[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.

                          ____________________