term ``congressional defense committees''
has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(16) of
title 10, United States Code.
SEC. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definition of congressional defense committees.
Sec. 3. Table of contents.
TITLE I--DEFENSE ACQUISITION SYSTEM
Sec. 101. Performance management of the defense acquisition system.
Sec. 102. Meaningful consideration by Joint Requirements Oversight
Council of input from certain officials.
Sec. 103. Performance management for the Joint Capabilities Integration
and Development System.
Sec. 104. Requirements for the acquisition of services.
Sec. 105. Joint evaluation task forces.
Sec. 106. Review of defense acquisition guidance.
Sec. 107. Requirement to include references to services contracting
throughout the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Sec. 108. Procurement of military purpose nondevelopmental items.
TITLE II--DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
Sec. 201. Acquisition workforce excellence.
Sec. 202. Amendments to the acquisition workforce demonstration
project.
Sec. 203. Incentive programs for civilian and military personnel in the
acquisition workforce.
Sec. 204. Career development for civilian and military personnel in the
acquisition workforce.
Sec. 205. Recertification and training requirements.
Sec. 206. Information technology acquisition workforce.
Sec. 207. Definition of acquisition workforce.
Sec. 208. Defense Acquisition University curriculum review.
Sec. 209. Cost estimating internship and scholarship programs.
TITLE III--FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Sec. 301. Incentives for achieving auditability.
[[Page H2961]]
Sec. 302. Measures required after failure to achieve auditability.
Sec. 303. Review of obligation and expenditure thresholds.
TITLE IV--INDUSTRIAL BASE
Sec. 401. Expansion of the industrial base.
Sec. 402. Commercial pricing analysis.
Sec. 403. Contractor and grantee disclosure of delinquent Federal tax
debts.
Sec. 404. Independence of contract audits and business system reviews.
Sec. 405. Blue ribbon panel on eliminating barriers to contracting with
the Department of Defense.
Sec. 406. Inclusion of the providers of services and information
technology in the national technology and industrial
base.
TITLE I--DEFENSE ACQUISITION SYSTEM
SEC. 101. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OF THE DEFENSE ACQUISITION
SYSTEM.
(a) Performance Management of the Defense Acquisition
System.--
(1) In general.--Part IV of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after chapter 148 the following new
chapter:
``CHAPTER 149--PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT OF THE DEFENSE ACQUISITION SYSTEM
``Sec.
``2545. Performance assessment of the defense acquisition system.
``2546. Audits of performance assessment.
``2547. Use of performance assessments for managing performance.
``2548. Acquisition-related functions of the Chiefs of Staff of the
armed forces.
``Sec. 2545. Performance assessment of the defense
acquisition system
``(a) Performance Assessments Required.--(1) The Secretary
of Defense shall ensure that all elements of the defense
acquisition system are subject to regular performance
assessments--
``(A) to determine the extent to which such elements
deliver appropriate value to the Department of Defense; and
``(B) to enable senior officials of the Department of
Defense to manage the elements of the defense acquisition
system to maximize their value to the Department.
``(2) The performance of each element of the defense
acquisition system shall be assessed as needed, but not less
often than annually.
``(3) The Secretary shall ensure that the performance
assessments required by this subsection are appropriately
tailored to reflect the diverse nature of defense acquisition
so that the performance assessment of each element of the
defense acquisition system accurately reflects the work
performed by such element.
``(b) Systemwide Categories.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall establish categories of metrics for the defense
acquisition system, including, at a minimum, categories
relating to cost, quality, delivery, workforce, and policy
implementation that apply to all elements of the defense
acquisition system.
``(2) The Secretary of Defense shall issue guidance for
service acquisition executives within the Department of
Defense on the establishment of metrics, and goals and
standards relating to such metrics, within the categories
established by the Secretary under paragraph (1) to ensure
that there is sufficient uniformity in performance
assessments across the defense acquisition system so that
elements of the defense acquisition system can be
meaningfully compared.
``(c) Metrics, Goals, and Standards.--(1) Each service
acquisition executive of the Department of Defense shall
establish metrics to be used in the performance assessments
required by subsection (a) for each element of the defense
acquisition system for which such executive is responsible
within the categories established by the Secretary under
subsection (b). Such metrics shall be appropriately tailored
pursuant to subsection (a)(3) and may include measures of--
``(A) cost, quality, and delivery;
``(B) contractor performance;
``(C) excessive use of contract bundling and availability
of non-bundled contract vehicles;
``(D) workforce quality and program manager tenure (where
applicable);
``(E) the quality of market research;
``(F) appropriate use of integrated testing;
``(G) appropriate consideration of long-term sustainment;
and
``(H) appropriate acquisition of technical data and other
rights and assets necessary to support long-term sustainment.
``(2) Each service acquisition executive within the
Department of Defense shall establish goals and standards
(including, at a minimum, a threshold standard and an
objective goal) for each metric established under paragraph
(1) by the executive. In establishing the goals and standards
for an element of the defense acquisition system, a service
acquisition executive shall consult with the head of the
element to the maximum extent practicable, but the service
acquisition executive shall retain the final authority to
determine the goals and standards established. The service
acquisition executive shall update the goals and standards as
necessary and appropriate consistent with the guidance issued
under subsection (b)(2).
``(3) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics shall periodically review the
metrics, goals, and standards established by service
acquisition executives under this subsection to ensure that
they are consistent with the guidance issued under subsection
(b)(2).
``(d) Responsibility for Oversight and Direction of
Performance Assessments.--(1) Performance assessments
required by subsection (a) shall either be carried out by, or
shall be subject to the oversight of, the Director of the
Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis. The
authority and responsibility granted by this subsection is in
addition to any other authority or responsibility granted to
the Director of the Office of Performance Assessment and Root
Cause Analysis by the Secretary of Defense or by any other
provision of law. In the performance of duties pursuant to
this section, the Director of the Office of Performance
Assessment and Root Cause analysis shall coordinate with the
Deputy Chief Management Officer to ensure that performance
assessments carried out pursuant to this section are
consistent with the performance management initiatives of the
Department of Defense.
``(2) A performance assessment may be carried out by an
organization under the control of the service acquisition
executive of a military department if--
``(A) the assessment fulfills the requirements of
subsection (a);
``(B) the organization is approved to carry out the
assessment by the Director of the Office of Performance
Assessment and Root Cause Analysis; and
``(C) the assessment is subject to the oversight of the
Director of the Office of Performance Assessment and Root
Cause Analysis in accordance with paragraph (1).
``(e) Retention and Access to Records of Performance
Assessments Within the Military Departments and Defense
Agencies.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that
information from performance assessments of all elements of
the defense acquisition system are retained electronically
and that the Director of the Office of Performance Assessment
and Root Cause Analysis--
``(1) promptly receives the results of all performance
assessments conducted by an organization under the control of
the service acquisition executive of a military department;
and
``(2) has timely access to any records and data in the
Department of Defense (including the records and data of each
military department and Defense Agency and including
classified and proprietary information) that the Director
considers necessary to review in order to perform or oversee
performance assessments pursuant to this section.
``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `defense acquisition system' means the
acquisition workforce; the process by which the Department of
Defense manages the acquisition of goods and services,
including weapon systems, commodities, commercial and
military unique services, and information technology; and the
management structure for carrying out the acquisition
function within the Department of Defense.
``(2) The term `element of the defense acquisition system'
means an organization that operates within the defense
acquisition system and that focuses primarily on acquisition.
``(3) The term `metric' means a specific measure that
serves as a basis for comparison.
``(4) The term `threshold performance standard' means the
minimum acceptable level of performance in relation to a
metric.
``(5) The term `objective performance goal' means the most
desired level of performance in relation to a metric.
``(6) The term `Office of Performance Assessment and Root
Cause Analysis' means the office reporting to the senior
official designated by the Secretary of Defense under section
103(a) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-23, 10 U.S.C. 2430 note).
``Sec. 2546. Audits of performance assessment
``(a) Audits Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that the performance assessments of the defense
acquisition system required by section 2545 of this title are
subject to periodic audits to determine the accuracy,
reliability, and completeness of such assessments.
``(b) Standards and Approach.--In performing the audits
required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall ensure that
such audits--
``(1) comply with generally accepted government auditing
standards issued by the Comptroller General;
``(2) use a risk-based approach to audit planning; and
``(3) appropriately account for issues associated with
auditing assessments of activities occurring in a contingency
operation.
``Sec. 2547. Use of performance assessments for managing
performance
``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure
that the results of performance assessments are used in the
management of elements of the defense acquisition system
through direct linkages between the results of a performance
assessment and the following:
``(1) The size of the bonus pool available to the workforce
of an element of the defense acquisition system.
``(2) Rates of promotion in the workforce of an element of
the defense acquisition system.
``(3) Awards for acquisition excellence.
``(4) The scope of work assigned to an element of the
defense acquisition system.
``(b) Additional Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense
shall ensure that actions taken to manage the acquisition
workforce pursuant to subsection (a) are undertaken in
accordance with the requirements of subsections (c) and (d)
of section 1701a of this title.
``Sec. 2548. Acquisition-related functions of the Chiefs of
Staff of the armed forces
``(a) Assistance.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure,
notwithstanding section 3014(c)(1)(A), section 5014(c)(1)(A),
and section 8014(c)(1)(A) of this title, that the Chief of
Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief
of Staff of the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps assist the Secretary of the military department
concerned in the performance of the following acquisition-
related functions of such department:
``(1) The development of requirements relating to the
defense acquisition system.
[[Page H2962]]
``(2) The development of measures to control requirements
creep in the defense acquisition system.
``(3) The development of career paths in acquisition for
military personnel (as required by section 1722a of this
title).
``(4) The assignment and training of contracting officer
representatives when such representatives are required to be
members of the armed forces because of the nature of the
contract concerned.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `requirements creep' means the addition of
new technical or operational specifications after a
requirements document is approved.
``(2) The term `requirements document' means a document
produced in the requirements process that is provided for an
acquisition program to guide the subsequent development,
production, and testing of the program and that--
``(A) justifies the need for a materiel approach, or an
approach that is a combination of materiel and non-materiel,
to satisfy one or more specific capability gaps;
``(B) details the information necessary to develop an
increment of militarily useful, logistically supportable, and
technically mature capability, including key performance
parameters; or
``(C) identifies production attributes required for a
single increment of a program.''.
(2) Clerical amendments.--The table of chapters at the
beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and
at the beginning of part IV of such subtitle, are each
amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 148
the following new item:
``149. Performance Management of the Defense Acquisition Sys2545''.....
(b) Phased Implementation of Performance Assessments.--The
Secretary of Defense shall implement the requirements of
chapter 149 of title 10, United States Code, as added by
subsection (a), in a phased manner while guidance is issued,
and categories, metrics, goals, and standards are
established. Implementation shall begin with a cross section
of elements of the defense acquisition system representative
of the entire system and shall be completed for all elements
not later than two years after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 102. MEANINGFUL CONSIDERATION BY JOINT REQUIREMENTS
OVERSIGHT COUNCIL OF INPUT FROM CERTAIN
OFFICIALS.
(a) Advisors to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.--
(1) Additional civilian advisors.--Subsection (d)(1) of
section 181 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``The Under Secretary'' and all that follows through
``and expertise.'' and inserting the following: ``The
following officials of the Department of Defense shall serve
as advisors to the Council on matters within their authority
and expertise:
``(A) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics.
``(B) The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).
``(C) The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
``(D) The Director of Cost Assessment and Program
Evaluation.''.
(2) Role of combatant commanders as members of the jroc.--
Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of such section is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) when directed by the chairman, the commander of any
combatant command (or, as directed by that commander, the
deputy commander of that command) when matters related to the
area of responsibility or functions of that command will be
under consideration by the Council.''.
(b) Amendment Related to Report.--Paragraph (2) of section
105(c) of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009
(Public Law 111-23; 123 Stat. 1718) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Matters covered.--The report shall include, at a
minimum, an assessment of--
``(A) the extent to which the Council has effectively
sought, and the commanders of the combatant commands have
provided, meaningful input on proposed joint military
requirements;
``(B) the extent to which the Council has meaningfully
considered the input and expertise of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics in its
discussions;
``(C) the extent to which the Council has meaningfully
considered the input and expertise of the Director of Cost
Assessment and Program Evaluation in its discussions;
``(D) the quality and effectiveness of efforts to estimate
the level of resources needed to fulfill joint military
requirements; and
``(E) the extent to which the Council has considered trade-
offs among cost, schedule, and performance objectives.''.
SEC. 103. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT FOR THE JOINT CAPABILITIES
INTEGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM.
(a) Requirement for Program.--The Secretary of Defense
shall ensure that the Department of Defense develops and
implements a program to manage performance in establishing
joint military requirements pursuant to section 181 of title
10, United States Code.
(b) Leaders.--The Secretary of Defense shall designate an
officer identified or designated as a joint qualified officer
to serve as leader of a joint effort to develop the
performance management program required by subsection (a).
The Secretary shall also designate an officer from each Armed
Force to serve as leader of the effort within the Armed Force
concerned. Officers designated pursuant to this section shall
have the seniority and authority necessary to oversee and
direct all personnel engaged in establishing joint military
requirements within the Joint Staff or within the Armed Force
concerned.
(c) Matters Covered.--The program developed pursuant to
subsection (a) shall:
(1) Measure the following in relation to each joint
military requirement:
(A) The time a requirements document takes to receive
validation through the requirements process.
(B) The quality of cost information associated with the
requirement and the extent to which cost information was
considered during the requirements process.
(C) The extent to which the requirements process
established a meaningful level of priority for the
requirement.
(D) The extent to which the requirements process considered
trade-offs between cost, schedule, and performance
objectives.
(E) The quality of information on sustainment associated
with the requirement and the extent to which sustainment
information was considered during the requirements process.
(F) Such other matters as the Secretary shall determine
appropriate.
(2) Achieve, to the maximum extent practicable, the
following outcomes in the requirements process:
(A) Timeliness in delivering capability to the warfighter.
(B) Mechanisms for controlling requirements creep.
(C) Responsiveness to fact-of-life changes occurring after
the approval of a requirements document, including changes to
the threat environment, the emergence of new capabilities, or
changes in the resources estimated to procure or sustain a
capability.
(D) The development of the personnel skills, capacity, and
training needed for an effective and efficient requirements
process.
(E) Such other outcomes as the Secretary shall determine
appropriate.
(d) Implementation.--The program required by subsection (a)
shall be developed and initially implemented not later than
one year after the date of the enactment of this Act and
shall apply to requirements documents entering the
requirements process after the date of initial
implementation.
(e) Initial Report.--Not later than 90 days after the
initial implementation of the program required by subsection
(a), the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the steps taken to develop and
implement the performance management program for joint
military requirements. The report shall address the measures
specified in subsection (c)(1).
(f) Final Report.--Not later than four years after the
initial implementation of the program required by subsection
(a), the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the effectiveness of the program for
joint military requirements in achieving the outcomes
specified in subsection (c)(2).
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Requirements process.--The term ``requirements
process'' means the Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System (JCIDS) process or any successor to such
process established by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff to support the statutory responsibility of the Joint
Requirements Oversight Council in advising the Chairman and
the Secretary of Defense in identifying, assessing, and
validating joint military capability needs, with their
associated operational performance criteria, in order to
successfully execute missions.
(2) Requirements document.--The term ``requirements
document'' means a document produced in the requirements
process that is provided for an acquisition program to guide
the subsequent development, production, and testing of the
program and that--
(A) justifies the need for a materiel approach, or an
approach that is a combination of materiel and non-materiel,
to satisfy one or more specific capability gaps;
(B) details the information necessary to develop an
increment of militarily useful, logistically supportable, and
technically mature capability, including key performance
parameters; or
(C) identifies production attributes required for a single
increment of a program.
(3) Requirements creep.--The term ``requirements creep''
means the addition of new technical or operational
specifications after a requirements document is approved.
(h) Discretionary Implementation After 5 Years.--After the
date that is five years after the initial implementation of
the performance management program under this section, the
requirement to implement a program under this section shall
be at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.
SEC. 104. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF SERVICES.
(a) Process Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
ensure that each military department establishes a process
for identifying, assessing, and approving requirements for
the acquisition of services, and that commanders of unified
combatant commands and other officers identified or
designated as joint qualified officers have an opportunity to
participate in the process of each military department to
provide input on joint requirements for the acquisition of
services.
(b) Guidance and Plan Required.--The Chief of Staff of the
Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of
the Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps shall--
(1) issue and maintain guidance relating to each process
established under subsection (a); and
(2) develop a plan to implement each process established
under subsection (a).
[[Page H2963]]
(c) Matters Required in Guidance.--The guidance issued
under subsection (b) shall establish, in relation to a
process for identifying, assessing, and approving
requirements for the acquisition of services, the following:
(1) Organization of such process.
(2) The level of command responsibility required for
identifying and validating requirements for the acquisition
of services in accordance with the categories established
under section 2330(a)(1)(C) of title 10, United States Code.
(3) The composition of billets necessary to operate such
process.
(4) The training required for personnel engaged in such
process.
(5) The relationship between doctrine and such process.
(6) Methods of obtaining input on joint requirements for
the acquisition of services.
(7) Procedures for coordinating with the acquisition
process.
(8) Considerations relating to opportunities for strategic
sourcing.
(d) Matters Required in Implementation Plan.--Each plan
required under subsection (b) shall provide for initial
implementation of a process for identifying, assessing, and
approving requirements for the acquisition of services not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act and shall provide for full implementation of such process
at the earliest date practicable.
(e) Consistency With Joint Guidance.--Whenever, at any
time, guidance is issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff relating to requirements for the acquisition of
services, each process established under subsection (a) shall
be revised in accordance with such joint guidance.
(f) Definition.--The term ``requirements for the
acquisition of services'' means objectives to be achieved
through acquisitions primarily involving the procurement of
services.
SEC. 105. JOINT EVALUATION TASK FORCES.
(a) Task Forces Required.--For each joint military
requirement involving a materiel solution for which the
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council is the
validation authority, the Chairman shall designate a
commander of a unified combatant command to provide a joint
evaluation task force to participate in such materiel
solution. Such task force shall--
(1) come from a military unit or units designated by the
combatant commander concerned;
(2) be selected based on the relevance of such materiel
solution to the mission of the unit; and
(3) participate consistent with its operational
obligations.
(b) Responsibilities.--A task force provided pursuant to
subsection (a) shall, for the materiel solution concerned--
(1) provide input to the analysis of alternatives;
(2) participate in testing (including limited user tests
and prototype testing);
(3) provide input on a concept of operations and doctrine;
(4) provide end user feedback to the resource sponsor; and
(5) participate, through the combatant commander concerned,
in any alteration of the requirement for such solution.
(c) Administrative Support.--The resource sponsor for the
joint military requirement shall provide administrative
support to the joint evaluation task force for purposes of
carrying out this section.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Resource sponsor.--The term ``resource sponsor'' means
the organization responsible for all common documentation,
periodic reporting, and funding actions required to support
the capabilities development and acquisition process for the
materiel solution.
(2) Materiel solution.--The term ``materiel solution''
means the development, acquisition, procurement, or fielding
of a new item, or of a modification to an existing item,
necessary to equip, operate, maintain, and support military
activities.
SEC. 106. REVIEW OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION GUIDANCE.
(a) Review of Guidance.--The Secretary of Defense shall
review the acquisition guidance of the Department of Defense,
including, at a minimum, the guidance contained in Department
of Defense Instruction 5000.02 entitled ``Operation of the
Defense Acquisition System''.
(b) Matters Considered.--The review performed under
subsection (a) shall consider--
(1) the extent to which it is appropriate to apply guidance
relating to the acquisition of weapon systems to acquisitions
not involving weapon systems (including the acquisition of
commercial goods and commodities, commercial and military
unique services, and information technology);
(2) whether long-term sustainment of weapon systems is
appropriately emphasized;
(3) whether appropriate mechanisms exist to communicate
information relating to the mission needs of the Department
of Defense to the industrial base in a way that allows the
industrial base to make appropriate investments in
infrastructure, capacity, and technology development to help
meet such needs;
(4) the extent to which earned value management should be
required on acquisitions not involving the acquisition of
weapon systems and whether measures of quality and technical
performance should be included in any earned value management
system;
(5) the extent to which it is appropriate to apply
processes primarily relating to the acquisition of weapon
systems to the acquisition of information technology systems,
consistent with the requirement to develop an alternative
process for such systems contained in section 804 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2401; 10 U.S.C. 2225 note); and
(6) such other matters as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives a report detailing any changes in
the acquisition guidance of the Department of Defense
identified during the review required by subsection (a), and
any actions taken, or planned to be taken, to implement such
changes
SEC. 107. REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE REFERENCES TO SERVICES
CONTRACTING THROUGHOUT THE FEDERAL ACQUISITION
REGULATION.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The acquisition of services can be extremely complex,
and program management skills, tools, and processes need to
be applied to services acquisitions.
(2) An emphasis on the concept of ``services'' throughout
the Federal Acquisition Regulation would enhance and support
the procurement and project management community in all
aspects of the acquisition planning process, including
requirements development, assessment of reasonableness, and
post-award management and oversight.
(b) Requirement for Changes to FAR.--The Federal
Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to provide,
throughout the Regulation, appropriate references to services
contracting that are in addition to references provided in
part 37 (which relates specifically to services contracting).
(c) Deadline.--This section shall be carried out within 270
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 108. PROCUREMENT OF MILITARY PURPOSE NONDEVELOPMENTAL
ITEMS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Procurement of military purpose nondevelopmental
items.--Chapter 141 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 2410r. Military purpose nondevelopmental items
``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `military purpose nondevelopmental item'
means an item--
``(A) developed exclusively at private expense;
``(B) that meets a validated military requirement and for
which the United States has rights in technical data as
prescribed in section 2320(a)(2)(B) of this title, as
certified in writing by the responsible program manager;
``(C) for which delivery of an initial lot of production-
representative items may be made within nine months after
contract award; and
``(D) for which the unit cost is less than $10,000,000.
``(2) The term `item' has the meaning provided in section
2302(3) of this title.
``(b) Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure
that, with respect to a contract for the acquisition of a
military purpose nondevelopmental item, the following
requirements apply:
``(1) The contract shall be awarded using competitive
procedures in accordance with section 2304 of this title.
``(2) Certain contract clauses, as specified in regulations
prescribed under subsection (c), shall be included in each
such contract.
``(3) The type of contract used shall be a firm, fixed
price type contract.
``(c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations to carry out this section. Such
regulations shall be included in regulations of the
Department of Defense prescribed as part of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation. At a minimum, the regulations shall
include--
``(1) a list of contract clauses to be included in each
contract for the acquisition of a military purpose
nondevelopmental item;
``(2) definitions for the terms `developed' and
`exclusively at private expense' that--
``(A) are consistent with the definitions developed for
such terms in accordance with 2320(a)(3) of this title; and
``(B) also exclude an item developed in part or in whole
with--
``(i) foreign government funding; or
``(ii) foreign or Federal Government loan financing at
nonmarket rates; and
``(3) standards for evaluating the reasonableness of price
for the military purpose nondevelopmental item, in lieu of
certified cost or pricing data.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2410r. Military purpose nondevelopmental items.''.
(b) Cost or Pricing Data Exception.--Section 2306a(b)(1) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (B);
(2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) for the acquisition of a military purpose
nondevelopmental item, as defined in section 2410r of this
title, if the contracting officer determines in writing
that--
``(i) the contract, subcontract or modification will be a
firm, fixed price type contract; and
``(ii) the offeror has submitted sufficient information to
evaluate, through price analysis, the reasonableness of the
price for the military purpose nondevelopmental item.''.
(c) Effective Date.--Section 2410r of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (a), and the amendment
made by subsection (b), shall apply with respect to contracts
entered into after the date that is 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
[[Page H2964]]
TITLE II--DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
SEC. 201. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE EXCELLENCE.
(a) In General.--
(1) Acquisition workforce excellence.--Subchapter I of
chapter 87 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after section 1701 the following new section:
``Sec. 1701a. Management for acquisition workforce excellence
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this chapter is to require
the Department of Defense to develop and manage a highly
skilled professional acquisition workforce--
``(1) in which excellence and contribution to mission is
rewarded;
``(2) which has the technical expertise and business skills
to ensure the Department receives the best value for the
expenditure of public resources;
``(3) which serves as a model for performance management of
employees of the Department; and
``(4) which is managed in a manner that complements and
reinforces the performance management of the defense
acquisition system pursuant to chapter 149 of this title.
``(b) Performance Management.--In order to achieve the
purpose set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense
shall--
``(1) use the full authorities provided in subsections (a)
through (d) of section 9902 of title 5, including
flexibilities related to performance management and hiring
and to training of managers;
``(2) require managers to develop performance plans for
individual members of the acquisition workforce in order to
give members an understanding of how their performance
contributes to their organization's mission and the success
of the defense acquisition system (as defined in section 2545
of this title);
``(3) to the extent appropriate, use the lessons learned
from the acquisition demonstration project carried out under
section 1762 of this title related to contribution-based
compensation and appraisal, and how those lessons may be
applied within the General Schedule system;
``(4) develop attractive career paths;
``(5) encourage continuing education and training;
``(6) develop appropriate procedures for warnings during
performance evaluations and due process for members of the
acquisition workforce who consistently fail to meet
performance standards;
``(7) take full advantage of the Defense Civilian
Leadership Program established under section 1112 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010,
(Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2496; 10 U.S.C. 1580 note
prec.);
``(8) use the authorities for highly qualified experts
under section 9903 of title 5, to hire experts who are
skilled acquisition professionals to--
``(A) serve in leadership positions within the acquisition
workforce to strengthen management and oversight;
``(B) provide mentors to advise individuals within the
acquisition workforce on their career paths and opportunities
to advance and excel within the acquisition workforce; and
``(C) assist with the design of education and training
courses and the training of individuals in the acquisition
workforce; and
``(9) use the authorities for expedited security clearance
processing pursuant to section 1564 of this title.
``(c) Negotiations.--Any action taken by the Secretary
under this section, or to implement this section, shall be
subject to the requirements of chapter 71 of title 5.
``(d) Regulations.--Any rules or regulations prescribed
pursuant to this section shall be deemed an agency rule or
regulation under section 7117(a)(2) of title 5, and shall not
be deemed a Government-wide rule or regulation under section
7117(a)(1) of such title.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 1701 the following new item:
``1701a. Management for acquisition workforce excellence.''.
(b) Authority to Appoint Highly Qualified Experts on Part-
time Basis.--Section 9903(b)(1) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting ``, on a full-time or part-time
basis,'' after ``positions in the Department of Defense'' the
first place it appears.
SEC. 202. AMENDMENTS TO THE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.
(a) Codification Into Title 10.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 87 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1761 the
following new section:
``Sec. 1762. Demonstration project relating to certain
acquisition personnel management policies and procedures
``(a) Commencement.--The Secretary of Defense is encouraged
to carry out a demonstration project, the purpose of which is
to determine the feasibility or desirability of one or more
proposals for improving the personnel management policies or
procedures that apply with respect to the acquisition
workforce of the Department of Defense and supporting
personnel assigned to work directly with the acquisition
workforce.
``(b) Terms and Conditions.--(1) Except as otherwise
provided in this subsection, any demonstration project
described in subsection (a) shall be subject to section 4703
of title 5 and all other provisions of such title that apply
with respect to any demonstration project under such section.
``(2) Subject to paragraph (3), in applying section 4703 of
title 5 with respect to a demonstration project described in
subsection (a)--
``(A) `180 days' in subsection (b)(4) of such section shall
be deemed to read `120 days';
``(B) `90 days' in subsection (b)(6) of such section shall
be deemed to read `30 days'; and
``(C) subsection (d)(1) of such section shall be
disregarded.
``(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to a
demonstration project unless--
``(A) for each organization or team participating in the
demonstration project--
``(i) at least one-third of the workforce participating in
the demonstration project consists of members of the
acquisition workforce; and
``(ii) at least two-thirds of the workforce participating
in the demonstration project consists of members of the
acquisition workforce and supporting personnel assigned to
work directly with the acquisition workforce; and
``(B) the demonstration project commences before October 1,
2007.
``(c) Limitation on Number of Participants.--The total
number of persons who may participate in the demonstration
project under this section may not exceed 120,000.
``(d) Effect of Reorganizations.--The applicability of
paragraph (2) of subsection (b) to an organization or team
shall not terminate by reason that the organization or team,
after having satisfied the conditions in paragraph (3) of
such subsection when it began to participate in a
demonstration project under this section, ceases to meet one
or both of the conditions set forth in subparagraph (A) of
such paragraph (3) as a result of a reorganization,
restructuring, realignment, consolidation, or other
organizational change.
``(e) Assessment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
designate an independent organization to review the
acquisition workforce demonstration project described in
subsection (a).
``(2) Such assessment shall include:
``(A) A description of the workforce included in the
project.
``(B) An explanation of the flexibilities used in the
project to appoint individuals to the acquisition workforce
and whether those appointments are based on competitive
procedures and recognize veteran's preferences.
``(C) An explanation of the flexibilities used in the
project to develop a performance appraisal system that
recognizes excellence in performance and offers opportunities
for improvement.
``(D) The steps taken to ensure that such system is fair
and transparent for all employees in the project.
``(E) How the project allows the organization to better
meet mission needs.
``(F) An analysis of how the flexibilities in subparagraphs
(B) and (C) are used, and what barriers have been encountered
that inhibit their use.
``(G) Whether there is a process for (i) ensuring ongoing
performance feedback and dialogue among supervisors,
managers, and employees throughout the performance appraisal
period, and (ii) setting timetables for performance
appraisals.
``(H) The project's impact on career progression.
``(I) The project's appropriateness or inappropriateness in
light of the complexities of the workforce affected.
``(J) The project's sufficiency in terms of providing
protections for diversity in promotion and retention of
personnel.
``(K) The adequacy of the training, policy guidelines, and
other preparations afforded in connection with using the
project.
``(L) Whether there is a process for ensuring employee
involvement in the development and improvement of the
project.
``(3) The first such assessment under this subsection shall
be completed not later than September 30, 2011, and
subsequent assessments shall be completed every two years
thereafter until the termination of the project. The
Secretary shall submit to the covered congressional
committees a copy of the assessment within 30 days after
receipt by the Secretary of the assessment.
``(f) Covered Congressional Committees.--In this section,
the term `covered congressional committees' means--
``(1) the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives;
``(2) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate; and
``(3) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of
the House of Representatives.
``(g) Termination of Authority.--The authority to conduct a
demonstration program under this section shall terminate on
September 30, 2017.
``(h) Conversion.--Within six months after the authority to
conduct a demonstration project under this section is
terminated as provided in subsection (g), employees in the
project shall convert to the civilian personnel system
created pursuant to section 9902 of title 5.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter V of chapter 87 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 1761 the following new item:
``1762. Demonstration project relating to certain acquisition personnel
management policies and procedures.''.
(b) Conforming Repeal.--Section 4308 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law
104-106; 10 U.S.C. 1701 note) is repealed.
SEC. 203. INCENTIVE PROGRAMS FOR CIVILIAN AND MILITARY
PERSONNEL IN THE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 87 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1762, as added by
section 202, the following new section:
[[Page H2965]]
``Sec. 1763. Incentive programs for civilian and military
personnel in the acquisition workforce
``(a) Civilian Acquisition Workforce Incentives.--The
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, shall
provide for an enhanced system of incentives for the
encouragement of excellence in the acquisition workforce by
providing rewards for employees who contribute to achieving
the agency's performance goals. The system of incentives
shall include provisions that--
``(1) relate salary increases, bonuses, and awards to
performance and contribution to the agency mission (including
the extent to which the performance of personnel in such
workforce contributes to achieving the goals and standards
established for acquisition programs pursuant to section 2545
of this title;
``(2) provide for consideration, in personnel evaluations
and promotion decisions, of the extent to which the
performance of personnel in such workforce contributes to
achieving such goals and standards;
``(3) use the Department of Defense Civilian Workforce
Incentive Fund established pursuant to section 9902(a) of
title 5; and
``(4) provide opportunities for career broadening
experiences for high performers.
``(b) Military Acquisition Workforce Incentives.--The
Secretaries of the military departments shall fully use and
enhance incentive programs that reward individuals, through
recognition certificates or cash awards, for suggestions of
process improvements that contribute to improvements in
efficiency and economy and a better way of doing business.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter V of chapter 87 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 1762, as added by section 202, the following new
item:
``1763. Incentive programs for civilian and military personnel in the
acquisition workforce.''.
SEC. 204. CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR CIVILIAN AND MILITARY
PERSONNEL IN THE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.
(a) Career Paths.--
(1) Amendment.--Chapter 87 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by inserting after section 1722a the following new
section:
``Sec. 1722b. Special requirements for civilian employees in
the acquisition field
``(a) Requirement for Policy and Guidance Regarding
Civilian Personnel in Acquisition.--The Secretary of Defense,
acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, shall establish
policies and issue guidance to ensure the proper development,
assignment, and employment of civilian members of the
acquisition workforce to achieve the objectives specified in
subsection (b).
``(b) Objectives.--Policies established and guidance issued
pursuant to subsection (a) shall ensure, at a minimum, the
following:
``(1) A career path in the acquisition field that attracts
the highest quality civilian personnel, from either within or
outside the Federal Government.
``(2) A deliberate workforce development strategy that
increases attainment of key experiences that contribute to a
highly qualified acquisition workforce.
``(3) Sufficient opportunities for promotion and
advancement in the acquisition field.
``(4) A sufficient number of qualified, trained members
eligible for and active in the acquisition field to ensure
adequate capacity, capability, and effective succession for
acquisition functions, including contingency contracting, of
the Department of Defense.
``(c) Inclusion of Information in Annual Report.--The
Secretary of Defense shall include in the report to Congress
required under section 115b(d) of this title the following
information related to the acquisition workforce for the
period covered by the report (which shall be shown for the
Department of Defense as a whole and separately for the Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Defense Agencies, and Office
of the Secretary of Defense):
``(1) The total number of persons serving in the
Acquisition Corps, set forth separately for members of the
armed forces and civilian employees, by grade level and by
functional specialty.
``(2) The total number of critical acquisition positions
held, set forth separately for members of the armed forces
and civilian employees, by grade level and by other
appropriate categories (including by program manager, deputy
program manager, and division head positions). For each such
category, the report shall specify the number of civilians
holding such positions compared to the total number of
positions filled.
``(3) The number of employees to whom the requirements of
subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) of section 1732 of this
title did not apply because of the exceptions provided in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1732(c) of this title, set
forth separately by type of exception.
``(4) The number of program managers and deputy program
managers who were reassigned after completion of a major
milestone occurring closest in time to the date on which the
person has served in the position for four years (as required
under section 1734(b) of this title), and the proportion of
those reassignments to the total number of reassignments of
program managers and deputy program managers, set forth
separately for program managers and deputy program managers.
The Secretary also shall include the average length of
assignment served by program managers and deputy program
managers so reassigned.
``(5) The number of persons, excluding those reported under
paragraph (4), in critical acquisition positions who were
reassigned after a period of three years or longer (as
required under section 1734(a) of this title), and the
proportion of those reassignments to the total number of
reassignments of persons, excluding those reported under
paragraph (4), in critical acquisition positions.
``(6) The number of times a waiver authority was exercised
under section 1724(d), 1732(d), 1734(d), or 1736(c) of this
title or any other provision of this chapter (or other
provision of law) which permits the waiver of any requirement
relating to the acquisition workforce, and in the case of
each such authority, the reasons for exercising the
authority. The Secretary may present the information provided
under this paragraph by category or grouping of types of
waivers and reasons.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter II of chapter 87 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 1722a the following new item:
``1722b. Special requirements for civilian employees in the acquisition
field.''.
(b) Career Education and Training.--Chapter 87 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended in section 1723 by
redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and inserting
after subsection (a) the following new subsection:
``(b) Career Path Requirements.--For each career path, the
Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall
establish requirements for the completion of course work and
related on-the-job training and demonstration of
qualifications in the critical acquisition-related duties and
tasks of the career path. The Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Under Secretary, shall also--
``(1) encourage individuals in the acquisition workforce to
maintain the currency of their acquisition knowledge and
generally enhance their knowledge of related acquisition
management disciplines through academic programs and other
self-developmental activities; and
``(2) develop key work experiences, including the creation
of a program sponsored by the Department of Defense that
facilitates the periodic interaction between individuals in
the acquisition workforce and the end user in such end user's
environment to enhance the knowledge base of such workforce,
for individuals in the acquisition workforce so that the
individuals may gain in-depth knowledge and experience in the
acquisition process and become seasoned, well-qualified
members of the acquisition workforce.''.
SEC. 205. RECERTIFICATION AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Continuing Education.--Section 1723 of title 10, United
States Code, as amended by section 204, is further amended by
amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Qualification Requirements.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall establish education, training and experience
requirements for each acquisition position, based on the
level of complexity of duties carried out in the position. In
establishing such requirements, the Secretary shall ensure
the availability and sufficiency of training in all areas of
acquisition, including additional training courses with an
emphasis on services contracting, long-term sustainment
strategies, information technology, and rapid acquisition.
``(2) In establishing such requirements for positions other
than critical acquisition positions designated pursuant to
section 1733 of this title, the Secretary may state the
requirements by categories of positions.
``(3) The Secretary of Defense, acting through the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, shall establish requirements for continuing
education and periodic renewal of an individual's
certification. Any requirement for a certification renewal
shall not require a renewal more often than once every five
years.''.
(b) Standards for Training.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter IV of Chapter 87 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 1748. Guidance and standards for acquisition workforce
training
``(a) Fulfillment Standards.--The Secretary of Defense,
acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, shall develop
fulfillment standards, and implement and maintain a program,
for purposes of the training requirements of sections 1723,
1724, and 1735 of this title. Such fulfillment standards
shall consist of criteria for determining whether an
individual has demonstrated competence in the areas that
would be taught in the training courses required under those
sections. If an individual meets the appropriate fulfillment
standard, the applicable training requirement is fulfilled.
``(b) Guidance and Standards Relating to Contracts for
Training.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop appropriate
guidance and standards to ensure that the Department of
Defense will continue, where appropriate and cost-effective,
to enter into contracts for the training requirements of
sections 1723, 1724, and 1735 of this title, while
maintaining appropriate control over the content and quality
of such training.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``1748. Guidance and standards for acquisition workforce training.''.
(3) Deadline for fulfillment standards.--The fulfillment
standards required under section 1748(a) of title 10, United
States Code, as added by paragraph (1), shall be developed
not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(4) Conforming repeal.--Section 853 of Public Law 105-85
(111 Stat. 1851) is repealed.
[[Page H2966]]
SEC. 206. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.
(a) In General.--
(1) Information technology.--Subchapter II of chapter 87 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following new section:
``Sec. 1725. Information technology acquisition positions
``(a) Plan Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
develop and carry out a plan to strengthen the part of the
acquisition workforce that specializes in information
technology. The plan shall include the following:
``(1) Defined targets for billets devoted to information
technology acquisition.
``(2) Specific certification requirements for individuals
in the acquisition workforce who specialize in information
technology acquisition.
``(3) Defined career paths for individuals in the
acquisition workforce who specialize in information
technology acquisitions.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `information technology' has the meaning
provided such term in section 11101 of title 40 and includes
information technology incorporated into a major weapon
system.
``(2) The term `major weapon system' has the meaning
provided such term in section 2379(f) of this title.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``1725. Information technology acquisition positions.''.
(b) Deadline.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop the
plan required under section 1725 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 207. DEFINITION OF ACQUISITION WORKFORCE.
Section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after paragraph (17) the following new
paragraph:
``(18) The term `acquisition workforce' means the persons
serving in acquisition positions within the Department of
Defense, as designated pursuant to section 1721(a) of this
title.''.
SEC. 208. DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY CURRICULUM REVIEW.
(a) Curriculum Review.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall lead
a review of the curriculum offered by the Defense Acquisition
University to ensure it adequately supports the training and
education requirements of acquisition professionals,
particularly in service contracting, long term sustainment
strategies, information technology, and rapid acquisition.
The review shall also involve the service acquisition
executives of each military department.
(b) Analysis of Funding Requirements for Training.--
Following the review conducted under subsection (a), the
Secretary of Defense shall analyze the most recent future-
years defense program to determine the amounts of estimated
expenditures and proposed appropriations necessary to support
the training requirements of the amendments made by section
205 of this Act, including any new training requirements
determined after the review conducted under subsection (a).
The Secretary shall identify any additional funding needed
for such training requirements in the separate chapter on the
defense acquisition workforce required in the next annual
strategic workforce plan under 115b of title 10, United
States Code.
(c) Requirement for Ongoing Curriculum Development With
Certain Schools.--
(1) Requirement.--Section 1746 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(c) Curriculum Development.--The President of the Defense
Acquisition University shall work with the relevant
professional schools and degree-granting institutions of the
Department of Defense and military departments to ensure that
best practices are used in curriculum development to support
acquisition workforce positions.''.
(2) Amendment to section heading.--(A) The heading of
section 1746 of such title is amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 1746. Defense Acquisition University''.
(B) The item relating to section 1746 in the table of
sections at the beginning of subchapter IV of chapter 87 of
such title is amended to read as follows:
``1746. Defense Acquisition University.''.
SEC. 209. COST ESTIMATING INTERNSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAMS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to require the
Department of Defense to develop internship and scholarship
programs in cost estimating to underscore the importance of
cost estimating, as a core acquisition function, to the
acquisition process.
(b) Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall develop
intern and scholarship programs in cost estimating for
purposes of improving education and training in cost
estimating and providing an opportunity to meet any
certification requirements in cost estimating.
(c) Implementation.--Such programs shall be established not
later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act and shall be implemented for a four-year period following
establishment of the programs.
TITLE III--FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
SEC. 301. INCENTIVES FOR ACHIEVING AUDITABILITY.
(a) Preferential Treatment Authorized.--The Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) shall ensure that any component of
the Department of Defense that the Under Secretary determines
has financial statements validated as ready for audit earlier
than September 30, 2017, shall receive preferential
treatment, as the Under Secretary determines appropriate--
(1) in financial matter matters, including--
(A) consistent with the need to fund urgent warfighter
requirements and operational needs, priority in the release
of appropriated funds to such component;
(B) relief from the frequency of financial reporting of
such component in cases in which such reporting is not
required by law;
(C) relief from departmental obligation and expenditure
thresholds to the extent that such thresholds establish
requirements more restrictive than those required by law; or
(D) such other measures as the Under Secretary considers
appropriate; and
(2) in the availability of personnel management incentives,
including--
(A) the size of the bonus pool available to the financial
and business management workforce of the component;
(B) the rates of promotion within the financial and
business management workforce of the component;
(C) awards for excellence in financial and business
management; or
(D) the scope of work assigned to the financial and
business management workforce of the component.
(b) Inclusion of Information in Report.--The Under
Secretary shall include information on any measure initiated
pursuant to this section in the next semiannual report
pursuant to section 1003(b) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84;
123 Stat. 2439; 10 U.S.C. 2222 note) after such measure is
initiated.
(c) Expiration.--This section shall expire on September 30,
2017.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``component of
the Department of Defense'' means any organization within the
Department of Defense that is required to submit an auditable
financial statement to the Secretary of Defense.
SEC. 302. MEASURES REQUIRED AFTER FAILURE TO ACHIEVE
AUDITABILITY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that
corrective measures are immediately taken to address the
failure of a component of the Department of Defense to
achieve a financial statement validated as ready for audit by
September 30, 2017.
(b) Measures Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
develop and issue guidance detailing measures to be taken in
accordance with subsection (a). Such measures shall include--
(1) the development of a remediation plan to ensure the
component can achieve a financial statement validated as
ready for audit within one year;
(2) additional reporting requirements that may be necessary
to mitigate financial risk to the component;
(3) delaying the release of appropriated funds to such
component, consistent with the need to fund urgent warfighter
requirements and operational needs, until such time as the
Secretary is assured that the component will achieve a
financial statement validated as ready for audit within one
year;
(4) specific consequences for key personnel in order to
ensure accountability within the leadership of the component;
and
(5) such other measures as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(c) Definition.--The term ``component'' of the Department
of Defense means any organization within the Department of
Defense that is required to submit an auditable financial
statement to the Secretary of Defense.
SEC. 303. REVIEW OF OBLIGATION AND EXPENDITURE THRESHOLDS.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Department of Defense program managers should be
encouraged to place a higher priority on seeking the best
value for the Government than on meeting arbitrary benchmarks
for spending; and
(2) actions to carry out paragraph (1) should be supported
by the Department's leadership at every level.
(b) Policy Review.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Chief Management Officer of
the Department of Defense, in coordination with the Chief
Management Officer of each military department, shall review
and update as necessary all relevant policy and instruction
regarding obligation and expenditure benchmarks to ensure
that such guidance does not inadvertantly prevent achieving
the best value for the Government in the obligation and
expenditure of funds.
(c) Process Review.--Not later than one year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Chief Management Officer,
in coordination with the Chief Management Officer of each
military department, the Director of the Office of
Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis, the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), and the Comptrollers of
the military departments, shall conduct a comprehensive
review of the use and value of obligation and expenditure
benchmarks and propose new benchmarks or processes for
tracking financial performance, including, as appropriate--
(1) increased reliance on individual obligation and
expenditure plans for measuring program financial
performance;
(2) mechanisms to improve funding stability and to increase
the predictability of the release of funding for obligation
and expenditure; and
(3) streamlined mechanisms for a program manager to submit
an appeal for funding changes and to have such appeal
evaluated promptly.
(d) Training.--The Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
[[Page H2967]]
and the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) shall ensure
that as part of the training required for program managers
and business managers, an emphasis is placed on obligating
and expending appropriated funds in a manner that achieves
the best value for the Government and that the purpose and
limitations of obligation and expenditure benchmarks are made
clear.
TITLE IV--INDUSTRIAL BASE
SEC. 401. EXPANSION OF THE INDUSTRIAL BASE.
(a) Program to Expand Industrial Base Required.--The
Secretary of Defense shall establish a program to expand the
industrial base of the Department of Defense to increase the
Department's access to innovation and the benefits of
competition.
(b) Identifying and Communicating With Nontraditional
Suppliers.--The program established under subsection (a)
shall use tools and resources available within the Federal
Government and available from the private sector, to provide
a capability for identifying and communicating with
nontraditional suppliers, including commercial firms and
firms of all business sizes, that are engaged in markets of
importance to the Department of Defense.
(c) Industrial Base Review.--The program required by
subsection (a) shall include a continuous effort to review
the industrial base supporting the Department of Defense,
including the identification of markets of importance to the
Department of Defense.
(d) Definition.--In this section:
(1) Nontraditional suppliers.--The term ``nontraditional
suppliers'' means firms that have received contracts from the
Department of Defense with a total value of not more than
$100,000 in the previous 5 years.
(2) Markets of importance to the department of defense.--
The term ``markets of importance to the Department of
Defense'' means industrial sectors in which the Department of
Defense spends more than $500,000,000 annually.
SEC. 402. COMMERCIAL PRICING ANALYSIS.
Section 803(c) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261;
10 U.S.C. 2306a note) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Commercial Price Trend Analysis.--
``(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement
procedures that, to the maximum extent practicable, provide
for the collection and analysis of information on price
trends for categories of exempt commercial items described in
paragraph (2).
``(2) A category of exempt commercial items referred to in
paragraph (1) consists of exempt commercial items that are in
a single Federal Supply Group or Federal Supply Class, are
provided by a single contractor, or are otherwise logically
grouped for the purpose of analyzing information on price
trends.
``(3) The analysis of information on price trends under
paragraph (1) shall include, in any category in which
significant escalation in prices is identified, a more
detailed examination of the causes of escalation for such
prices within the category and whether such price escalation
is consistent across the Department of Defense.
``(4) The head of a Department of Defense agency or the
Secretary of a military department shall take appropriate
action to address any unjustified escalation in prices being
paid for items procured by that agency or military department
as identified in an analysis conducted pursuant to paragraph
(1).
``(5) Not later than April 1 of each of year, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives a report on the analyses of price trends
that were conducted for categories of exempt commercial items
during the preceding fiscal year under the procedures
prescribed pursuant to paragraph (1). The report shall
include a description of the actions taken to identify and
address any unjustified price escalation for the categories
of items.
``(6) This subsection shall not be in effect on and after
April 1, 2013.''.
SEC. 403. CONTRACTOR AND GRANTEE DISCLOSURE OF DELINQUENT
FEDERAL TAX DEBTS.
(a) Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 37 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end of subchapter II the
following new section:
``Sec. 3720F. Contractor and grantee disclosure of delinquent
Federal tax debts
``(a) Requirement Relating to Contracts.--The head of any
executive agency that issues an invitation for bids or a
request for proposals for a contract in an amount greater
than the simplified acquisition threshold shall require each
person that submits a bid or proposal to submit with the bid
or proposal a form--
``(1) certifying that the person does not have a seriously
delinquent tax debt; and
``(2) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to disclose
to the head of the agency information strictly limited to
verifying whether the person has a seriously delinquent tax
debt.
``(b) Requirement Relating to Grants.--The head of any
executive agency that offers a grant in excess of an amount
equal to the simplified acquisition threshold may not award
such grant to any person unless such person submits with the
application for such grant a form--
``(1) certifying that the person does not have a seriously
delinquent tax debt; and
``(2) authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to disclose
to the head of the executive agency information strictly
limited to verifying whether the person has a seriously
delinquent tax debt.
``(c) Form for Release of Information.--The Secretary of
the Treasury shall make available to all executive agencies a
standard form for the certification and authorization
described in subsections (a) and (b).
``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Contract.--The term `contract' means a binding
agreement entered into by an executive agency for the purpose
of obtaining property or services, but does not include--
``(A) a contract for property or services that is intended
to be entered into through the use of procedures other than
competitive procedures by reason of section 2304(c)(2) of
this title; or
``(B) a contract designated by the head of the agency as
necessary to the national security of the United States.
``(2) Executive agency.--The term `executive agency' has
the meaning given that term in section 4(1) of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1)).
``(3) Person.--The term `person' includes--
``(A) an individual;
``(B) a partnership; and
``(C) a corporation.
``(4) Seriously delinquent tax debt.--The term `seriously
delinquent tax debt'--
``(A) means any Federal tax liability--
``(i) that exceeds $3,000;
``(ii) that has been assessed by the Secretary of the
Treasury and not paid; and
``(iii) for which a notice of lien has been filed in public
records; and
``(B) does not include any Federal tax liability--
``(i) being paid in a timely manner under an offer-in-
compromise or installment agreement;
``(ii) with respect to which collection due process
proceedings are not completed; or
``(iii) with respect to which collection due process
proceedings are completed and no further payment is required.
``(5) Simplified acquisition threshold.--The term
`simplified acquisition threshold' has the meaning given that
term in section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(11)).
``(e) Regulations.--The Administrator for Federal
Procurement Policy, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, shall promulgate regulations that--
``(1) treat corporations and partnerships as having a
seriously delinquent tax debt if such corporation or
partnership is controlled (directly or indirectly) by persons
who have a seriously delinquent tax debt;
``(2) provide for the proper application of subsections
(a)(2) and (b)(2) in the case of corporations and
partnerships; and
``(3) provide for the proper application of subsection (a)
to first-tier subcontractors that are identified in a bid or
proposal and are a significant part of a bid or proposal
team.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 37 of such title is amended by adding
after the item relating to section 3720E the following new
item:
``3720F. Contractor and grantee disclosure of delinquent Federal tax
debts.''.
(b) Revision of Federal Acquisition Regulation.--Not later
than 90 days after the final promulgation of regulations
under section 3720F(e) of title 31, United States Code, as
added by subsection (a), the Federal Acquisition Regulation
shall be revised to incorporate the requirements of section
3720F of such title.
SEC. 404. INDEPENDENCE OF CONTRACT AUDITS AND BUSINESS SYSTEM
REVIEWS.
(a) Defense Contract Audit Agency General Counsel.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 8 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 204. Defense Contract Audit Agency general counsel
``(a) General Counsel.--The Director of the Defense
Contract Audit Agency shall appoint a General Counsel of the
Defense Contract Audit Agency.
``(b) Duties.--(1) The General Counsel shall perform such
functions as the Director may prescribe and shall serve at
the discretion of the Director.
``(2) Notwithstanding section 140(b) of this title, the
General Counsel shall be the chief legal officer of the
Defense Contract Audit Agency.
``(3) The Defense Contract Audit Agency shall be the
exclusive legal client of the General Counsel.
``(c) Office of the General Counsel.--There is established
an Office of the General Counsel within the Defense Contract
Audit Agency. The Director may appoint to the Office to serve
as staff of the General Counsel such legal counsel as the
Director determines is appropriate.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter II of chapter 8 of such title is
amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``204. Defense Contract Audit Agency general counsel.''.
(b) Criteria for Business System Reviews.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 131 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2222 the
following new section:
``Sec. 2222a. Criteria for business system reviews
``(a) Criteria for Business System Reviews.--The Secretary
of Defense shall ensure that any contractor business system
review carried out by a military department, a Defense
Agency, or a Department of Defense Field Activity--
``(1) complies with generally accepted government auditing
standards issued by the Comptroller General;
``(2) is performed by an audit team that does not engage in
any other official activity (audit-related or otherwise)
involving the contractor concerned;
``(3) is performed in a time and manner consistent with a
documented assessment of the risk to the Federal Government;
and
[[Page H2968]]
``(4) involves testing on a representative sample of
transactions sufficient to fully examine the integrity of the
contractor business system concerned.
``(b) Contractor Business System Review Defined.--In this
section, the term `contractor business system review' means
an audit of policies, procedures, and internal controls
relating to accounting and management systems of a
contractor.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 131 of such title is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 2222 the
following new item:
``2222a. Criteria for business system reviews.''.
(c) Contract Audit Guidance.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense shall issue guidance relating to contract audits
carried out by a military department, a defense agency, or a
Department of Defense field activity that are not contractor
business system reviews, as described under section 2222a of
title 10, United States Code, that--
(1) requires that such audits comply with generally
accepted government auditing standards issued by the
Comptroller General and are performed in a time and manner
consistent with a documented assessment of risk to the
Federal Government;
(2) establishes guidelines for discussions of the scope of
the audit with the contractor concerned that ensure that such
scope is not improperly influenced by the contractor;
(3) provides for withholding of contract payments when
necessary to compel the submission of documentation from the
contractor; and
(4) requires that the results of contract audits performed
on behalf of an agency of the Department of Defense be shared
with other Federal agencies upon request, without
reimbursement.
(d) Effective Dates.--
(1) Section 204.--Section 204 of title 10, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a), shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Section 2222a.--Section 2222a of title 10, United
States Code, as added by subsection (b), shall take effect
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 405. BLUE RIBBON PANEL ON ELIMINATING BARRIERS TO
CONTRACTING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Requirement to Establish.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish a panel consisting of owners of large and
small businesses that are not traditional defense suppliers,
for purposes of creating a set of recommendations on
eliminating barriers to contracting with the Department of
Defense and its defense supply centers.
(b) Members.--The panel shall consist of nine members, of
whom--
(1) three shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Army;
(2) three shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Navy;
and
(3) three shall be appointed by the Secretary of the Air
Force.
(c) Appointment Deadline.--Members shall be appointed to
the panel not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(d) Duties.--The panel shall be responsible for developing
a set of recommendations on eliminating barriers to
contracting with the Department of Defense and its defense
supply centers.
(e) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the panel shall submit to Congress a
report containing its recommendations.
SEC. 406. INCLUSION OF THE PROVIDERS OF SERVICES AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN THE NATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE.
(a) Revised Definitions.--Section 2500 of title 10, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or maintenance'' and
inserting ``integration, services, or information
technology'';
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or production'' and
inserting ``production, integration, services, or information
technology'';
(3) in paragraph (9)(A), by striking ``and manufacturing''
and inserting ``manufacturing, integration, services, and
information technology''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(15) The term `integration' means the process of
providing systems engineering and technical direction for a
system for the purpose of achieving capabilities that satisfy
contract requirements.''.
(b) Revised Objectives.--Section 2501(a) of such title is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Supplying and
equipping'' and inserting ``Supplying, equipping, and
supporting'';
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and logistics for'' and
inserting ``logistics, and other activities in support of'';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and produce'' and
inserting ``, produce, and support''; and
(4) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (8) and
inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraphs:
``(6) Providing for the generation of services capabilities
that are not core functions of the armed forces and that are
critical to military operations within the national
technology and industrial base.
``(7) Providing for the development, production, and
integration of information technology within the national
technology and industrial base.''.
(c) Revised Assessments.--Section 2505(b)(4) of such title
is amended by inserting after ``of this title)'' the
following ``or major automated information systems (as
defined in section 2445a of this title)''.
(d) Revised Policy Guidance.--Section 2506(a) of such title
is amended by striking ``budget allocation, weapons'' and
inserting ``strategy, management, budget allocation,''.
The Acting CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order
except those printed in House Report 411-467. Each amendment may be
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered 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.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Skelton
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Skelton:
Page 3, in the table of contents, strike the item relating
to section 107 and insert the following:
Sec. 107. Requirement to include references to services acquisition
throughout the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Page 4, after line 12, strike the items relating to
sections 2545 and 2546 and insert the following:
``2545. Performance assessments of the defense acquisition system.
``2546. Audits of performance assessments.
Page 5, line 1, strike ``assessment'' and insert
``assessments''.
Page 8, line 12, strike ``analysis'' and insert
``Analysis''.
Page 11, line 1, strike ``assessment'' and insert
``assessments''.
Page 16, line 9, strike ``System'' and insert ``Systems''.
Page 26, line 10, insert ``primarily'' after ``guidance''.
Page 27, line 22, strike ``CONTRACTING'' and insert
``ACQUISITION''.
Page 28, line 14, strike ``contracting'' and insert
``acquisition''.
Page 28, lines 15 and 16, strike ``contracting'' and insert
``acquisition''.
Page 29, beginning on line 8, strike ``and for which'' and
all that follows through ``title'' on line 10.
Page 30, insert after line 5 the following:
``(4) Nothing in the contract shall further restrict or
otherwise affect the rights in technical data of the
Government, the contractor, or any subcontractor of the
contractor for items developed by the contractor or any such
subcontractor exclusively at private expense, as prescribed
in regulations implementing section 2320(a)(2)(B) of this
title.
Page 69, line 17, strike ``of the risk'' and insert ``of
risk''.
Page 73, line 12, strike ``contract'' and insert
``program''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is one that is
technical in nature. It merely seeks to clarify certain technical
errors and inconsistencies that arose during the process of drafting
the bill. It conforms the bill to the intent of the Armed Services
Committee in its markup. It makes no substantive changes, is
noncontroversial, and I would certainly hope that we could adopt the
amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. We find it completely acceptable to yield to the
minority if they have any comments. Otherwise, we support the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding me this time, and I
ask that we enter a colloquy to discuss the Arcuri-Shuler-Davis
amendment and the health of the titanium industrial base.
As this bill recognizes, providing high technology equipment to the
Department of Defense is a major source of high-paying, high-skilled
jobs throughout this country. Although it is easy to think of the
industrial base in terms of big aerospace companies, the
[[Page H2969]]
real guts of these systems are mostly built by small parts assembly
suppliers located throughout this country. I represent a number of
those firms in my district.
Congress has long recognized that certain industrial capacities
important to the Department of Defense are critical to maintain in this
country; among these are the ability to produce titanium parts made
from titanium. Section 2533(b) of Title 10 of the United States Code
requires the products procured by the Department of Defense which
contain titanium must use titanium metal and titanium parts produced in
the United States. The law contains a number of exceptions, however,
that allow for metal and parts produced overseas to enter the supply
chain. I am concerned that the use of these exceptions has expanded far
beyond Congress' original intent and may be undermining the law.
I, along with my colleagues Heath Shuler and Geoff Davis, filed an
amendment with the Rules Committee requiring the Department of Defense
to prepare a report on the impact that these exceptions are having on
the domestic industrial base. However, it was brought to our attention
that your committee is working on this issue as part of the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 and that this matter
will be addressed in a few weeks.
Mr. Chairman, is that correct?
Mr. SKELTON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. The gentleman is correct. The Armed Services Committee
has under consideration a number of requests from Members of the House
related to the impacts of current law regarding titanium and other
specialty metals on the industrial base. We will consider these
requests when we mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2011.
I look forward to working with Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Shuler, and Mr. Davis
on the issue in the coming weeks so that these important concerns are
addressed. I thank the gentleman for his efforts on this bill, H.R.
5013, and for agreeing to assist the committee in putting together our
authorization bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment and
thank the gentleman for yielding.
This bill really reflects two major responsibilities of our
government--keeping America safe and restoring discipline to our budget
by eliminating unnecessary government spending--and I commend them.
For too long, the unscrupulous defense contractors have been taking
advantage of American taxpayers, which not only costs us money but
restricts our ability to get our soldiers the equipment they need in a
timely manner. This bill ends waste, fraud, and abuse and makes sure
that we get five cents of value for every nickel spent.
As a former small business owner in North Carolina, I know what it
takes to balance the books and get value for the dollar invested.
{time} 1245
This bill and amendment modernizes the Defense Department's
acquisitions by practices that are proven in business. More broadly,
this bill makes sure that our men and women in harm's way can get the
tools they need to protect our Nation quickly and efficiently. Simply
put, this reform saves lives and saves money, Mr. Chairman. I thank the
gentlemen for this legislation.
I rise today in support of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Act for defense
acquisition reform.
This bill reflects two major responsibilities of our government:
keeping Americans safe and restoring discipline to our budget by
eliminating unnecessary government spending.
For too long, unscrupulous defense contractors have been taking
advantage of the American taxpayer, which not only costs us money but
restricts our ability to get our soldiers the equipment they need.
This bill ends waste, fraud, and abuse and makes sure that we get
five cents of value for every nickel spent.
As a former small business owner in North Carolina, I know what it
takes to balance the books and get value from purchases. This bill
modernizes Department of Defense acquisition using practices that have
been proven to work in business. The IMPROVE Acquisition Act will boost
DOD transparency and accountability, increase innovation and
competitiveness in the acquisition process, and modernize the DOD
workforce and financial management system. It reforms the business of
our national defense, providing the military with the power to tackle
greed, corruption and self-serving business practices that threaten our
safety and waste our money
This reform provides a fair and level playing field. Businesses that
play by the rules should not be disadvantaged by those who don't.
Businesses that have been giving fair value should be rewarded, and
contractors that fail should not get another dime. This reform restores
common sense to a system that should reward patriotic businesses who
are trying to serve our nation.
This acquisition reform provides incentives for acquisition managers
to protect our investment, proud and certain that they can say ``No!''
to cynical manipulation of contracts.
The bill also sets reasonable expectations for contractors, that, my
North Carolina neighbors would be surprised aren't already in place.
For example, if you owe taxes you should not be planning to be paid by
the government. That is basic fairness and judgment, straight out
common sense, and this reform provides more of that.
More broadly, this bill makes sure that our men and women in harm's
way can get the tools they need to protect our nation quickly and
efficiently. Service men and service women commit their very lives to
the service of the Nation. They deserve the best equipment, the best
materials, and the best possible support. Bringing together all the
materiel that makes the world's greatest military possible has been a
continuous challenge. In addition to the process and business reforms
in the bill, H.R. 5013 brings the commanders into the loop, so they can
be confident that they will get the right tools to their soldiers in
the field. The progress we have made in this bill will empower the
Armed Forces to better meet the many challenges faced by our military.
Simply put, this reform saves lives and saves money. Mr. Chair, I
support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
passing H.R. 5013.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Sessions
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Sessions:
At the end of title IV, add the following new section:
SEC. 407. CONSTRUCTION OF ACT ON COMPETITION REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF SERVICES.
Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to affect the competition requirements of
section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, with respect to
the acquisition of services.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the IMPROVE Act sets the
record straight on the importance of competition in Federal
contracting. My amendment simply clarifies that nothing in this bill
restricts the current public-private competition requirements that
already exist in title 10 of the United States Code.
Competing contracts help the government to be a ``smarter shopper.''
This process simply compares costs and performance currently being used
by the Federal Government to alternatives available in the private and
nonprofit organizations. Whether the benefits are produced by keeping
the work within the agency, or from contracting out, the best deal for
the taxpayer and our national defense should win every single time.
The Office of Management and Budget Report on Competitive Sourcing
Results for fiscal year 2007 showed that competitions between year 2003
and 2007 have saved the taxpayer $7.2 billion. Expected savings from
competition are approximately $1 billion a
[[Page H2970]]
year. Taxpayers will receive a return of about $30 for every dollar
spent on competition. Competition simply gives the taxpayer the
opportunity to be a smarter shopper and to get the best products
available for the very best price.
I not only encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, but
also to adopt competitive sourcing procedures in all of our Federal
agencies. What is good for the Department of Justice and the Department
of Defense and all across this government is certainly good enough for
the Department of Labor and all agencies.
This IMPROVE Act is one step toward combating the waste, fraud and
abuse of contracting within the Federal Government. I support this
legislation and believe it is not only intended for the right purposes,
but will also achieve that. I ask that all of my colleagues support
passage of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from Texas
for offering this amendment. I think it makes a very significant
contribution to this legislation.
What it effectively says is that competition should always be the
general rule. Only when there is a compelling reason for an exception
should there be one. So, for example, if there is a national emergency
or there truly is only one entity that could provide a good or service,
then in those exceptional circumstances, but only in those exceptional
circumstances, should there be no competition before rewarding of a
contract.
Again, I think the amendment is very much consistent with the
purpose, spirit and letter of the bill, and I would urge my colleagues
to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) not only for his testimony before the Rules
Committee yesterday, but also that of Mr. Conaway.
With the intent of their legislation, they are trying to streamline
the government, save money, produce a better product, and perhaps more
importantly, to make sure that the American people have confidence in
the money that they are spending that goes for the intended reasons.
For that I not only appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, but also the hard
work and the thoughtfulness that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews) has put into this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Andrews
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. ANDREWS. I have an amendment at the desk as the designee of the
author, Mr. Hastings.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Andrews:
Page 44, after line 17, insert the following:
``(5) A deliberate workforce development strategy that
ensures diversity in promotion, advancement, and experiential
opportunities commensurate with the general workforce
outlined in this section.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hastings makes a very valid amendment
to this bill that acknowledges that when we want to build the best
workforce and brightest workforce, we should reach for diversity of the
workforce. Mr. Hastings' amendment acknowledges the fact that we are
living in a global economy, and one of the principal assets of our
country is the diversity of our population in understanding literally
every corner of the world because our people come from every corner of
the world.
Mr. Hastings's amendment directs that the Department of Defense, in
its efforts under Title II of this bill, to improve the quality of our
workforce, take into account the diversity of life experiences and
backgrounds of those who apply for those positions. It is a very worthy
amendment, entirely consistent with the purposes of the bill. I urge
its adoption.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hall of New York
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hall of New York:
Page 9, after line 22, insert the following:
``(f) Inclusion in Annual Report.--The Director of the
Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis
shall include information on the activities undertaken by the
Director under this section in the annual report of the
Director required under section 103(f) of the Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23; 123 Stat.
1716), including information on any performance assessment
required by subsection (a) with significant findings. In
addition, if a performance assessment uncovers particularly
egregious problems, as identified by the Director, the
Director shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and the House of Representatives a report on such
problems within 30 days after the problems are identified.
Page 9, line 23, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Hall) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Andrews for
supporting this amendment and offering me the time to rise in support
of increasing reporting requirements and Congressional oversight of
defense acquisition systems. I thank Chairwoman Slaughter of the Rules
Committee for making this amendment in order, and also to Chairman
Skelton and Mr. Andrews for bringing H.R. 5013 forward and supporting
the amendment. I would also like to thank the staff of the House Armed
Services Committee and the Office of Legislative Counsel for helping
draft this amendment.
I am pleased that we are addressing this critical issue. Last year
when Congress reformed defense weapons procurement, we tackled only
about 20 cents of each dollar that this Nation spends on defense
contracting. The other 80 percent is on non-weapons system contracts.
This amounts to more than $1 billion a day.
Today's bill may seems to address the less glamorous side of defense
spending until you remember our men and women in uniform rely every day
on contractors to provide them with meals, equipment, and even health
care. Increased accountability for these service contracts is critical
to the well-being of our soldiers and to ensuring that the taxpayers
are not on the hook for wasteful spending.
As the Representative for New York's 19th Congressional District, I
am also well aware of importance of this sort of defense spending since
I have the honor and privilege of representing the United States
military academy at West Point and serving on its board of visitors.
West Point does not develop major weapons systems, but it does
develop the Army's next generation of leaders. The cadets at West Point
rely on exactly the services and products covered by this bill. They,
and all service men and women, deserve to know that they are getting
the best.
This amendment would require the DOD to include the performance
assessments required by H.R. 5013 in an annual report to Congress,
similar to provisions in last year's weapons systems
[[Page H2971]]
procurement bill. It also requires that DOD report to Congress when it
uncovers a particularly egregious problem.
When I visited Afghanistan last April, I talked to soldiers from all
over New York and asked them what they needed, what Congress could do
to improve their lives. I expected to hear more about MRAPs or shorter
tours of duty. Instead, they told me they wanted more shower facilities
with more hot water that works, and faster Internet broadband
connections so they could talk with their families. These services
which we take for granted provide a slice of home life and comfort to
our troops serving in the most difficult of circumstances.
This amendment will help ensure Congress is made aware of defense
acquisition systems that are not delivering a useful service to our men
and women in uniform, or are wasting taxpayer funds. Prompt knowledge
of the worst offenders will help Congress better address these issues.
Our soldiers serving overseas and here at home and the cadets at West
Point deserve no less. Their safety, comfort and health depend on it,
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying
bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, although we do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. We support Mr. Hall's amendment. He has been an advocate
for government transparency since his first day in this institution.
This amendment is a significant stride forward for transparency.
Last year's major weapons system bill and this bill vests significant
authority in the PARCA office, which is the review office or the
auditing office of the Secretary of Defense. This office, under this
bill, will compile annual reports judging the quality of the work by
procurement organizations throughout the Department of Defense.
Mr. Hall's amendment ensures that those reports become public
documents so the taxpayer can understand with great specificity the
quality or lack thereof by which their tax dollars are being spent. Mr.
Hall is providing a valuable tool for oversight. Future Congresses will
be able to understand those reports and act efficiently in terms of
their oversight responsibilities.
I think even more importantly what Mr. Hall has done is given the
public an opportunity for that oversight. Some of the very best work on
ferreting out wasteful government spending has come as a result of the
First Amendment, from the press and from the public.
So Mr. Hall's amendment will give the press and the public, as well
as the Members of this body, an opportunity to understand the quality
or lack thereof of procurement activities. I commend him for that, and
urge support of his amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1300
Mr. HALL of New York. Once again, I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time in opposition and
urge a ``yes'' vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5
printed in House Report 111-467.
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Ms. Edwards of Maryland:
Page 61, line 3, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 61, line 8, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 61, insert after line 2 the following new subsection:
(c) Outreach to Local Firms Near Defense Installations.--
The program established under subsection (a) shall include
outreach, using procurement technical assistance centers, to
notify firms of all business sizes in the vicinity of
Department of Defense installations of opportunities to
obtain contracts and subcontracts to perform work at such
installations.
Page 61, insert after line 18 the following new paragraph:
(3) Procurement technical assistance center.--The term
``procurement technical assistance center'' means a center
operating under a cooperative agreement with the Defense
Logistics Agency to provide procurement technical assistance
pursuant to the authority provided in chapter 142 of title
10, United States Code.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Maryland.
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I want to first thank Representative Andrews for introducing the
IMPROVE Act, H.R. 5013, and to Chairman Skelton for all their hard work
on this legislation and really steadfast support of our armed services.
My amendment will help businesses that are in the vicinity of defense
installations, especially small, minority and women-owned businesses
and veteran-owned businesses, access defense contracting opportunities.
I have heard the frustration of my constituent small businesses that
are unable to access the complex system of defense acquisition and
procurement. For example, one company located just across the street
from Andrews Air Force Base in Camp Springs, Maryland, in my
congressional district has repeatedly attempted to access on-base
business opportunities. This company has the capacity, as indicated by
contracts they have with other government entities, but they have been
stymied on every attempt at Andrews. With this amendment, this company
will receive the technical assistance necessary to compete.
In my conversations with the base leadership at Andrews--and I want
to thank them for their hard work--I hear their desire to work with the
surrounding community and the businesses in it. With this amendment,
they will receive the authority they need to engage in outreach to
drive economic development activity directly around the base with
entities such as the company I referenced in Camp Springs. This is true
all across the country where we have installations located.
I am encouraged that through this provision this scenario can really
play out in Maryland, from Andrews to Fort Meade and all across the
country; and in some regions this is particularly important. This
provision will help build communities around our defense installations
by directly including the businesses which are oftentimes right along
the fence line but are currently left out of the contracting
opportunity. By including these community businesses, capable community
businesses, small businesses, the installations will strengthen their
bonds to the community and these areas will receive a much needed
economic boost. It is as important for those communities as it is for
our installations. We want there to be a bond with the local community
because we want them to embrace the installations that surround them.
In the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland, I have so many
competent and capable businesses that provide products and services
that could really be used by the Department of Defense; but due to a
lack of knowledge and a lack of communication and a lack of outreach,
these companies often don't even hear about the opportunities until
it's way too late. This amendment takes a step toward ensuring our
businesses are aware of those opportunities and then supports competing
for them.
This amendment is a powerful tool for the Defense Department to use
to be more inclusive of our businesses that all too often watch
competitors
[[Page H2972]]
from other States, regions, and sometimes even other nations receive
contracting opportunities right in those communities.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I do
not oppose the amendment. Again, I would yield to the minority at any
time it wishes.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. I want to strongly support the gentlelady's amendment. I
think there is scarcely a Member of this body who has not encountered a
situation where a strong, viable business just outside the gate of a
military establishment finds frustration that it cannot fairly compete
for business opportunities, and the gentlelady has well described the
situation.
I have never heard a constituent say they want a special deal or they
want to have special rules under the competition. What I've heard them
say, Mr. Chairman, is that they want a fair and even chance to compete,
but they want to be able to show there is some benefit to shopping
locally. I think this is true in each of the districts that we all
represent.
I think the gentlelady has struck exactly the right balance between
the need for true competition, so if the best deal is further away, you
take it; but where there is careful and deliberate consideration of the
companies and vendors that already exist in the community in which the
military base is located, not only does this have the benefit of
offering better value for the tax dollar, it also, I think, will build
better community relations for our bases throughout the country.
So I think she has done a great service by offering this amendment.
I would urge a ``yes'' vote on it and reserve the balance of my time
in opposition.
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Let me just conclude--and I thank you, Mr.
Andrews, for your comments because it's so true that as a Nation we
have already seen the beginnings of an economic recovery, what looks to
be a strong economic recovery, but we need to make sure that our
constituents and that communities and businesses throughout this
country, especially the ones that are located in proximity and vicinity
to defense installations, also enjoy the benefits of this economic
recovery.
And so it is true, it is my goal that, with this amendment, no more
of my constituents will drive by an on-base construction job and look
at that job in progress or see a delivery truck going into that base
and through the gates of the installation and say to themselves, I wish
I knew how to get business with the Defense Department. I understand
that frustration, and I understand why we must address it; and I
believe that this amendment does exactly that.
Again, as Mr. Andrews has pointed out, the gentleman from New Jersey
has pointed out, in fact this is about enhancing competition. It's not
about getting in the way of it. And it's about giving the Department of
Defense the kind of tools that it needs to engage in that kind of
community outreach. And so no more will there be an excuse of not
understanding how to reach those businesses, but they will have a tool
to make sure that they get to them.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6
printed in House Report 111-467.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Ms. Moore of Wisconsin:
Page 6, line 21, insert after ``performance'' the
following: ``, including compliance with the Department of
Defense policy regarding the participation of small business
concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals, veteran-owned small businesses,
service-disabled, veteran-owned small businesses, and women-
owned small businesses''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses the role
that small businesses can play in helping our Defense Department and
the men and women in uniform who ultimately are benefited by a properly
functioning acquisition process.
Now, there is not an elected official anywhere who won't tell you
that small businesses are the key engines of economic growth for
communities across our country, including Milwaukee, which I have the
honor to represent. We've heard this statement countless times.
According to the Department of Defense, small business is the key to
sustaining and improving our industrial base and to maintain
competition and innovation. Yet despite congressional efforts to
encourage the participation of small economically and socially
disadvantaged businesses, including those owned by veterans, small
businesses, in Defense Department acquisitions, concerns remain about
bundled contracts and the ability of those businesses to fully
participate on a level playing field against larger defense
contractors.
I know I have heard these concerns from businesses in my district,
including just this morning. I'm sure that my colleagues can share
similar stories. When the rubber hits the road at the Department of
Defense, small businesses find a giant pothole waiting for them in
pursuing contracts.
If we are to reform this broken acquisition system, which is the goal
of this bipartisan bill, we need to ensure that it is working for small
businesses as well. We can't do that without assessing how well it is
working for those businesses now, and that's what my amendment intends
to do.
My amendment calls upon the Department, when developing measures to
assess contractor performance as called for in this bill before us, to
specifically measure how the prime contractors themselves are involving
small businesses, including those owned by veterans, women, and
socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, as well as
subcontractors. If I'm not mistaken, Federal law requires that large
Federal prime contractors receiving Federal contracting exceeding
$550,000--and $1 million in the case of construction--on a contract
which offers subcontracting opportunities must have subcontracting
plans with goals that provide maximum opportunities to these small
businesses.
I am so pleased that the bill already would require the Department to
look at the excessive use of contract bundling which has previously
been identified as an obstacle for small businesses competing for DOD
contracts. And I also know that in the report accompanying this bill,
the House Armed Services Committee urged the Department to develop a
metric for small business utilization as part of the new assessment
tools the bill requires. My amendment supports that goal.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition,
although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady for
offering this amendment and for her fierce advocacy for the people not
only of the Milwaukee area, but small businesses across the country.
The gentlelady is correct that one of the underlying ideas in this
bill is that defense procurement organizations within the Department of
Defense will be evaluated by measurements of how well they are doing
their job. They in turn will measure contractors, prime contractors, on
how well they are doing their job for the servicemember and for the
taxpayer.
[[Page H2973]]
One of the criteria by which the procurement organization should be
measured and by which the prime contractors should be measured is their
compliance with the law with respect to inclusion of small businesses.
That is what the gentlelady's amendment does. We strive to include
small businesses not only because we acknowledge on both sides of the
aisle that small businesses are the economic generator of three-
quarters of the private sector jobs created in our country, but also
because we understand that competition that is engendered by the
inclusion of more small businesses improves the quality and value of
the contracting process, it improves the quality of what we're buying
for the servicemembers and their families, and value for the taxpayer
as well.
So the gentlelady's amendment, I believe, institutionalizes the
practice of evaluating inclusion of small business competition, not in
lieu of a better deal, but to create a better deal for the
servicemembers and for the taxpayer. So I thank her very much for her
contribution to this bill.
I would urge a ``yes'' vote in favor of her amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time in opposition.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. It is time that the rhetoric meets reality.
Small business is the key to economic growth in our country and
ensuring that small businesses can compete and that the Defense
Department gets the products, services and goods it needs on time and
on budget, which are not mutually exclusive goals. But unfortunately
for small businesses, business as usual at the DOD and too many other
Federal agencies means little or no business for them.
Innovation is not the exclusive domain of large companies. Small
businesses are innovative. In fact, they may have a greater incentive
to be innovative because that innovation is what may allow them to
successfully compete against larger firms. When we put all of America's
ingenuity to work, it benefits our military, our taxpayers, and our
communities.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment and yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time in opposition and
urge a ``yes'' vote.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1315
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk made in order under the rule.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Murphy of Connecticut:
Page 60, line 19, insert after the period the following:
``The program shall be limited to firms within the national
technology and industrial base (as defined in section 2500(1)
of title 10, United States Code).''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, first, let me express my
thanks to Mr. Andrews, to the committee, and to the ranking members for
all of their work by bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor today.
My amendment is similar, but I think it adds a very important
clarification to the bill. There is a really important program in title
IV of this legislation which seeks to have the Department of Defense do
outreach to nontraditional suppliers, to nontraditional manufacturers,
throughout the country.
With a little bit of outreach and with a little bit of contracting
help, those small manufacturers, by and large, which may have very
small numbers of contracts with the Department of Defense or which may
have no contracts at all, can be future suppliers and future members of
our industrial military base in this country.
This amendment simply seeks to make sure that that program is
operational for firms here in the United States of America,
specifically targeting the help to the national technology and
industrial base, which is defined as those companies in the United
States and Canada.
We know why it is so important to spend our military acquisition
dollars here at home. First, we need to be using taxpayer dollars to
grow jobs right here in our backyard. By better targeting U.S. taxpayer
dollars, 70 percent of which are used to purchase goods through the
military budget here in the United States, we are growing the American
workforce.
We also have national security reasons we should be purchasing here
at home. By making sure that we have American manufacturers building
for our military and that we are securing a long-term industrial
manufacturing base for our military equipment, we further protect the
security of this Nation.
This is a great program, and I am so thankful to both parties here
for bringing it before us for a vote today. I think that you will find
a myriad of companies throughout the country which, with a little bit
of help and with a little bit of outreach, can be part of this
industrial base.
I can think of one company in Meriden, Connecticut, DI-EL Tool, which
is a small manufacturing firm with only about six or seven employees.
They've got a small number of military contracts as a subcontractor
today. They came to me, and they said, Listen, Representative Murphy.
We could do more, but we just don't have the capacity to compete with
some of these traditional, large manufacturers.
This is the type of program that can help DI-EL Tool, and it could
probably help thousands of others across this country. This amendment
simply seeks to clarify that this program will be operational here at
home.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition,
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from
Connecticut for offering this very important amendment which clarifies
the legislation and which, I think, drives home a very important point.
He has been very focused, as many of us have, on protecting and on
expanding the industrial base of our country to create jobs and
national security. He tells the story of his visit to the firm in
Connecticut that has six or seven employees. That is precisely the firm
that title IV of this bill wants the Department of Defense to reach out
to, not simply because we understand the job creation benefits of it
but because we understand the ingenuity and the creativity of small
firms like the ones that Mr. Murphy just mentioned. Some of the very
best solutions--engineering solutions, software solutions, logistical
solutions--have come from very small organizations that are agile
enough and creative enough to solve very big problems.
In his careful reading of this bill, Mr. Murphy realized that there
was some question as to whether or not that outreach would occur to
firms based in the United States or in Canada under the terms of the
statute to which he referred, and I think he has made a very important
contribution in making sure that that outreach is targeted to those
firms as this is not only a mechanism for creating jobs in our country
and for assisting the national security of our country but for inviting
ingenuity and competition into the defense procurement process,
therefore, saving the taxpayers money.
So I very much appreciate his efforts in bringing forth this
amendment, and I would urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Again, thank you, Mr. Andrews, for working
with us on this.
Mr. Chair, all of us who represent small manufacturers have heard the
stories as they seek to compete with companies that are underpricing
them from China, Asia, and across the globe. The defense dollars that
we spend here on acquisition better targeted to help those small firms
is part of their future salvation. Overall, I think this bill
represents a tremendous opportunity for
[[Page H2974]]
the U.S. taxpayers and for U.S. manufacturers alike.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Quigley:
Page 7, line 4, insert after ``sustainment'' the following:
``and energy efficiency''.
Page 26, line 15, insert ``and energy efficiency'' after
``sustainment''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
5013, and I want to commend Mr. Andrews and all of his colleagues who
have worked so diligently on this important piece of legislation.
I have offered an amendment, along with Congresswoman Giffords and
Congressman Bartlett, which seeks to make the Department of Defense
more energy efficient. This goal is absolutely essential to improving
defense acquisition.
The Department of Defense accounts for 80 percent of the U.S.
Government's energy consumption, including 330,000 barrels of oil each
day. Just petroleum products cost the DOD $13 billion per year. Passing
my amendment will save money and will conserve energy by including
energy efficiency as a metric in performance assessment of defense
acquisitions. It will also make weapon systems more energy efficient,
which is a critical reform that can save lives.
In Afghanistan, consider that the Marines alone consume 800,000
gallons of fuel each day. These 800,000 gallons of fuel must cross from
Pakistan into Afghanistan through a lawless border region. During this
400-mile trip from Karachi, convoys are extremely vulnerable to IEDs,
but energy-efficient weapons systems reduces fuel use, which reduces
the number of convoys, which reduces the number of troops in harm's
way.
I urge you to support my amendment and to support energy efficiency
in the defense acquisition process, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition,
although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Quigley for
offering this amendment, as well as Ms. Giffords and Mr. Bartlett for
their joint authorship of this amendment.
As I stated earlier, the basic mechanism in this bill is to provide
performance criteria for the purchasing organizations within the
Department of Defense. This amendment says that one criterion may be
energy-efficiency standards in the purchasing.
Now, what does this mean?
It means that the procurement organization should get the very best
deal from the point of view of the servicemember as well as of the
taxpayer and that one of the factors that should be taken into account
is energy efficiency. For example, if under this bill the procurement
organization is purchasing landscaping services and if, all other
things being equal for the quality of the landscaping services and the
price, one of the organizations uses more energy-efficient lawnmowers
or other gardening machines, that purchase would be favored under this
mechanism to encourage but not to require energy efficiency.
This goes to a much broader question in our country that obviously
involves the fact that we are buying nearly $300 billion a year worth
of imported oil from countries around the world which may or may not be
friendly to us.
The largest consumer of energy in the United States' economy is the
Department of Defense. Commendably, the Department under Republican and
Democratic administrations has adopted, as a matter of policy, a
methodical increase in the amount of renewable energy the Department is
using. One of the ways it can reduce consumption toward that goal is by
implementing energy efficiency.
The amendment the gentleman from Illinois is offering is entirely
consistent with that purpose because what it does is integrates into
the procurement decisionmaking process a set of ideas which says that
the procurement organization will look at the energy-efficiency ideas
of a given competitor for a given contract.
We support this amendment because we believe it will save the
taxpayers money, that it will add value to our efforts to protect the
environment, and that it will provide inducements to the ability to
promote renewable energy, so we would urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to one of the coauthors
of the amendment, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for the 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased and proud to rise today
in strong support of H.R. 5013.
I join my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, and I
especially want to thank the bill managers--Mr. Andrews, Mr. Conaway,
Mr. Skelton, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Coffman, and Mr. Hunter--
who worked so diligently on this bipartisan legislation.
I am very pleased to join my colleagues Congressman Quigley and
Congresswoman Giffords in offering this amendment. This amendment
provides the Department of Defense the full support of Congress to use
energy efficiency as a key tool toward improving our national security
and toward providing more value to taxpayers for our defense dollars.
This amendment will send an important and strong signal to defense
contractors that their bids will be more competitive if their products
and services will use less energy.
I urge the support of this bill. I am very pleased that, among all of
the institutions in our country, our Defense Department is the most
aggressive in pursuing good energy policies. We and the world face a
huge crisis in energy, so I am pleased that our Defense Department is
leading the way in our country. I am very pleased to be here to support
this good amendment and a really good bill.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Quigley
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Quigley:
Page 17, after line 8, insert the following:
(c) Assessment of Independence of Cost Estimators and Cost
Analysts Required in Next Annual Report on Cost Assessment
Activities.--In the next annual report prepared by the
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation under
section 2334(e) of title 10, United States Code, the Director
shall include an assessment of whether and to what extent
personnel responsible for cost estimates or cost analysis
developed by a military department or defense agency for a
major defense acquisition program are independent and whether
their independence or lack thereof affects their ability to
generate reliable cost estimates.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment directs the Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation, or CAPE, in its next report to Congress to do
two things:
First, the amendment asks the CAPE to assess whether and to what
extent program cost estimators for major defense acquisition programs
are, indeed, independent.
[[Page H2975]]
Second, the amendment asks the CAPE to determine whether a lack of
independence affects their ability to generate reliable cost estimates.
For 30 years now, DOD officials, analysts, and industry experts have
argued that a primary cause of the cost growth in DOD acquisitions is
unrealistically low cost estimates. Many of these unrealistic cost
estimates are generated by individuals, such as program
representatives, who have a stake in the approval of their systems. The
newly created CAPE is designed to generate reliable cost estimates, but
cost estimates are still generated by contractors and program
representatives whose independence is paramount to creating reliable
estimates. This amendment seeks to address this problem.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I do not
intend to oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I, in fact, support this amendment. I
think it not only adds important tools to the bill before the body
today but to the law that was enacted last year.
Both today's bill and last year's law require the Department of
Defense to make early decisions about whether a product or service it
is buying or a system that it is buying is on track or not. If it is
not on track, the idea is to either get it on track or to not buy it.
This is how we can eliminate some of the $296 billion in cost overruns
in weapons systems that the Government Accountability Office found in
its report of 2 years ago.
{time} 1330
What Mr. Quigley has done is to say that the cost estimators on whom
we are relying need to be truly independent and competent. If that
estimator has a vested interest in buying the product or building the
system, then he or she is not going to give us an accurate or honest
judgment about whether to go forward. So this amendment assures that
there will be both independence and competence in those cost
estimators. I think it's an excellent addition to the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend and
colleague, the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, as one of the sponsors of this amendment,
and a strong advocate for defense acquisition reform, I rise today in
support of the amendment and urge its passage.
The amendment requires the Department of Defense to make energy
efficiency a consideration in buying and developing new weapons systems
and new equipment for the military. This is a smart amendment from a
green technology standpoint. But let me also stress that this is not
just about being green. First and foremost, platform efficiency is a
national security issue. Our military's use of fuel and electricity has
intertwining impacts on our greater national security.
A 2007 Army report cites 170 servicemembers killed transporting fuel
or guarding fuel convoys. Requiring the department to examine how well
current and new systems use that precious commodity will help us reduce
consumption, a good green tech benefit, but also saving lives of our
military, the overarching national security benefit.
In terms of electricity usage, most of our military bases' critical
loads are dependent upon the fragile national grid system that is
underpinned by a 60 percent dependence on foreign oil.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. GIFFORDS. This represents a single point of possible failure for
our most important military assets. The requirement that this amendment
puts in place will mean we must take into account the stresses placed
upon the grid and how we can reduce those to enhance the security of
our defense infrastructure.
By considering the use of on-site renewable generation, like the
array that will be installed at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in my
district, we can better secure our base critical infrastructure against
possible attack.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote for the
underlying bill. I commend Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon
for bringing this to the floor and Congressmen Andrews and Conaway for
their hard work putting it together.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Schrader
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Schrader:
At the end of title II, add the following new section:
SEC. 210. PROHIBITION ON PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS FOR
SENIOR MENTORS.
(a) Prohibition.--The Secretary of Defense shall prohibit
the award of a contract for personal services by any
component of the Department of Defense for the purpose of
obtaining the services of a senior mentor.
(b) Interpretation.--Nothing in this section shall be
interpreted to prohibit the employment of a senior mentor as
a highly qualified expert pursuant to section 9903 of title
5, United States Code, subject to the pay and term
limitations of that section. A senior mentor employed as a
highly qualified expert shall be required to submit a
financial disclosure report and comply with all conflict of
interest laws and regulations applicable to other Federal
employees with similar conditions of service.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``contract for personal services'' means a
contract awarded under the authority of section 129b(a) of
title 10, United States Code, or section 3109 of title 5,
United States Code.
(2) The term ``component of the Department of Defense''
means a military department, a defense agency, a Department
of Defense field activity, a unified combatant command, or
the joint staff.
(3) The term ``senior mentor'' means any person--
(A)(i) who has served as a general or flag officer in the
Armed Forces; or
(ii) who has served in a position at a level at or above
the level of the senior executive service;
(B) has retired within the 10 years preceding the award of
a contract; and
(C) who serves as a mentor, teacher, trainer, or advisor to
government personnel on matters pertaining to the former
official duties of such person.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Schrader) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today because it is no secret to any Member of the House that
the United States faces a looming budget crisis. To address this crisis
and bring our deficits under control, we must consider all options.
Today we continue our work on reining in the profligate spending on
defense contracts. We do this work to strengthen our budget and our
national security.
The amendment I am offering today will control a small portion of
this spending and ensure necessary transparencies are in place within
the defense-industrial relationship. My amendment addresses the
Department of Defense's use of contracts for personal services to hire
senior mentors. The current use of contracts for senior mentor personal
services circumvents necessary transparency protocols the rest of the
department has.
The Defense Department has no uniform policy on the use of the senior
mentor contracts, which vary among the services. They do not know, we
do not know, and the public does not know how many of these contracts
are awarded or even at what cost. My amendment would open these
contracts to regular procedures for transparency. The amendment will
establish standard rates of pay for senior mentors and allow and apply
financial disclosure
[[Page H2976]]
and conflict of interest provisions already applicable to other Federal
employees. The military will still benefit from the knowledge and
wisdom of retired officers while ensuring taxpayer money is spent
wisely and appropriately.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition even though
I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to just add a word of caution to
the amendment. We intend to support it. The Department of Defense has
in fact instituted a suspension of the policy that led to these
problems, and have put in place a policy that looks very similar to
this codification of the rules. The Department of Defense will live
under those rules over the next several months, but I worry that the
policy is too strict and will limit Department of Defense's access to
the right people for the right information at the right time. None of
us want that.
We all want transparency, we all want evidence of conflict of
interest to be out there so that we all know that. I am in agreement
with the spirit of what the gentleman is trying to do; I just offer a
word of caution that if the practice under the Department of Defense's
current policy, which is very similar to this, shows problems and
issues that we don't anticipate with this, that we would in conference
come back and address those properly.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I support the amendment. I also share my friend the
ranking member's concerns. I think the amendment addresses them in two
ways. One is that the language of the amendment is quite flexible, that
as long as there is transparency and adherence to high quality, the
department is not restricted from these relationships. It simply has to
be more careful about them. And secondly, obviously the committee has
continuing oversight over this issue. The gentleman has my assurances
that if we see an undue restriction on access to talent, then we are in
a position to take appropriate action to correct that problem.
Mr. CONAWAY. With that, I will support the amendment and yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHRADER. In closing, I appreciate the concerns of the Member
from Texas and acknowledge the Member from New Jersey's responses. I
think that this is a good amendment. It does hopefully make sure that
our senior officers can continue to give their insight, knowledge, and
wisdom, without any hint or taint of opprobrium, which I think is
possible under our current statute and laws. This should actually make
it easier for our members who have served our country gallantly over
their careers to come back and continue to share with us in a
forthright, transparent manner. We win, they win, and the taxpayer
wins.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia:
At the end of title IV, add the following new section:
SEC. 407. INDUSTRIAL BASE COUNCIL AND FUND.
(a) Industrial Base Council.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 7 of title 10, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 188. Industrial Base Council
``(a) Council Established.--There is in the Department of
Defense an Industrial Base Council.
``(b) Mission.--The mission of the Industrial Base Council
is to assist the Secretary in all matters pertaining to the
industrial base of the Department of Defense, including
matters pertaining to the national defense technology and
industrial base included in chapter 148 of this title.
``(c) Membership.--The following officials of the
Department of Defense shall be members of the Council:
``(1) The Chairman of the Council, who shall be the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, the functions of which may be delegated by the
Under Secretary only to the Principal Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
``(2) The Executive Director of the Council, who shall be
an official from within the Office of the Under Secretary
responsible for industrial base matters and who shall report
directly to the Under Secretary or the Principal Deputy Under
Secretary.
``(3) Officials from within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, as designated by the Secretary, with direct
responsibility for matters pertaining to following areas:
``(A) Manufacturing.
``(B) Research and development.
``(C) Systems engineering and system integration.
``(D) Services.
``(E) Information Technology.
``(F) Sustainment and logistics.
``(4) The Director of the Defense Logistics Agency.
``(5) Officials from the military departments, as
designated by the Secretary of each military department, with
responsibility for industrial base matters relevant to the
military department concerned.
``(d) Duties.--The Council shall assist the Secretary in
the following:
``(1) Providing input on industrial base matters to
strategy reviews, including quadrennial defense reviews
performed pursuant to section 118 of this title.
``(2) Managing the industrial base.
``(3) Providing recommendations to the Secretary on budget
matters pertaining to the industrial base.
``(4) Providing recommendations to the Secretary on supply
chain management and supply chain vulnerability.
``(5) Providing input on industrial base matters to defense
acquisition policy guidance.
``(6) Issuing and revising the Department of Defense
technology and industrial base guidance required by section
2506 of this title.
``(7) Such other duties as are assigned by the Secretary.
``(e) Reporting of Activities.--The Secretary shall include
a section describing the activities of the Council in the
annual report to Congress required by section 2505 of this
title.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``188. Industrial Base Council.''.
(b) Industrial Base Fund.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 148 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 2508. Industrial Base Fund
``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense shall
establish an Industrial Base Fund (in this section referred
to as the `Fund').
``(b) Control of Fund.--The Fund shall be under the control
of the Industrial Base Council established pursuant to
section 188 of this title.
``(c) Amounts in Fund.--The Fund shall consist of amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available to the Fund.
``(d) Use of Fund.--Subject to subsection (e), the Fund
shall be used--
``(1) to support the monitoring and assessment of the
industrial base required by this chapter;
``(2) to address critical issues in the industrial base
relating to urgent operation needs;
``(3) to support efforts to expand the industrial base; and
``(4) to address supply chain vulnerabilities.
``(e) Use of Fund Subject to Appropriations.--The authority
of the Secretary of Defense to use the Fund under this
section in any fiscal year is subject to the availability of
appropriations for that purpose.
``(f) Expenditures.--The Secretary shall establish
procedures for expending monies in the Fund in support of the
uses identified in subsection (d), including the following:
``(1) Direct obligations from the Fund.
``(2) Transfers of monies from the Fund to relevant
appropriations of the Department of Defense.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``2508. Industrial Base Fund.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me start by thanking the chairman and ranking member of the
committee and the subcommittee for their leadership on this thoughtful
legislation to deliver long-needed reforms to
[[Page H2977]]
our military acquisition. I would also like to acknowledge the
tremendous work of the Armed Services Committee's bipartisan Panel on
Acquisition Reform, led of course by Mr. Andrews of New Jersey and Mr.
Conaway of Texas.
My amendment builds upon the panel's recommendations for getting the
most out of the industrial base. Defining and assessing the industrial
base has been an ongoing challenge for both the Department of Defense
and Congress, dating back to the creation of the Armed Forces
themselves. One of the key findings of the panel was the need to cast a
wider net in terms of defining the industrial base beyond the
traditional players. Many of today's technology innovations are being
brought forth by small- and mid-sized companies that are more
commercial in nature and don't fit the traditional mold of the
industrial base. While we must preserve those unique industrial
capabilities that have made our Armed Forces the world's most advanced
military force, we also must adjust to the innovative changes within
the supply chain to ensure that we provide our troops with the tools
they need to perform their duties. To accomplish this, we need to
adjust our industrial policy to reflect the growing importance of
services and information technology providers in the industrial base.
We also need, Mr. Chairman, to acknowledge the importance of systems
engineering and integration to our military operations. This amendment
would create an Industrial Base Council within the DOD. The council
would complement the Blue Ribbon Panel on Eliminating Barriers to
Contracting with the Department of Defense that's also created by this
legislation. Whereas the Blue Ribbon Panel would be comprised of
industry representatives that will present recommendations to the
Pentagon on eliminating barriers to those nontraditional industrial
base suppliers, this council would be tasked with assessing those and
other proposed policy changes and then recommending specific actions to
the Secretary of Defense.
The council will be comprised of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, who shall chair the group. An
official from within the Under Secretary's office will be appointed to
oversee the council. Council membership will also include: officials
within the Secretary's office responsible for manufacturing, research
and development, systems engineering and systems integration, services,
information technology, and sustainment and logistics; the director of
DLA; and representatives from other military departments.
In addition to providing budget and policy guidance to the Secretary
on modernizing the industrial base, the council will provide strategic
input for the Quadrennial Defense Review and other reports, and will
revise and issue new guidance for the DOD's technology and industrial
base.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, creates an Industrial Base Fund, which
when supported by appropriations, will support the actions and
recommendations of the council itself. This is a good government
initiative that will strengthen our industrial base, strengthen our
small business community, and our military readiness moving forward.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and these important
acquisition reforms.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition even though I
am in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to
my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this
time. I rise in support of this bill to make some very needed and
commonsense reforms in the defense acquisition program.
I want to say that I support the last amendment that just passed to
help relieve the problem that I have been concerned about for a long
time, the revolving door at the Pentagon, and I support this amendment
which hopefully will help, and I think is intended, at least in part,
to make it easier for small businesses to get involved in the Defense
Department contracting process. Far too many defense contracts in
recent years have been sweetheart insider deals that have gone
primarily to very large businesses, very large, well-connected
businesses.
USA Today reported on its front page on December 29 that the Durango
Group has 59 former high ranking military officers advising clients on
how to get defense contracts while many are also being paid by the
Defense Department to give it advice. And they are drawing huge
pensions, with some getting 15,000 a month or more plus free health
care.
Some of these people connected with this Durango Group even serve as
corporate directors or paid advisers to the defense contractors in
addition to their pay from Durango. The founder of Durango, a former
Air Force chief of staff, refused to be interviewed for the USA Today
story about this, but he received $180,000 in 2009 from one defense
contractor, $127,000 from another, served on the board of four other
defense contractors that do not disclose compensation, was a board
member of another company that buys and sells defense companies, and a
consultant to three other defense giants. He has been described as a
``military-industrial legend'' by one columnist. Too much of this has
gone on in recent years. And I hope and I think that this is what in
part this bill is directed at.
In addition to pensions as high as $220,000 a year, many retired
admirals and generals are paid up to $1,600 a day to be Defense
Department ``mentors.'' Eighty percent of these mentors have ties to
defense contractors, in what one observer described as an amazing
conflict of interest.
{time} 1345
I do want to say that I commend the Secretary of Defense, who has, as
I understand, put in new rules recently to try to correct some of this,
but this is a problem that has been crying out for action, and I hope
that this bill will correct some of this that has gone on. It's
something that we need to keep an eye on to make sure that some of
these scandalous types of sweetheart insider deals don't continue as
they have, unfortunately, in the past.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
I would like to thank our friend from Tennessee for his comments,
which we embrace. I think one of the purposes of Mr. Schrader's
amendment, which we just adopted, was to try to address that concern,
and we thank him for his support.
I want to commend and thank my friend from Virginia for his excellent
amendment. We have tried to establish in this bill the idea that the
Defense Department should coordinate the industrial base and broaden it
so the servicemembers and taxpayers get a better deal and we invite
ingenuity and innovation. Mr. Connolly has made sure that our good
intentions in this bill will become a good reality. By the
establishment of the council that Mr. Connolly establishes, there will
be a group that oversees the implementation of the ideas that we have.
So I think it strengthens the bill considerably. I commend Mr.
Connolly for being a fierce advocate for his district and his area,
which is so intimately involved in solving this problem. I thank him
for his contribution and urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I just want to thank my colleague for his
gracious remarks.
Mr. Chair, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Childers
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in House Report 111-467.
[[Page H2978]]
Mr. CHILDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Childers:
Page 48, line 21, insert ``market research strategies
(including assessments of local contracting capabilities),''
after ``services contracting,''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Childers) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. CHILDERS. I would like to add my thanks to Mr. Andrews and the
House Armed Services Committee, especially my dear friend and chairman,
Ike Skelton, for putting forth this important legislation.
Changing the way the Department of Defense conducts its acquisition
activities is essential to restoring fiscal discipline in our
government. I commend the committee's efforts to ensure that
acquisition personnel at the Department of Defense are well trained to
make the best decisions for both our national security and our economy.
My amendment makes a small addition to this training by including
``market research strategies.'' This minor addition is of great
importance to many districts like mine. Today, upwards of 4,000 North
Mississippians are employed by defense contractors, and that number
continues to grow. These employees work hard every day to create many
of the products and services that keep our troops safe in theater and
protect our homeland from outside threats. These include many
contractors on Columbus Air Force Base as well as contractors that
produce everything from military uniforms to MRAPS and Unmanned Aerial
Systems.
The defense companies are vital to the economy of Mississippi. It is
important that when the Department of Defense makes a decision about
who receives a military contract and what term that contract contains,
it considers how surrounding communities are affected and how these
communities can contribute to that contract.
The addition of market research strategies to acquisition training
would ensure that the acquisition personnel at the Department of
Defense are trained to take into account the local economy surrounding
a potential defense contractor and how the unique makeup of the local
community could provide added value to the department. It will assist
the department in taking into account the unique workforces that
communities like the Golden Triangle region in my district encompass
and their ability to save the government money.
During this difficult economy, it is important that Congress remains
focused on job creation and preservation as well as restoring a
balanced budget. My amendment ensures that the DOD can consider the
impact of defense acquisition on local jobs and that the government has
additional tools to find new ways to cut costs and promote fiscal
responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from Mississippi for offering this
very well-thought-out amendment.
One of the key ideas of this bill is that we have a high-quality,
well-trained acquisition workforce. Mr. Childers's amendment makes sure
that that workforce is well trained in a key area, which is
understanding that a contract does not simply affect the firm that wins
the contract and the employees that work for that firm. It affects the
entire region for which a contract is awarded.
Now, again, nothing in Mr. Childers's amendment would divert the
procurement organizations away from best value for the taxpayer dollar.
But what he does suggest is that when one defines the concept of value,
it's broader than just the four corners of the contract being
considered. The area he represents so ably is one where the economy
really pivots on the presence or absence of military contracts, and in
his efforts to try to make sure that his region prospers, I know that
he wants to be sure, as each of us does, that there is fair
consideration of the regional and community economic impact of a
contracting decision.
I think the amendment that he has offered, which goes to the training
of decision-makers, is entirely appropriate in that regard. We
appreciate his contribution to the bill, and I would encourage the
Members to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHILDERS. I want to thank my colleague and the gentleman for his
concurrence in my amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment and the underlying bill as well.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Childers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mrs. Dahlkemper
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 13 offered by Mrs. Dahlkemper:
At the end of title IV, add the following new section:
SEC. 407. ACQUISITION SAVINGS PROGRAM.
(a) Program Required.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense, acting through
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, shall carry out a program to provide
opportunities to provide cost-savings on nondevelopmental
items.
(2) Savings.--The program, to be known as the Acquisition
Savings Program, shall provide any person or activity within
or outside the Department of Defense with the opportunity to
offer a proposal to provide savings in excess of 15 percent,
to be known as an acquisition savings proposal, for covered
contracts.
(3) Sunset.--The program shall cease to be required on
September 30, 2013.
(b) Qualifying Acquisition Savings Proposals.--A proposal
shall qualify as an acquisition savings proposal for purposes
of this section if it offers to supply a nondevelopmental
item that is identical to, or equivalent to (under a
performance specification or relevant commercial standard),
an item being procured under a covered contract.
(c) Review by Contracting Officer.--Each acquisition
savings proposal shall be reviewed by the contracting officer
for the covered contract concerned to determine if such
proposal qualifies under this section and to calculate the
savings provided by such proposal.
(d) Actions Upon Favorable Review.--If the contracting
officer for a covered contract determines after review of an
acquisition savings proposal that the proposal would provide
an identical or equivalent nondevelopmental item at a savings
in excess of 15 percent, and that a contract award to the
offeror of the proposal would not result in the violation of
a minimum purchase agreement or otherwise cause a breach of
contract for the covered contract, the contracting officer
may make an award under the covered contract to the offeror
of the acquisition savings proposal or otherwise award a
contract for the nondevelopmental item concerned to such
offeror.
(e) Actions Upon Unfavorable Review.--If a contracting
officer determines after review of an acquisition savings
proposal that the proposal would not satisfy the requirements
of this section, the contracting officer shall debrief the
person or activity offering such proposal within 30 days
after completion of the review.
(f) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2013, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and House of Representatives a report regarding
the program, including the number of acquisition savings
proposals submitted, the number favorably reviewed, the
cumulative savings, and any further recommendations for the
program.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Nondevelopmental item.--The term ``nondevelopmental
item'' has the meaning provided for such term in section 4 of
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).
(2) Covered contract.--The term ``covered contract''--
(A) means an indefinite delivery indefinite quantity
contract for property as defined in
[[Page H2979]]
section 2304d(2) of title 10, United States Code; and
(B) does not include any contract awarded under an
exception to competitive acquisition authorized by the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.)
(3) Performance specification.--The term ``performance
specification'' means a specification of required item
functional characteristics.
(4) Commercial standard.--The term ``commercial standard''
means a standard used in industry promulgated by an
accredited standards organizations that is not a Federal
entity.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentlewoman
from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the IMPROVE
Acquisition Act of 2010 will help cut wasteful spending and ensure that
taxpayer funds used for our national defense are spent responsibly and
efficiently.
The agencies charged with our defense have a responsibility to ensure
that taxpayers get the highest return on their investment while
providing for the safety of our soldiers and of our Nation.
My amendment gives the Department of Defense a way to save 15 percent
or more on its existing contracts for nondevelopmental items by
allowing contract officers to opt for more efficient proposals as long
as doing so does not breach existing contracts.
This legislation furthers our commitment to fiscal responsibility in
defense spending by putting performance metrics where they are needed
most: on the service and other contracts that make up the majority of
our defense budget.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to support the
underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, although I do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, which is almost as striking in its common sense as it is
striking that there is any legal issue as to whether a canon should be
done. There is such a legal issue, unfortunately, and the gentlewoman's
amendment clears that legal issue up.
Here is the situation her amendment contemplates: The Defense
Department lets a contract to a vendor. The vendor is performing the
contract. Because of a new efficiency or a drop in the price of a
material, let's say that the price of food or gasoline that the vendor
is using drops dramatically, the vendor offers to continue the contract
at a lower price. There are rules which today would preclude the
Defense Department from taking advantage of that offer.
What Mrs. Dahlkemper's amendment says is that so long as the quality
is preserved and so long as there at least is a 15 percent savings at a
minimum and all other rules are complied with that the Defense
Department can take advantage of that offer. Any business in this
country would jump at that opportunity. And the gentlewoman has offered
an amendment which makes an awful lot of sense, which will let the
Department of Defense operate on those sound business principles.
Again, her amendment does not provide for any deviation from the
rules of conflict of interest or legal procedure, but it says if there
is an opportunity to achieve at least a 15-percent reduction and all
other things are appropriate, then we should achieve that reduction.
This makes eminent common sense.
We thank her for offering the amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Kissell
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Kissell:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE V--OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 501. CLOTHING ALLOWANCE REQUIREMENT.
The Comptroller General shall conduct a study of the items
purchased under section 418 of title 37, United States Code,
to determine if there is sufficient domestic production of
such items to adequately supply members of the Armed Forces
and shall transmit the results of such study to the Secretary
of Defense. Not later than 6 months after receiving the
results of such study, the Secretary of Defense shall
transmit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and the House of Representatives an evaluation on whether
such items under the study should be considered subject to
section 2533a of title 10, United States Code (popularly
known as the ``Berry Amendment'').
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I
would like to thank my colleagues and our chairman, Ike Skelton, for
bringing this much-needed legislation to the floor. I would also like
to thank my friends and colleagues Howard Coble from North Carolina and
Mike Michaud from Maine for helping me sponsor this amendment.
This amendment is very simple in its intent. For over 60 years, Mr.
Chairman, the Berry amendment has allowed the Department of Defense to
buy clothing and other apparel materials that are made in the United
States when available. There has, in recent years, however, been a list
of clothing articles that our soldiers and military personnel are
required to purchase that are not provided by the Department of
Defense. The Department of Defense does provide a clothing cash
allowance for this purchase, but these items that are on this list are
not necessarily made in the United States.
This amendment would require the GAO to look at this list, to look at
the possibilities and potential for making these materials in the
United States or is the capacity there to make them there now to meet
the demands, get with the Department of Defense, and then the
Department of Defense, within 6 months, would be required to get back
to the House Armed Services Committee with its findings as to whether
or not these materials could be made in the United States under the
Berry amendment. So it's a commonsense approach to expanding the Berry
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlemen from North
Carolina and from Maine for offering the amendment and support it.
The general rule under the law is that the Defense Department must
buy goods and services made in the United States. There's an exception
to that rule which deals with vouchers, essentially, where if there's a
voucher given to a servicemember to buy certain goods, there's an
exception to that.
{time} 1400
The gentlemen who are offering this amendment are interested in
finding out whether that exception could be accomplished in a way that
would protect the choice and quality for the servicemembers while
promoting the purchase of American goods and services. I think that
inquiring into that is entirely appropriate.
At this time I would like to yield to my friend, the ranking member,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), for his comments on this.
Mr. CONAWAY. I appreciate that. I also tentatively support the
amendment--certainly, the spirit of the Berry amendment--as well. But,
as drafted, the GAO study, I think, will be very
[[Page H2980]]
difficult to implement. Servicemembers are not required to keep records
of the items that they purchase with their clothing allowance; nor are
they required to set aside these dollars in a teacup to purchase
uniforms only. So the GAO may not be able to determine what
servicemembers bought with their clothing allowance, let alone whether
those items were produced domestically.
If the sponsor will allow us to revise the amendment in conference to
specifically evaluate the sufficiency of the domestic supply of
military uniforms, then I can certainly support that. But I support it
with some reservations that the study as drafted specifically under
this rule would be less than optimal. And if the sponsor would allow us
to work on it in conference, I would support it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to reviewing the results
of the GAO study so we can work with all the gentlemen to achieve the
objective they have set forth.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my
friend from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
Mr. MICHAUD. I'd like to thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
today in support of this amendment. This is a bipartisan effort to
ensure that our troops are outfitted with American-made goods as much
as possible. Under current policy, clothing items that soldiers
purchase with DOD-issued cash allowances are not subject to the Berry
amendment. Our amendment asks GAO to determine whether U.S. companies
make enough of these cash-allowance items to meet the demands of our
troops. DOD will report to Congress on GAO's findings and indicate
whether or not they will extend the Berry amendment to any of these
American-made products.
This amendment supports United States businesses. This amendment
protects and creates American jobs. And this amendment makes sure that,
wherever possible, our troops are outfitted with goods made with pride
in the U.S.A.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, the strength of America is shown in many
ways--the strength of our military and its personnel and families that
make up our service, but also shown in the strength of a strong economy
and as many Americans working as possible. This amendment would help
ensure that as many Americans as possible are working to make the
clothing articles that our great servicepeople use. I encourage my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we would urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield
back the balance of my time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Grayson
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Grayson:
At the end of the bill add the following new section:
SEC. 501. REQUIREMENT THAT COST OR PRICE TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BE GIVEN AT LEAST EQUAL IMPORTANCE
AS TECHNICAL OR OTHER CRITERIA IN EVALUATING
COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS FOR DEFENSE CONTRACTS.
(a) Requirement.--Subparagraph (A) of section 2305(a)(3) of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking
``proposals; and'' at the end of clause (ii) and all that
follows through the end of the subparagraph and inserting the
following: ``proposals and that must be assigned importance
at least equal to all evaluation factors other than cost or
price when combined.''.
(b) Waiver.--Section 2305(a)(3) of such title is further
amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) The requirement of subparagraph (A)(ii) relating to
assigning at least equal importance to evaluation factors of
cost or price may be waived by the head of the agency. The
authority to issue a waiver under this subparagraph may not
be delegated.''.
(c) Report.--Section 2305(a)(3) of such title is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal
year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress, and
post on a publicly available website of the Department of
Defense, a report containing a list of each waiver issued by
the head of an agency under subparagraph (B) during the
preceding fiscal year.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. I want to also express my thanks to the chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, the members of the committee and the staff,
and specifically and especially to Congressman Andrews and Congressman
Conaway, who brought this bill to the floor today and allowed this to
be considered for amendments. I also want to express my thanks to the
members of the Rules Committee and their staff for finding this
amendment in order for consideration today.
This is an amendment, in short, that gives guidance to contracting
officers that they never had before in DOD concerning the question of
to what extent cost or price should be considered in procurement. I ask
for the support of the Grayson amendment to the IMPROVE Act to give
legislative guidance to the Defense Department concerning the need to
emphasize price or cost in defense procurement.
Under current law, the DOD contracting officer--could be a GS-8, GS-
9--has no authority, no guidance from this institution to determine how
much should be considered for cost or price. Rather, the contracting
officer on his or her own volition establishes an evaluation scheme
before each procurement, telling the offerers how their proposal will
be evaluated. Current law permits DOD to announce an evaluation scheme
that would consider price or cost as only 1 percent of the evaluation
and other more subjective factors as 99 percent of the evaluation
scheme. In practice, price or cost frequently is weighed as only 25
percent or 33 percent of the evaluation scheme; and other, more
subjective, factors remain in the balance.
The resulting waste is twofold. First, DOD frequently rejects the
low-cost proposal because its own evaluation scheme dictates that it
does so. This alone costs the taxpayers untold billions of dollars.
Secondly, defense contractors who know how to build a better mousetrap
that could actually save DOD substantial amounts of money don't even
bother to frame their proposals that way because they know that the
evaluation will not turn on cost, but rather will turn on factors other
than cost. So they don't even submit such a proposal.
Our amendment solves these problems by mandating that DOD
procurements weigh cost or price at 50 percent of the evaluation
scheme, or more, unless the head of the agency decides otherwise. For
large purchases of standard commodities like fuels, hammers, et cetera,
there's no reason not to do this. And for items that are mission
critical, the head of the agency, under our amendment, has the
discretion to weigh cost or price at less than 50 percent, in fact, to
weigh it any amount the head of the agency deems appropriate.
In my 20 years in government contracts procurement before I was
elected to serve in Congress, including my time spent fighting war
profiteers in Iraq, I saw substantial overuse of subjective factors in
DOD contractor awards at taxpayer expense. Our amendment is a
commonsense solution to that problem, which will allow all us of to say
at the end of the day that we fought hard to fight against waste,
fraud, and abuse in defense procurement.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank my friends from Florida,
Mr. Grayson and Mr. Hastings, for offering this amendment. It makes
eminently good sense. It says this: if a procurement officer decides to
buy the
[[Page H2981]]
product that isn't the least expensive, a couple of rules apply. First
of all, price has to be at least equal to the greatest factor that's
being used. It can't be any less than equal. And if it is less than
equal, the procurement officer has to explain why.
Now this makes pretty good sense. I think most people would agree
that it's not always true that the least expensive item is the best.
But if you think a more expensive item is the best, then you ought to
explain why. I think most of us would want that in the way we manage
our household budgets, our businesses, our towns, our local school
districts.
Mr. Grayson, based upon his years of experience in this field, has
written an amendment that carries that idea forward. I think it's very
worthy. Again, I think it strikes the right balance between flexibility
for the procurement officer to make a decision that he or she thinks is
the right one, but justification to the public as to why we're not
spending the least amount of money on something that we're buying. I
think most of our constituents would want us to presume that we should
get the best price available; and only if it can be demonstrated that
the best price available is not the best value available, should we
make a different decision. So I think this amendment makes very, very
good sense. I would urge its adoption.
I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to my friend
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
Mr. PLATTS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I certainly rise in
agreement with the maker of the amendment that we need to get the best
value for the American taxpayers when it comes to the acquisition of
goods and services. In fact, the underlying bill we're discussing here
today is about achieving that exact goal--getting that best value.
I do want to express a concern, however, that sometimes getting the
best value may mean paying more for a superior product or service,
especially when it comes to the complex technological requirements of
the equipment of our men and women in the American Armed Forces. There
may be legitimate cases where the cost, the price of a good or service,
is less important than other factors. Probably a good example of that
is pretty recently the acquisition of MRAPs and body armor that
certainly have saved the lives of our courageous troops.
A concern that I think we need to weigh here is just that this may be
a little premature, this specific amendment, because a similar
amendment was included in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act.
During the conference, a provision was added to that language that
requires the Government Accountability Office to do a study to
determine how often it occurs that cost is not the overriding factor or
the primary factor. That study is due back to us in October of this
year. It seems like it would be appropriate to get that knowledge base
from GAO before going further with another requirement at this time.
So I don't oppose the intent of the sponsor of the amendment. We are
certainly in agreement that we want to get the best value, but just
believe it may be helpful to wait for GAO to complete its work.
Mr. GRAYSON. I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank my
colleague for making these points. I'd like to respond to them briefly.
With regard to the first point, I want to make it clear that within
the literal wording of this amendment no agency is ever required to
choose the least-cost product. All that this amendment says is that in
the evaluation scheme, in order to encourage people who are offerers to
think about how to save money for DOD, we make the commitment in
general, overall, that cost or price will be considered at least as
much as all the other factors combined.
In addition to that, we allow the head of the agency to suspend the
rule at will, without any condition or limitation in the statute. The
head of the agency can determine that for any item, including mission-
critical items, cost or price can be 40 percent, 30 percent, 10
percent, even 5 percent of the evaluation factors.
So I think that although the gentleman's point is well taken, that we
should not ever bind the hands of the DOD when DOD needs to get items
that may not be the low cost item, this is an amendment that does not
do that. This amendment simply says that, in general, under ordinary
circumstances, particularly in buying volume commodities that are
identical to each other, we should in fact make 50 percent of the
consideration cost or price.
Now, I've seen procurements where, for instance, a commodity like
gasoline is being bought by DOD and somehow they determine that two-
thirds of the evaluation factor should be something other than cost or
price. Sometimes we waste billions of dollars on account of decisions
like that.
So I think that this is a rule that really needs to take place. I
understand the gentleman's point concerning the study that's ongoing;
but, frankly, I think that if we do this now, we'll save money now. If
we do this later, we'll save less money. I'd rather see the money saved
now, particularly when we have such great needs abroad and our defense
budget is so great. I think that this simple rule, this commonsense
rule, will help to save billions almost immediately as soon as it's
implemented. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the
amendment. I do share the concerns of my friend from Pennsylvania. I
believe that the amendment that's in front of us here, I think the
language of the amendment addresses the concerns the gentleman raises.
I think it provides sufficient flexibility. I commend the gentleman for
offering it.
I urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hare
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in House Report 111-467.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Hare:
At the end of title IV, add the following new section:
SEC. 407. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
BERRY AMENDMENT, THE BUY AMERICAN ACT, AND
LABOR STANDARDS OF THE UNITED STATES.
In order to create jobs, level the playing field for
domestic manufacturers, and strengthen economic recovery, it
is the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense
should--
(1) ensure full contractor and subcontractor compliance
with the Berry Amendment (10 U.S.C. 2533a) and the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.); and
(2) not procure products made by manufacturers in the
United States that violate labor standards as defined under
the laws of the United States.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1300, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hare) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
{time} 1415
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Let me begin by taking this opportunity to thank Chairman Skelton and
Ranking Member McKeon as well as Chairman Andrews and Ranking Member
Conaway for their leadership on the underlying bill and for their
commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.
The amendment before us today is one of great importance that aims to
ensure a level playing field for domestic manufacturers with the hope
of strengthening our economic recovery through the defense acquisition
process. My amendment declares that it is the sense of Congress that
the Department of Defense should ensure full compliance throughout the
acquisition process with the Berry Amendment and the Buy American Act.
Further, the amendment declares the sense of Congress that the
Department of Defense not procure products made by domestic
manufacturers that fail to comply with the labor standards that are set
by the laws established by Congress.
Both the Buy American Act and the Berry Amendment are intended to
benefit American industry and workers.
[[Page H2982]]
And at a time of high unemployment, we must ensure compliance with
these important laws to ensure that DOD procurement benefits American
families in every corner of this Nation whenever possible.
I think we can all agree here that we want the best equipment and
items procured for our Armed Forces, and I think we can all agree that
we want to ensure that these acquisitions adhere to the laws and labor
standards of the land. My amendment simply expresses and reaffirms
congressional intent and aims to aid the economic recovery that our
Nation so desperately needs. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but
I do not oppose it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Missouri is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SKELTON. The amendment before us is a sense of Congress
amendment. In essence it says, we should follow the law. It reaffirms
Congress' support for the Buy American Act and other United States
labor laws, and Congress has acted in recent years to make contracting
officers aware of firms seeking contracts that have engaged in certain
violations of the law. This is a ``wake up and pay attention to the
law'' sense of Congress.
Today, Mr. Chairman, we have done more than adopt 16 amendments and
had an excellent general debate on this bill. We have exhibited in a
very substantial and substantive piece of legislation that Democrats
and Republicans can work together, that, in a bipartisan effort, we can
make things better for the young men and women in uniform, that we can
save the taxpayer dollars, and over a period of time, it will be in the
billions of dollars if this legislation becomes law. And we certainly
hope that it will not only pass here with a substantial vote but also
pass the United States Senate with a substantial vote, because it is a
hallmark piece of real legislation. It should have been done before,
but it wasn't. And here we are, taking up legislation that will be good
for the young men and young women in uniform and save the American
taxpayer dollars.
I am really proud of the committee. I am really proud of Buck McKeon,
the ranking member, for his excellent cooperation and work; Rob
Andrews, the chairman of the panel that I appointed; Mike Conaway, for
the excellent work that he did, in particular, the sections relating to
the required audits that will be part of this legislation. We have just
done marvelous work. I could not be prouder of the Armed Services
Committee and those who worked on it as well as those who offered the
very important amendments.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the work that has
been done, and I do urge a ``yes'' vote on this particular amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HARE. Once again, I just want to thank Chairman Skelton for his
wonderful work on this bill.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-467 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Hall of New York.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hall of New York
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 416,
noes 0, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 227]
AYES--416
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
[[Page H2983]]
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Barrett (SC)
Culberson
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Fudge
Gohmert
Gordon (TN)
Harman
Hoekstra
Meeks (NY)
Rangel
Serrano
Tanner
Teague
Thornberry
Wamp
Waters
Wolf
{time} 1448
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Salazar). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417,
noes 2, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 228]
AYES--417
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Christensen
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pierluisi
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sablan
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--2
Campbell
Flake
NOT VOTING--17
Barrett (SC)
Culberson
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Fudge
Harman
Hoekstra
Johnson (GA)
Kline (MN)
Miller (NC)
Rangel
Tanner
Teague
Thornberry
Wamp
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in
this vote.
{time} 1458
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Jackson of Illinois) having assumed the chair, Mr. Salazar, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 1300, he reported the bill back
to the House with an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BUYER. In its present form, I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Buyer moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5013 to the
Committee on Armed Services with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of title III, add the following new section:
SEC. 304. DISCLOSURE AND TRACEABILITY OF THE COST OF
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEALTH CARE CONTRACTS.
(a) Disclosure Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
require--
(1) an offeror that submits a bid or proposal in response
to an invitation for bids or a request for proposals issued
by a component of the Department of Defense for a health care
contract to submit with the bid or proposal a disclosure of
the additional cost, if any, contained in such bid or
proposal associated with compliance with the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and
the Health Care and
[[Page H2984]]
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152);
and
(2) a contractor for a health care contract awarded
following the date of the enactment of this Act to disclose
on an annual basis the additional cost, if any, incurred for
such contract associated with compliance with the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-152).
(b) Report.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than April 1, 2011, and each
April 1st thereafter until April 1, 2016, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives a detailed report on the additional cost
to the Department of Defense associated with compliance with
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law
111-148) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act
of 2010 (Public Law 111-152).
(2) Matters covered.--The report required by paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) the projected costs of compliance for all health care
contracts awarded during the preceding year, as disclosed in
a bid or proposal in accordance with subsection (a)(1);
(B) for all other health care contracts, the incurred cost
of compliance for the preceding year, as disclosed in
accordance with subsection (a)(2); and
(C) any additional costs to the Department of Defense
necessary to comply with such Acts.
(c) Health Care Contract Defined.--In this section, the
term ``health care contract'' means a contract in an amount
greater than the simplified acquisition threshold for the
acquisition of any of the following:
(1) Medical supplies.
(2) Health care services and administration, including the
services of medical personnel.
(3) Durable medical equipment.
(4) Pharmaceuticals.
(5) Health care-related information technology.
Mr. BUYER (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to waive the reading of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. BUYER. Last Thursday's report by the Department of Health and
Human Services has now been delivered to all of our offices. In
particular, a report by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
has confirmed that President Obama's new health care law will increase
costs for taxpayers and patients. The CMS has estimated that the new
law will increase health care spending in this country by $311 billion.
Now, that $311 billion figure is on page 4, but all Members should
note, on page 2, that they are very up front about this.
On page 2, it reads: Because of the transition effects and the fact
that most coverage provisions are going to be in effect for 6 of the 10
years of the budget period, the cost estimates that were shown in the
memorandum do not represent a full 10-year cost of the legislation.
So, even though they are projecting that it is going to be $311
billion, please understand that this is really not a true 10-year time
frame. This is why I want to bring this to everyone's attention.
Please, Members, look at this report. Please, look at the report. As
policymakers, all of us who have responsibilities for health
initiatives need to understand what the impacts will be upon our areas
of responsibility. Of the Federal expenditure for only the 6-year time
frame, it is going to be about $251 billion.
As you know, the Department of Defense is one of the largest
procurers of health care goods and services in the country. Now, I'm
not even talking about VA. We're only going to focus for the moment
here on DOD because of jurisdictional matters. By caring for our
wounded warriors and their families, the Pentagon strives to support
our brave wounded soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines along the road
to recovery. This support not only includes medical care for injured
troops but also for our active duty military, their families, and the
retirees as well.
In order to provide that level of care, the DOD purchases from a
network of managed care support organizations, from health care
professionals, manufacturers, and from information technology
providers. What CMS has made clear to all of us in this report is that
this network is heavily impacted by the new health care law.
Let me remind my colleagues that CMS is not a partisan group. CMS,
formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration, or HCFA, is
very much part of President Obama's administration. So, if CMS
estimates that there are greater costs, I am sure that these are likely
to be conservative estimates, and greater costs are not something the
Pentagon is prepared to absorb. As many of you are aware, the
Department's overall expenditures for health care are rising rapidly.
Secretary Gates testified in the fall that the increased costs are
``beginning to eat us alive.''
So, if there are direct or secondary effects of the President's
health care program, the only way to cover those costs is to raise the
premiums to beneficiaries, to families, and to retirees or to eat
further into DOD's ability to support the needs of our men and women in
uniform. This is not what we want to do. This is why we must understand
the impact of the President's new health care law on DOD. We know that
the health care law includes new fees on manufacturers of brand-name
prescription drugs. We sell to the Federal health care programs,
including the Department of Defense.
CMS stated in last Thursday's report: ``We anticipate these fees
would generally be passed through to health consumers in the form of
higher drug prices.'' That means a pass-through to DOD. We need to know
and to understand the impact of those increased fees upon us.
Section 9011 of the President's health care law already requires the
Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study of the impact of the
increased costs on veterans' health care which are imposed by the new
law. This includes reporting on the costs to the VA of any fees
assessed on brand-name prescription drugs and medical device
manufacturers.
It seems only reasonable, if we supported that provision for the VA,
as many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did, that we
should do the very same thing with DOD. That is what I am asking in
this motion to recommit. The Pentagon is slated to spend $56 billion on
the next procurement round of TRICARE contracts. This amendment simply
asks for the DOD to identify through their acquisition process any
additional costs as a result of the President's new health care law and
to report that to Congress. We are asking for transparency.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded not to traffic the well
when other Members are speaking.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition, though I do not
oppose the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote ``yes'' on
this motion to recommit because the language of the recommit does what
the gentleman's argument doesn't do.
The language of this argument says we should have full, accurate
transparency about the cost of the new health care bill as it applies
to defense contracts. In other words, we ought to know the facts. We
agree with that. With all of the respect of the gentleman's argument,
the facts were kind of missing. Here is what the facts are:
As to the report that he references from CMS, I would take due note
of the fact that the ``M'' in CMS means ``Medicare.'' Here is what the
report said:
Before the President signed the health care law, the Medicare Trust
Fund was due to run out of money in 2017. Because the President signed
the health care law, the Medicare Trust Fund will live for at least 12
more years.
The fact is that the report said that future forecasts of health care
costs are, to quote the report: only a prediction, difficult to
ascertain, subject to interpretation.
[[Page H2985]]
Well, here are some interpretations that the American public are
beginning to see: When sons and daughters under the age of 26 years old
can be covered on their parents' policies, the American people support
that. When people cannot be turned away from buying insurance or cannot
have their premiums raised because they had breast cancer or asthma,
the American people support that. When an insurance company cannot
cancel people's policies when they're on the way to the operating rooms
after they've paid premiums for years, the American people support
that.
We embrace and support the idea of learning the facts about the
health care bill. That's what the amendment says. We support the idea
of speaking the truth about the health care bill. That's what all
Members of the House should do. That's what the American people are
entitled to do.
Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, and vote ``yes'' on the
underlying bipartisan bill.
Mr. SKELTON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 419,
noes 1, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 229]
AYES--419
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--1
Pascrell
NOT VOTING--10
Barrett (SC)
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Ehlers
Fallin
Fudge
Harman
Hoekstra
Teague
Wamp
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moran of Virginia) (during the vote).
There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1533
Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 229 I was detained in the
Attending Physician's Office, and arrived on the House floor too late
to be recorded on this rollcall. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House
in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 5013, back to the
House with an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Skelton:
At the end of title III, add the following new section:
SEC. 304. DISCLOSURE AND TRACEABILITY OF THE COST OF
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEALTH CARE CONTRACTS.
(a) Disclosure Requirement.--The Secretary of Defense shall
require--
(1) an offeror that submits a bid or proposal in response
to an invitation for bids or a request for proposals issued
by a component of the Department of Defense for a health care
contract to submit with the bid or proposal a disclosure of
the additional cost, if any, contained in such bid or
proposal associated with compliance with the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-152); and
(2) a contractor for a health care contract awarded
following the date of the enactment of this Act to disclose
on an annual basis the additional cost, if any, incurred for
such contract associated with compliance with the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-152).
(b) Report.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than April 1, 2011, and each
April 1st thereafter until April 1, 2016, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives a detailed report on the additional cost
to the Department of Defense associated with compliance with
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law
111-148) and
[[Page H2986]]
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-152).
(2) Matters covered.--The report required by paragraph (1)
shall include--
(A) the projected costs of compliance for all health care
contracts awarded during the preceding year, as disclosed in
a bid or proposal in accordance with subsection (a)(1);
(B) for all other health care contracts, the incurred cost
of compliance for the preceding year, as disclosed in
accordance with subsection (a)(2); and
(C) any additional costs to the Department of Defense
necessary to comply with such Acts.
(c) Health Care Contract Defined.--In this section, the
term ``health care contract'' means a contract in an amount
greater than the simplified acquisition threshold for the
acquisition of any of the following:
(1) Medical supplies.
(2) Health care services and administration, including the
services of medical personnel.
(3) Durable medical equipment.
(4) Pharmaceuticals.
(5) Health care-related information technology.
Mr. SKELTON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 417,
noes 3, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 230]
AYES--417
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--3
Broun (GA)
Flake
Paul
NOT VOTING--10
Barrett (SC)
Davis (AL)
DeGette
Fallin
Fattah
Fudge
Harman
Hoekstra
Teague
Wamp
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1541
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________