[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10828-10844]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 DUNCAN HUNTER NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5658.

                              {time}  1531


                     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 further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5658) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Ross (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 23 printed in 
House Report 110-666 by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) 
had been postponed.


                 Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Pearce

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 
printed in House Report 110-666.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 33 offered by Mr. Pearce:
       At the end of title XXXI, insert the following:

     SEC. 31__. INCREASED FUNDING FOR RELIABLE REPLACEMENT WARHEAD 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Increase.--The amount in section 3101 for weapons 
     activities, National Nuclear Security Administration, is 
     hereby increased by $10,000,000, to be available for the 
     Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
       (b) Offset.--The amount in section 2402 is hereby reduced 
     by $10,000,000, to be derived from energy conservation on 
     military installations.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to restore a small 
sum of money into an important program, the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead program. The RRW is critically important for our national 
security. Our current nuclear stockpile is aging. As it ages, we must 
constantly pour more money into maintaining the aging weapons.
  We have a choice to make as a Nation: Do we continue to rely on 
current weapon stockpiles and pay an increasing cost of maintaining the 
readiness and reliability of these weapons, or do we develop a new line 
of weapons to replace the current stockpile? The RRW would improve the 
overall shelf life of a warhead from 30 to over 50 years, and the 
program is true to its name.
  RRW does not pursue new nuclear weapons capabilities. Rather, it 
pursues making our weapons more reliable, and more reliable weapons 
will help reduce the maintenance costs of our nuclear stockpile and 
ensure that we have stable and reliable weapons ready, and most 
notably, reduce our overall nuclear stockpile by potentially as many as 
1,000 warheads.
  Without RRW, we will continue to have a larger weapon stockpile. Not 
pursuing RRW is essentially counterproductive to our stated goals of 
arms reduction. Not only is my amendment the responsible thing to do 
for our national security, it's the fiscally responsible choice as 
well. The current life extension programs that are designed to extend 
the shelf life of expired warheads are at a great cost to the taxpayer.
  I think we should all agree on the goal of reducing our total 
stockpile of nuclear arms, and if you agree with that goal, then I urge 
you to adopt my amendment to restore funding for the RRW program, the 
Reliable Replacement Warhead program.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Pearce amendment to H.R. 
5658, the fiscal year 2009 defense authorization bill. The Pearce 
amendment would restore $10 million for the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead that our bill currently redirects to a more broad-based, 
advanced certification program. Our bill focuses on sustaining and 
modernizing the stockpile stewardship program, the core of this 
Nation's effort to ensure that our nuclear weapons are safe, secure, 
and reliable.
  Before any decisions are made about RRW, we must first answer 
fundamental questions about our strategic posture and nuclear weapons 
policies. That's why Congress established the bipartisan Congressional 
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States in last year's 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  The Commission's report, due in several months, and the nuclear 
posture review required of the next administration will help frame the 
looming decisions about sustaining our nuclear deterrent and 
modernizing the nuclear weapons complex.
  One day, something like RRW may be part of a stockpile stewardship 
program. But no funds were appropriated to conduct the RRW design and 
cost study last year, and this year's request did not include nearly 
enough to complete the study. In this context, the committee-approved 
bill shifts $10 million requested for RRW to advance certification and 
authorizes the National Nuclear Security Administration to address 
questions raised by the JASON panel last year about the challenge of 
certifying RRW without underground testing.
  The Pearce amendment offset is also a big problem. The offset is a 
$10 million cut to the DOD Energy Conservation Investment Program, or 
ECIP. The Department of Defense uses ECIP to reduce energy consumption 
and greenhouse gas emissions, increase the use of renewable energy and 
meet national energy policy goals. And ECIP works. Its projects have a 
nearly 2-to-1 savings to investment ratio on average. A $10 million 
reduction would be a 12\1/2\ percent cut to ECIP.
  Our bill, H.R. 5658, takes a prudent, sound approach to stewardship 
of our Nation's nuclear deterrent.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pearce amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for bringing 
this amendment, and we lament the fact that our nuclear warheads are 
getting older, that we don't have a testing regime in place any longer 
and that that necessarily deteriorates the reliability factor. So the 
idea was let's build a reliable replacement warhead, and the

[[Page 10829]]

fact that we haven't proceeded down that path is really a tragedy.
  Now, I know the gentleman has $10 million in this amendment for this 
Reliable Replacement Warhead. He takes some money from the energy 
conservation program, which has many, many good aspects. I know that 
some Members are torn between these two important goals, one of 
developing energy conservation on military bases, and the other 
developing this warhead.
  I come down, Mr. Chairman, on the side of ensuring that this critical 
asset, which is a very, very important part of America's security 
apparatus, that is, a reliable strategic deterrent, I come down on that 
side. As a result of that, I support Mr. Pearce's amendment very 
strongly.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am happy to yield 1 
minute to my colleague and friend from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mrs. Tauscher for her wise 
leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unwise and, at the very least, 
premature. Existing Department of Energy Reports and reports from 
outside consultants, such as the JASON group, have made it clear that 
our existing nuclear weapons will be viable for decades. It makes no 
sense to begin construction of a new generation of nuclear weapons. It 
is not necessary, and worse, it would be harmful to our security.
  In light of our efforts to convince other countries to abstain from 
pursuing nuclear weapons, a pressing, indeed critical, national need 
for our security to persuade other countries to abstain going forward 
with Reliable Replacement Warhead programs would not make sense. It was 
defunded last year by the Appropriations Committee largely for some of 
these reasons I have outlined.
  Finally, the United States has not recently conducted a comprehensive 
review of its nuclear posture, and no construction of new nuclear 
weapons or major alterations of the DOE lab complexes should be made 
until such a review is completed.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Pearce amendment.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Mexico has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard the arguments that maybe we're taking too 
much money from the EEC program, the Energy Efficiency Conservation 
program, that we're actually taking 12 percent was what was stated, but 
actually the truth is from last year's funding, we're not taking a 
penny. We're actually leaving that program funded at exactly the same 
level.
  I have heard that we should not be building new weapons in order to 
give the right example to some of our friends around the world. And 
when I consider our attempts to influence our friends in North Korea, I 
would think that our unwillingness to build new weapons won't influence 
them at all. And when I think about influencing our friends in Iran, I 
think that our new posture of not maintaining our nuclear weapons will 
not influence them at all. In fact, they might be influenced in the 
other way.
  Mr. Chairman, the world is not safer since 9/11. The world is more 
dangerous. During the 50 or so years of the Cold War, we didn't 
experience one strike inside the United States that even came close to 
being like the attack on 9/11. Yet after the Cold War, 1993, we had the 
first attack on the World Trade Center and then the second attack in 
2001.
  The world is getting progressively more dangerous, and I think for us 
to think that we can negotiate with these different countries is one 
that we should back up with the capability to strike back if a strike 
is needed.
  I would reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that my 
colleague from New Mexico knows that we spend--and that anybody 
listening--we spend over $6 billion maintaining the weapons. So it's 
hardly not spending any money at all.
  At this time, I am happy to yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee, Mr. Visclosky.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the chairwoman 
yielding to me, and I do rise in respectful opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The fact is we ought to ensure our security as a Nation. To best do 
that, we need to develop, in a bipartisan fashion, in a fashion that 
exists over a number of administrations, over a number of Congresses 
regardless of who and which party controlled both those branches of 
government, a comprehensive post-Cold War, post-9/11 nuclear strategy.
  My concern, because that $6 billion that the chairwoman accurately 
suggests we do spend on a nuclear weapons complex, is a complex that we 
have to re-examine and to characterize. If we begin the construction of 
a new weapon in place, we simply exacerbate the current problems.
  In the end, we ought to develop a strategy and then determine the 
types and the numbers of weapons we need. And not just in the sense of 
nuclear, but conventional, as well as other aspects of what that plan 
should be as opposed to having a set number of weapons and of various 
types and then constructing a strategy around them.
  The Energy and Water appropriations bill that was passed and is in 
effect as part of the omnibus package for fiscal year 2008 indicates 
that's exactly what this Nation should be about, and I would ask my 
colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I've listened with respect to the arguments 
from all of the speakers on the opposition side. I would note that $10 
million, the amount that is designated for the RRW, is just enough to 
keep the doors open; that once we allow this team of experts to 
dissipate, once these people are hired away, then we will never build 
another team possible. This is just enough money to hold the human 
resources together to produce these weapons because we will not be able 
to produce them after we give up the human technology, the human 
capabilities, and so just enough to keep the doors open. It's exactly 
what the Senate did last year
  I would urge passage of the Pearce amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Boren

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 110-666.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Boren:
       At the end of subtitle D of title III, add the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 335. EXCEPTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCUREMENT 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
     2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S. C. 17142) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No Federal agency'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     Federal agency''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not prohibit a 
     Federal agency from entering into a contract to purchase a 
     generally available fuel that is not an alternative or 
     synthetic fuel or predominantly produced from a 
     nonconventional petroleum source, if--
       ``(1) the contract does not specifically require the 
     contractor to provide an alternative or synthetic fuel or 
     fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source;
       ``(2) the purpose of the contract is not to obtain an 
     alternative or synthetic fuel or

[[Page 10830]]

     fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source; and
       ``(3) the contract does not provide incentives for a 
     refinery upgrade or expansion to allow a refinery to use or 
     increase its use of fuel from a nonconventional petroleum 
     source.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Today, I rise in support of my amendment to the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 that would 
bring additional clarity to the language in section 526 of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007.
  First, I would like to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 
Hunter for their exceptional work in crafting this important piece of 
legislation that is extremely vital for the defense needs of this 
Nation. This is a good bill. I believe it will address the readiness 
needs of our Armed Forces for the near and distant future. Our 
servicemembers that so bravely protect and defend our Nation deserve 
nothing less than our full support.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment now being considered before this Chamber 
would amend section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act in 
a manner that would address the concerns that I share with many of my 
fellow colleagues within this Chamber.
  Section 526 prohibits any Federal agency from entering into a 
contract to purchase alternative or synthetic fuels for mobility-
related purposes, unless the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of 
such fuels are less than that of conventional petroleum-based fuels.
  While I recognize the positive intent behind section 526 to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions, I have strong concerns about how it will 
affect the ability of DOD to provide for the future energy needs of our 
Armed Forces.
  Section 526 falls short of determining what alternative or synthetic 
fuels Federal agencies are prohibited from contracting to purchase. It 
also does not clearly define ``nonconventional petroleum sources.'' 
This ambiguity in the law, therefore, creates uncertainty as to whether 
the Department of Defense can procure generally available fuels that 
contain mix-in amounts of fuel derived from nonconventional petroleum 
sources, such as oil sands.
  My amendment would amend section 526 to allow DOD and other Federal 
agencies to enter into contracts to purchase generally available fuels 
that are not predominantly derived from nonconventional fuel sources. 
Any contract to purchase such fuel must specify that the lifecycle 
greenhouse emissions are less than that of conventional petroleum 
sources.
  If my amendment is adopted, it would not repeal section 526. Rather, 
it will improve section 526 to provide additional clarity that is 
needed to meet the future energy needs of our Armed Forces.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment reflects an agreement--this is very 
important--this is an agreement that was reached with the respective 
committees of jurisdiction, House leadership and myself. I am very 
pleased that we were able to reach a compromise on the language of this 
amendment that is mutually acceptable to all parties.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
support the adoption of this amendment.
  I want to thank the chairman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Mr. Boren who is a great 
member of the Armed Services Committee for bringing this amendment, and 
I think we recognize a real problem with section 526, which is really a 
section, and his amendment does take away some of the onus of section 
526.
  Section 526 really weds us to high-grade Middle Eastern oil. It says 
that if you come up with other types of fuel that are alternatives, but 
that might have a greenhouse gas footprint higher than this high-end 
Middle Eastern oil, and there are very few types of petroleum-based 
fuels which do that, you can't use it.
  Mr. Boren has taken some of the onus off of that by saying that if 
it's not predominantly that type of oil, meaning you can use, for 
example, tar sands from Canada and other types, that section 526 does 
not apply.
  Now, the problem is, I'm reading the last of the amendment, and one 
of the conditions is that the contracts under which this petroleum 
product would flow says the contract--and I'm quoting from the last of 
the amendment--the contract does not provide incentives for a refinery 
upgrade or expansion to allow a refinery to use or increase its use of 
fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source.
  And I think we should be doing everything we can to expand 
refineries. I don't think we've built a refinery in decades, and we all 
sat in this Chamber and watched gas prices go through the roof here not 
too long ago when they had just a couple of refineries down for repair.
  So I know Mr. Boren's heart's in the right place, and he's brought us 
at least halfway across the river here. I guess what I'd like to see is 
the double Boren amendment that takes us all the way and eliminates 
section 526.
  I congratulate the gentleman. I know a lot of our Members are going 
to probably support this because it, in fact, does take us part way 
home. I wish we could go all the way, and I thank the gentleman for his 
amendment.
  I reluctantly oppose it because I would like to see the full loaf 
here.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member for his 
friendship. I know this is his last term here on Capitol Hill, and he's 
been a great leader for our committee. He's also a fellow deer hunter 
friend of mine, and I would also like to see the double Boren 
amendment. We're going to try to take half a loaf right now and work on 
this in the future.
  At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my great friend 
and colleague from the State of Texas (Mr. Ortiz).
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  You know, the Canadian ambassador to the United States and some oil 
companies have expressed concern about the application of section 526 
to petroleum derived from oil sands.
  North American oil sands are vital to United States oil supplies. Oil 
sands represent approximately 5 percent of the total U.S. oil supply 
and are mixed in with fuel derived from other sources.
  This amendment addresses the concerns that have been raised, while 
preserving the overall intent of section 526. Section 526 establishes a 
positive goal for future alternative fuels greenhouse gas emissions. 
This amendment clarifies section 526 while retaining the standards it 
sets for greenhouse gas emissions.
  This amendment would simply provide an exception to section 526 by 
exempting contracts for generally available fuels that are not 
predominantly produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, thereby 
addressing the uncertainty regarding the presence of fuel from oil 
sands mixed with fuel from other sources in existing commercial 
processes. And my friends, all I can say is there's always a first 
time.
  I'd like to compliment my friend for coming up with this amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield at this time 3 
minutes to Mr. Upton, the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, though I 
wish it could do a lot more. I appreciate your remarks, my friend from 
Oklahoma, and certainly my good friend from Texas, a member of the 
House Armed Services Committee, and I, in large part, echo the remarks 
of my

[[Page 10831]]

good friend, the former chairman and now ranking member, Mr. Hunter.
  Section 526, I'm not sure where it really came from. It was a 
provision that was snuck in a major energy bill this last year, and it 
somehow became law. And sadly, as we talk to our Canadian fronts, 
they're producing 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, 1.5 million barrels 
a day from oil shale, tar sands rather, in Alberta, and they want to 
send it to their good friends to the south, the United States of 
America. And this section 527 stops it at the border. It prevents it 
from coming in.
  Now, I think we all know that we have a supply problem in this 
country which is why the price of gasoline continues to go up as it has 
every single day. And until we get the message out that we need more 
supply so that we can counter this price increase, they're going to 
continue to go up. It's crazy to think that our friends, the Canadians, 
who have all of this up there and want to send it to us down here in 
the Lower 48, cannot do that.
  As I sat down with their ambassador a few weeks ago and their energy 
minister as well, they're producing at least 1.5 million barrels a day. 
They're anticipating within 4 or 5 years they're going to be producing 
as much as 4 million barrels a day. They can't consume that all 
perhaps, and guess what they're going to do. They're likely to build a 
pipeline, and they're going to send it west. It's going to end up in 
China or someplace else, rather than coming down and be refined in this 
country and used by our motorists across the country.
  So, for me, I'd like to repeal the whole section, and I know the 
gentleman doesn't do that in this amendment. But it's a step in the 
right direction, and I would like to think that we can hold our nose 
and be able to support this amendment, make it part of going to 
conference and perhaps even make it better when it emerges from the 
House and the Senate.
  I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with Members on both 
sides, and I certainly appreciate a number of my colleagues on that 
side of the aisle who are looking to work with me to try and repeal the 
whole section. But we realize that the Rules Committee was not going to 
say ``yes'' to us, and this is one step.
  We'd like to take a giant step, which this bill does not do, but at 
least it is going in the right direction, increasing our supply to a 
degree so that maybe we can have some downward pressure on the price of 
gasoline at the pump for all Americans across the country.
  Mr. BOREN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think we've had a good discussion, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's amendment and his contribution to the 
committee, and we would yield back at this time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Waxman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 
printed in House Report 110-666.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Waxman:
       Add at the end of the bill the following new division:

          DIVISION D--GOVERNMENTWIDE ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 4001. Short title.

                    TITLE XLI--ENHANCED COMPETITION

Sec. 4101. Minimizing sole-source contracts.
Sec. 4102. Limitation on length of certain noncompetitive contracts.
Sec. 4103. Requirement for purchase of property and services pursuant 
              to multiple award contracts.

               TITLE XLII--CURBING ABUSE-PRONE CONTRACTS

Sec. 4201. Regulations to minimize the inappropriate use of cost-
              reimbursement contracts.
Sec. 4202. Preventing abuse of interagency contracts.
Sec. 4203. Prohibitions on the use of lead systems integrators.
Sec. 4204. Regulations on excessive pass-through charges.
Sec. 4205. Linking of award and incentive fees to acquisition outcomes.
Sec. 4206. Minimizing abuse of commercial services item authority.

                   TITLE XLIII--ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

Sec. 4301. Acquisition workforce development fund.
Sec. 4302. Contingency contracting corps.

                   TITLE XLIV--ANTI-FRAUD PROVISIONS

Sec. 4401. Protection for contractor employees from reprisal for 
              disclosure of certain information.
Sec. 4402. Mandatory Fraud Reporting.
Sec. 4403. Access of General Accounting Office to Contractor Employees.
Sec. 4404. Preventing conflicts of interest.

               TITLE XLV--ENHANCED CONTRACT TRANSPARENCY

Sec. 4501. Disclosure of CEO salaries.
Sec. 4502. Database for contracting officers and suspension and 
              debarment officials.
Sec. 4503. Review of database.
Sec. 4504. Disclosure in applications.
Sec. 4505. Role of interagency committee.
Sec. 4506. Authorization of independent agencies.
Sec. 4507. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 4508. Report to Congress.
Sec. 4509. Improvements to the Federal procurement data system.

     SEC. 4001. SHORT TITLE.

       This division may be cited as the ``Clean Contracting Act 
     of 2008''.

                    TITLE XLI--ENHANCED COMPETITION

     SEC. 4101. MINIMIZING SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTS.

       (a) Plans Required.--Subject to subsection (c), the head of 
     each executive agency covered by title III of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     251 et seq.) or, in the case of the Department of Defense, 
     the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
     and Logistics, shall develop and implement a plan to 
     minimize, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of 
     contracts entered into using procedures other than 
     competitive procedures by the agency or department concerned. 
     The plan shall contain measurable goals and shall be 
     completed and submitted to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate and, in the case of the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, the 
     Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, with a copy provided to the Comptroller 
     General, not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Comptroller General Review.--The Comptroller General 
     shall review the plans provided under subsection (a) and 
     submit a report to Congress on the plans not later than 18 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Requirement Limited to Certain Agencies.--The 
     requirement of subsection (a) shall apply only to those 
     agencies that awarded contracts in a total amount of at least 
     $1,000,000,000 in the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year 
     in which the report is submitted.
       (d) Certain Contracts Excluded.--The contracts entered into 
     under the authority of the Small Business Act shall not be 
     included in the plans developed and implemented under 
     subsection (a), except contracts that are awarded pursuant to 
     section 602 of Public Law 100-656 (as amended by section 22 
     of Public Law 101-37 (103 Stat. 75), section 2 of title V of 
     Public Law 101-515 (104 Stat. 2140), section 205 of Public 
     Law 101-574 (104 Stat. 2819), and section 608 of Public Law 
     103-403 (108 Stat. 4204)).

     SEC. 4102. LIMITATION ON LENGTH OF CERTAIN NONCOMPETITIVE 
                   CONTRACTS.

       (a) Civilian Agency Contracts.--Section 303(d) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 
     U.S.C. 253(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) The contract period of a contract described in 
     subparagraph (B) that is entered into by an executive agency 
     pursuant to the authority provided under subsection (c)(2)--
       ``(i) may not exceed the time necessary--
       ``(I) to meet the unusual and compelling requirements of 
     the work to be performed under the contract; and
       ``(II) for the executive agency to enter into another 
     contract for the required goods or services through the use 
     of competitive procedures; and
       ``(ii) may not exceed 270 days unless the head of the 
     executive agency entering into such contract determines that 
     exceptional circumstances apply.
       ``(B) This paragraph applies to any contract in an amount 
     greater than $1,000,000.''.
       (b) Defense Contracts.--Section 2304(d) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) The contract period of a contract described in 
     subparagraph (B) that is entered into by an agency pursuant 
     to the authority provided under subsection (c)(2)--
       ``(i) may not exceed the time necessary--

[[Page 10832]]

       ``(I) to meet the unusual and compelling requirements of 
     the work to be performed under the contract; and
       ``(II) for the agency to enter into another contract for 
     the required goods or services through the use of competitive 
     procedures; and
       ``(ii) may not exceed 270 days unless the head of the 
     agency entering into such contract determines that 
     exceptional circumstances apply.
       ``(B) This paragraph applies to any contract in an amount 
     greater than $1,000,000.''.

     SEC. 4103. REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND SERVICES 
                   PURSUANT TO MULTIPLE AWARD CONTRACTS.

       (a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 12 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall be amended to require enhanced 
     competition in the purchase of property and services by all 
     executive agencies pursuant to multiple award contracts.
       (b) Content of Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The regulations required by subsection (a) 
     shall provide, at a minimum, that each individual purchase of 
     property or services in excess of the simplified acquisition 
     threshold that is made under a multiple award contract shall 
     be made on a competitive basis unless a contracting officer--
       (A) waives the requirement on the basis of a determination 
     that--
       (i) one of the circumstances described in paragraphs (1) 
     through (4) of section 303J(b) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253j(b)) or 
     section 2304c(b) of title 10, United States Code, applies to 
     such individual purchase; or
       (ii) a law expressly authorizes or requires that the 
     purchase be made from a specified source; and
       (B) justifies the determination in writing.
       (2) Competitive basis procedures.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, an individual purchase of property or services is 
     made on a competitive basis only if it is made pursuant to 
     procedures that--
       (A) except as provided in paragraph (3), require fair 
     notice of the intent to make that purchase (including a 
     description of the work to be performed and the basis on 
     which the selection will be made) to be provided to all 
     contractors offering such property or services under the 
     multiple award contract; and
       (B) afford all contractors responding to the notice a fair 
     opportunity to make an offer and have that offer fairly 
     considered by the official making the purchase.
       (3) Exception to notice requirement.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2), and subject 
     to subparagraph (B), notice may be provided to fewer than all 
     contractors offering such property or services under a 
     multiple award contract as described in subsection (d)(2) if 
     notice is provided to as many contractors as practicable.
       (B) Limitation on exception.--A purchase may not be made 
     pursuant to a notice that is provided to fewer than all 
     contractors under subparagraph (A) unless--
       (i) offers were received from at least 3 qualified 
     contractors; or
       (ii) a contracting officer of the executive agency 
     determines in writing that no additional qualified 
     contractors were able to be identified despite reasonable 
     efforts to do so.
       (c) Public Notice Requirements Related to Sole Source Task 
     or Delivery Orders.--Not later than 12 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation shall be amended to require the head of each 
     executive agency to publish on--
       (1) FedBizOpps notice of all sole source task or delivery 
     orders in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold that 
     are placed against multiple award contracts not later than 14 
     days after such orders are placed, except in the event of 
     extraordinary circumstances or classified orders; and
       (2) the website of the agency and through a Governmentwide 
     website selected by the Administrator for Federal Procurement 
     Policy the determinations required by (b)(1)(B) related to 
     sole source task or delivery orders placed against multiple 
     award contracts not later than 14 days after such orders are 
     placed, except in the event of extraordinary circumstances or 
     classified orders.
       (3) This subsection does not require the public 
     availability of information that is exempt from public 
     disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``individual purchase'' means a task order, 
     delivery order, or other purchase.
       (2) The term ``multiple award contract'' means--
       (A) a contract that is entered into by the Administrator of 
     General Services under the multiple award schedule program 
     referred to in section 2302(2)(C) of title 10, United States 
     Code;
       (B) a multiple award task order contract that is entered 
     into under the authority of sections 2304a through 2304d of 
     title 10, United States Code, or sections 303H through 303K 
     of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
     1949 (41 U.S.C. 253h through 253k); and
       (C) any other indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity 
     contract that is entered into by the head of an executive 
     agency with 2 or more sources pursuant to the same 
     solicitation.
       (3) The term ``sole source task or delivery order'' means 
     any order that does not follow the competitive base 
     procedures in paragraphs (b)(2) or (b)(3).
       (e) Applicability.--The regulations required by subsection 
     (a) shall apply to all individual purchases of property or 
     services that are made under multiple award contracts on or 
     after such effective date, without regard to whether the 
     multiple award contracts were entered into before, on, or 
     after such effective date.

               TITLE XLII--CURBING ABUSE-PRONE CONTRACTS

     SEC. 4201. REGULATIONS TO MINIMIZE THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF 
                   COST-REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation 
     shall be amended to minimize the inappropriate use of cost-
     reimbursement contracts and to ensure the proper use of such 
     contracts.
       (b) Content.--The regulations required under subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) identify, at a minimum--
       (A) the circumstances under which cost reimbursement 
     contracts or task or delivery orders are appropriate;
       (B) the acquisition plan facts necessary to support a 
     decision to use cost reimbursement contracts;
       (C) the acquisition workforce resources necessary to award 
     and manage cost reimbursement contracts; and
       (2) establish a requirement for each executive agency to--
       (A) annually assess its use of cost-reimbursement 
     contracts;
       (B) establish and implement metrics to measure progress 
     toward minimizing any inappropriate use of cost-reimbursement 
     contracts identified during the assessment process; and
       (C) prepare and submit an annual report to the Office of 
     Management and Budget assessing progress in meeting the 
     metrics established in (B).
       (c) Comptroller General Evaluations.--Within one year of 
     the completion of the first annual reports required by 
     subsection (b)(2)(C), the Comptroller General shall review 
     the progress of agencies in implementing the regulations 
     required by (a).
       (d) Report.--Subject to subsection (f), the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall submit an annual report 
     to Congressional committees identified in subparagraph (e) 
     and the Comptroller General on the use of cost-reimbursement 
     contracts and task or delivery orders by all Federal 
     agencies, including the Department of Defense. The report 
     shall be submitted no later than March 1 and will cover the 
     fiscal year ending September 30 of the prior year. The report 
     shall include--
       (1) the total number and value of contracts awarded and 
     orders issued during the covered fiscal year;
       (2) the number and value of cost-reimbursement contracts 
     awarded and orders issued during the covered fiscal year;
       (3) a list of contracts and task and delivery orders 
     identified in subparagraph (2) exceeding ten million dollars 
     ($10,000,000), whose period of performance, including 
     options, exceeded three years; the reasons why such contracts 
     or orders could not be priced or converted to a fixed-price 
     basis; and the actions being taken by the agency to do so;
       (4) a certification by the contracting agency that for each 
     contract identified in subparagraph (3) that an appropriate 
     number of trained acquisition personnel, consistent with the 
     complexity and risk associated with the contract or order, 
     have been assigned to provide oversight of the contractor's 
     performance; and
       (5) a description of each agency's actions to assure the 
     appropriate use of cost-reimbursement contracts.
       (e) Congressional Committees Defined.--The report required 
     by subsection (d) shall be submitted to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives; the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate; the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate; and, in the case of the Department of Defense and the 
     Department of Energy, the Committees on Armed Services of the 
     Senate and the House of Representatives.
       (f) Requirements Limited to Certain Agencies.--The 
     requirements of subsections (b) and (d) shall apply only to 
     those agencies that awarded contracts and issued orders in a 
     total amount of at least $1,000,000,000 in the fiscal year 
     proceeding the fiscal year in which the assessments and 
     reports are submitted.

     SEC. 4202. PREVENTING ABUSE OF INTERAGENCY CONTRACTS.

       (a) Office of Management and Budget Policy Guidance.--
       (1) Report and guidelines.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall--
       (A) submit to Congress a comprehensive report on 
     interagency acquisitions, including their frequency of use, 
     management controls, cost-effectiveness, and savings 
     generated; and

[[Page 10833]]

       (B) issue guidelines to assist the heads of executive 
     agencies in improving the management of interagency 
     acquisitions.
       (2) Matters covered by guidelines.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1)(B), the Director shall include guidelines on 
     the following matters:
       (A) Procedures for the use of interagency acquisitions to 
     maximize competition, deliver best value to executive 
     agencies, and minimize waste, fraud, and abuse.
       (B) Categories of contracting inappropriate for interagency 
     acquisition, due to high risk of waste, fraud, or abuse.
       (C) Requirements for training acquisition workforce 
     personnel in the proper use of interagency acquisitions.
       (b) Regulations Required.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall be revised to require that all 
     interagency acquisitions--
       (1) include a written agreement between the requesting 
     agency and the servicing agency assigning responsibility for 
     the administration and management of the contract;
       (2) include a determination that an interagency acquisition 
     is the best procurement alternative; and
       (3) include sufficient documentation to ensure an adequate 
     audit.
       (c) Agency Reporting Requirement.--The senior procurement 
     executive for each executive agency shall, as directed by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, submit to 
     the Director annual reports on the actions taken by the 
     executive agency pursuant to the guidelines issued under 
     subsection (a).
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``executive agency'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 4(1) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1)).
       (2) The term ``head of executive agency'' means the head of 
     an executive agency except that, in the case of a military 
     department, the term means the Secretary of Defense.
       (3) The term ``interagency acquisition'' means a procedure 
     by which an executive agency needing supplies or services 
     (the requesting agency) obtains them from another executive 
     agency (the servicing agency). The term includes acquisitions 
     under section 1535 of title 31, United States Code (commonly 
     referred to as the ``Economy Act'', Federal Supply Schedules 
     above $500,000, and Governmentwide acquisition contracts.

     SEC. 4203. PROHIBITIONS ON THE USE OF LEAD SYSTEMS 
                   INTEGRATORS.

       (a) Prohibition on New Lead Systems Integrators.--(1) 
     Effective October 1, 2010, the head of an executive agency 
     may not award a new contract for lead systems integrator 
     functions in the acquisition of a major system.
       (2) Prohibition on Lead Systems Integrators Beyond 
     Demonstration Level Phase.--Effective on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, an executive agency may award a new 
     contract for lead systems integrator functions in the 
     acquisition of a major system only if--
       (A) the contract for the major system does not proceed 
     beyond the demonstration phase-level; or
       (B) the head of the agency determines in writing that it 
     would not be practicable to carry out acquisition without 
     continuing to use a contractor to perform lead systems 
     integrator functions and that doing so is in the best 
     interest of the agency.
       (3) Requirements Relating to Determinations.--A 
     determination under paragraph (2)(A)--
       (A) shall specify the reasons why it would not be 
     practicable to carry out the acquisition continuing to use a 
     contractor to perform lead integrator functions (including a 
     discussion of alternatives, such as the use of the agency 
     workforce, or a system engineering and technical assistance 
     contractor);
       (B) shall include a plan for phasing out the use of 
     contracted lead systems integrator functions over the 
     shortest period of time consistent with the interest of the 
     government;
       (C) may not be delegated below the level of the Chief 
     Acquisition Officer; and
       (D) shall be provided to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform in the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in 
     the Senate at least 45 days before the award of a contract 
     pursuant to the determination.
       (b) Acquisition Workforce.--
       (1) Requirement.--The head of an executive agency shall 
     ensure that the acquisition workforce is of the appropriate 
     size and skill level necessary--
       (A) to accomplish inherently governmental functions related 
     to acquisition of major systems; and
       (B) to effectuate the purpose of subsection (a) to minimize 
     and eventually eliminate the use of contractors to perform 
     lead systems integrator functions.
       (2) Report.--The head of the agency shall annually include 
     an update on the progress made in complying with paragraph 
     (1) in the agency's Performance and Accountability Report.
       (c) Exception for Contracts for Other Management 
     Services.--The head of an executive agency may continue to 
     award contracts for the procurement of services the primary 
     purpose of which is to perform acquisition support functions 
     with respect to the development or production of a major 
     system, if the following conditions are met with respect to 
     each such contract:
       (1) The contract prohibits the contractor from performing 
     inherently governmental functions.
       (2) The head of the agency responsible for the development 
     or production of the major system ensures that Federal 
     employees are responsible for determining courses of action 
     to be taken in the best interest of the government.
       (3) The contract requires that the prime contractor for the 
     contract may not advise or recommend the award of a contract 
     or subcontract for the development or production of the major 
     system to an entity owned in whole or in part by the prime 
     contractor.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Lead systems integrator.--The term ``lead systems 
     integrator'' means--
       (A) a prime contractor for the development or production of 
     a major system, if the prime contractor is not expected at 
     the time of award to perform a substantial portion of the 
     work on the system and the major subsystems; or
       (B) a prime contractor under a contract for procurement of 
     services the primary purpose of which to perform acquisition 
     functions closely associated with inherently governmental 
     functions with respect to the development or production of a 
     major system.
       (2) Major system.--The term ``major system'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 2302d of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Demonstration phase level.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term ``demonstration phase level'' means--
       (A) work performed prior to first article testing and 
     approval (as defined in part 9.3 of the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation; or
       (B) a level comparable to the level identified in 
     subparagraph (A) which the FAR Council determines, by 
     regulation, after consideration of the definition of low-rate 
     initial production (as defined in section 2400 of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       (e) Inapplicability to Department of Defense.--This section 
     does not apply to the Department of Defense.

     SEC. 4204. REGULATIONS ON EXCESSIVE PASS-THROUGH CHARGES.

       (a) Regulations Required.--
       (1) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be amended 
     ensure that excessive pass-through charges on contracts or 
     (or task or delivery orders) are not paid by the Federal 
     Government.
       (2) Scope of regulations.--The regulations prescribed under 
     this subsection--
       (A) shall not apply to any firm, fixed-price contract or 
     subcontract (or task or delivery order) that is--
       (i) awarded on the basis of adequate price competition; or
       (ii) for the acquisition of a commercial item, as defined 
     in section 4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 403(12)); and
       (B) may include such additional exceptions as the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation Council determines to be necessary in 
     the interest of the government.
       (3) Definition.--In this section, the term ``excessive 
     pass-through charge'' means a charge to the Government by the 
     contractor or subcontractor that is for overhead or profit on 
     work performed by a lower-tier contractor or subcontractor 
     (other than charges for the direct costs of managing lower-
     tier contracts and subcontracts and overhead and profit based 
     on such direct costs) and for which the contractor or 
     subcontractor adds no, or negligible, value to a contract or 
     subcontract.
       (b) Inapplicability to Department of Defense.--This section 
     does not apply to the Department of Defense.

     SEC. 4205. LINKING OF AWARD AND INCENTIVE FEES TO ACQUISITION 
                   OUTCOMES.

       (a) Guidance on Linking of Award and Incentive Fees to 
     Acquisition Outcomes.--Not later than 12 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulation shall be amended to provide executive agencies 
     with instructions, including definitions, on the appropriate 
     use of award and incentive fees in Federal acquisition 
     programs.
       (b) Elements.--The regulations under subsection (a) shall--
       (1) ensure that all new contracts using award fees link 
     such fees to acquisition outcomes (which shall be defined in 
     terms of program cost, schedule, and performance);
       (2) establish standards for identifying the appropriate 
     level of officials authorized to approve the use of award and 
     incentive fees in new contracts;
       (3) provide guidance on the circumstances in which 
     contractor performance may be judged to be ``excellent'' or 
     ``superior'' and the percentage of the available award fee 
     which contractors should be paid for such performance;
       (4) establish standards for determining the percentage of 
     the available award fee, if any, which contractors should be 
     paid for performance that is judged to be ``acceptable'',

[[Page 10834]]

     ``average'', ``expected'', ``good'', or ``satisfactory'';
       (5) ensure that no award fee may be paid for contractor 
     performance that is judged to be below satisfactory 
     performance or performance that does not meet the basic 
     requirements of the contract;
       (6) provide specific direction on the circumstances, if 
     any, in which it may be appropriate to roll over award fees 
     that are not earned in one award fee period to a subsequent 
     award fee period or periods;
       (7) ensure consistent use of guidelines and definitions 
     relating to award and incentive fees across the Federal 
     Government;
       (8) ensure that each executive agency--
       (A) collects relevant data on award and incentive fees paid 
     to contractors; and
       (B) has mechanisms in place to evaluate such data on a 
     regular basis;
       (9) include performance measures to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of award and incentive fees as a tool for 
     improving contractor performance and achieving desired 
     program outcomes; and
       (10) provide mechanisms for sharing proven incentive 
     strategies for the acquisition of different types of products 
     and services among contracting and program management 
     officials.

     SEC. 4206. MINIMIZING ABUSE OF COMMERCIAL SERVICES ITEM 
                   AUTHORITY.

       (a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation shall be amended for the procurement 
     of commercial services.
       (b) Applicability of Commercial Procedures.--
       (1) Services of a type sold in marketplace.--The 
     regulations modified pursuant to subsection (a) shall ensure 
     that services that are not offered and sold competitively in 
     substantial quantities in the commercial marketplace, but are 
     of a type offered and sold competitively in substantial 
     quantities in the commercial marketplace, may be treated as 
     commercial items for purposes of section 254b of title 41, 
     United States Code (relating to truth in negotiations), only 
     if the contracting officer determines in writing that the 
     offeror has submitted sufficient information to evaluate, 
     through price analysis, the reasonableness of the price for 
     such services.
       (2) Information submitted.--To the extent necessary to make 
     a determination under paragraph (1), the contracting officer 
     may request the offeror to submit--
       (A) prices paid for the same or similar commercial items 
     under comparable terms and conditions by both government and 
     commercial customers; and
       (B) if the contracting officer determines that the 
     information described in subparagraph (A) is not sufficient 
     to determine the reasonableness of price, other relevant 
     information regarding the basis for price or cost, including 
     information on labor costs, material costs, and overhead 
     rates.
       (c) Time-and-Materials Contracts.--
       (1) Commercial item acquisitions.--The regulations pursuant 
     to subsection (a) shall ensure that procedures applicable to 
     time-and-materials contracts and labor-hour contracts for 
     commercial item acquisitions may be used only for the 
     following:
       (A) Services procured for support of a commercial item, as 
     described in section 4(12)(E) of the Office Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(12)(E)).
       (B) Emergency repair services.
       (C) Any other commercial services only to the extent that 
     the head of the agency concerned approves a determination in 
     writing by the contracting officer that--
       (i) the services to be acquired are commercial services as 
     defined in section 4(12)(F) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(12)(F));
       (ii) if the services to be acquired are subject to 
     subsection (b), the offeror of the services has submitted 
     sufficient information in accordance with that subsection;
       (iii) such services are commonly sold to the general public 
     through use of time-and-materials or labor-hour contracts; 
     and
       (iv) the use of a time-and-materials or labor-hour contract 
     type is in the best interest of the Government.
       (2) Non-commercial item acquisitions.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to preclude the use of 
     procedures applicable to time-and-materials contracts and 
     labor-hour contracts for non-commercial item acquisitions for 
     the acquisition of any category of services.

                   TITLE XLIII--ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

     SEC. 4301. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to ensure that 
     there are resources available to recruit, hire, educate, 
     train and retain members of the Federal acquisition workforce 
     with the requisite competencies and skills to ensure that the 
     government receives best value property and services in its 
     acquisitions.
       (b) Establishment of Fund.--Title III of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     101, et seq) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 324. ACQUISITION WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT FUND.

       ``(a) The Administrator of General Services shall establish 
     an acquisition workforce development fund.
       ``(1) The Administrator shall manage the fund through the 
     Federal Acquisition Institute to recruit, hire, educate, 
     train and retain members of the acquisition workforce of the 
     executive agencies other than the Department of Defense.
       ``(2) The Administrator, in consultation with the 
     Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy and the Chief 
     Acquisition Officers or Senior Procurement Executives, as 
     appropriate, of the executive agencies, other than the 
     Department of Defense, shall issue detailed guidance for the 
     administration and use of the Fund. Such guidance shall 
     include provisions--
       ``(A) requiring agencies to identify members of their 
     acquisition workforce consistent with section 433(i) of title 
     41.
       ``(B) identifying areas of need in the acquisition 
     workforce for which amounts in the Fund may be used, 
     including--
       ``(i) changes to the types of skills needed;
       ``(ii) incentives to retain qualified, experienced 
     personnel; and
       ``(iii) incentives for attracting new, high-quality 
     personnel;
       ``(C) describing the manner and timing for applications for 
     amounts in the Fund to be submitted;
       ``(D) describing the evaluation criteria to be used for 
     approving or prioritizing applications for amounts in the 
     Fund in any fiscal year; and
       ``(E) describing measurable objectives of performance for 
     determining whether amounts in the Fund are being used in 
     compliance with this section.
       ``(3) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall be the approving official for any disbursements from 
     the Fund.
       ``(4) The costs of administering the fund, including the 
     direct and indirect costs of those employees, not to exceed 5 
     percent per annum, shall be paid out of the fund.
       ``(5) Amounts in the fund may not be used to pay the base 
     salary of any full-time equivalent position currently filled 
     as of date of enactment of the Clean Contracting Act of 2008.
       ``(b) There shall be credited to the acquisition workforce 
     development fund the following percentages of the value of 
     funds expended by executive agencies for service contracts, 
     other than services relating to research and development and 
     services relating to construction:
       ``(1) for fiscal year 2009, 0.5 percent.
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2010, 1 percent.
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2011, 1.5 percent.
       ``(4) for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2011, 2 
     percent.
       ``(c) The Director of the Office and Management and Budget 
     may reduce the amount to be credited upon a determination 
     that the funds being credited are excess to the needs of the 
     acquisition workforce development fund. In no event shall the 
     Director of the Office of Management Budget reduce the 
     percentage for any fiscal year below a percentage that 
     results in the deposit in a fiscal year of an amount equal to 
     the following
       ``(1) for fiscal year 2009, 75,000,000.
       ``(2) for fiscal year 2010, 100,000,000.
       ``(3) for fiscal year 2011, 125,000,000.
       ``(4) for an fiscal year after 2011, 150,000,000.
       ``(d) Not later than 30 days after the end of fiscal year 
     2008, and 30 days after the end of each fiscal year quarter 
     thereafter, the head of each executive agency shall remit to 
     the General Services Administration the amount required to be 
     credited to the fund with respect to the contracts, leases, 
     task and delivery order described in subsection (b).
       ``(e) The Administrator of General Services, through the 
     Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, shall ensure that 
     funds collected under this section are not used for any 
     purposes other than the purposes specified in subsection (a).
       ``(f) Amounts credited to the fund shall be in addition to 
     funds requested and appropriated for salaries, benefits, 
     education and training for all current acquisition workforce 
     members.
       ``(g) Amounts credited to the fund shall remain available 
     until expended.
       ``(h) Not later than 60 days after the end of each fiscal 
     year beginning with fiscal year 2008, the Administrator of 
     General Services shall submit to the congressional committees 
     identified in subsection (i) a report on the operation of the 
     fund during such fiscal year. Each report shall include, for 
     the fiscal year covered by such report, the following:
       ``(1) A statement of the amounts remitted to the 
     Administrator for crediting to the Fund for such fiscal year 
     by each executive agency and a statement of the amounts 
     credited to the Fund.
       ``(2) A description of the expenditures made from the Fund, 
     including the purpose of such expenditures.
       ``(3) A description and assessment of improvements in the 
     Federal acquisition workforce resulting from such 
     expenditures, including the extent to which the fund has been 
     used to increase the number of individuals in the acquisition 
     workforce relative to the number of individuals in the 
     acquisition workforce as of the date of enactment.
       ``(4) Recommendations for additional authorities to fulfill 
     the purpose of the Fund.
       ``(5) A statement of the balance remaining in the Fund at 
     the end of such fiscal year.

[[Page 10835]]

       ``(i) The report required by subsection (h) shall be 
     submitted to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     of the House of Representatives; the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate.
       ``(j) No expired balances appropriated prior to the date of 
     the enactment of the Clean Contracting Act of 2008 may be 
     used to make any payment to the Acquisition Workforce 
     Development Fund.''.
       (c) Exception.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall not apply to the acquisition workforce of 
     the Department of Defense.

     SEC. 4302. CONTINGENCY CONTRACTING CORPS.

       The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403 
     et seq.), as amended by section 102, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 44. CONTINGENCY CONTRACTING CORPS.

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Administrator of General Services 
     in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, shall establish a Governmentwide 
     Contingency Contracting Corps (in this section, referred to 
     as the `Corps'). The members of the Corps shall be available 
     for deployment in responding to an emergency or major 
     disaster, or a contingency operation, within or outside the 
     continental United States.
       ``(b) Applicability.--The authorities provided in this 
     section apply with respect to any procurement of property or 
     services by or for an executive agency that, as determined by 
     the head of such executive agency, are to be used--
       ``(1) in support of a contingency operation as defined in 
     section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code; or
       ``(2) to respond to an emergency or major disaster as 
     defined in section 5122 of title 41, United States Code.
       ``(c) Membership.--Membership in the Corps shall be 
     voluntary and open to all Federal employees and uniformed 
     members of the Armed Services, who are currently members of 
     the Federal acquisition workforce. As a condition precedent 
     to membership in the Corps, each volunteer will execute a 
     mobility agreement consistent with the provisions included in 
     sections 3371 through 3375 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(d) Education and Training.--The Director of the Federal 
     Acquisition Institute, in consultation with the Chief 
     Acquisition Officers Council shall establish educational and 
     training requirements for members of the Corps, and shall pay 
     for these additional requirements from funds available in the 
     acquisition workforce development fund or the Department of 
     Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund.
       ``(e) Clothing and Equipment.--The Administrator shall 
     identify any necessary clothing and equipment requirements, 
     and shall pay for this clothing and equipment from funds 
     available in the acquisition workforce development fund or 
     the Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development 
     Fund.
       ``(f) Salary.--The salaries for members of the Corps shall 
     be paid by their parent agencies out of funds available.
       ``(g) Authority To Deploy the Corps.--The Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget shall have the authority to 
     determine when members of the Corps shall be deployed, in 
     consultation with the head of the agency or agencies 
     employing the members to be deployed.
       ``(h) Annual Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator of General Services 
     shall provide to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of 
     Representatives an annual report on the status of the 
     Contingency Contracting Corps as of September 30 of each 
     fiscal year.
       ``(2) Content.--At a minimum, each report under paragraph 
     (1) shall include the number of members of the Contingency 
     Contracting Corps, the total cost of operating the program, 
     the number of deployments of members of the program, and the 
     performance of members of the program in deployment.''.

                   TITLE XLIV--ANTI-FRAUD PROVISIONS

     SEC. 4401. PROTECTION FOR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES FROM REPRISAL 
                   FOR DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN INFORMATION.

       (a) Increased Protection From Reprisal.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 315 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 265(a), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``disclosing to a Member of Congress'' and 
     inserting ``disclosing to a Member of Congress, a 
     representative of a committee of Congress, an Inspector 
     General, the Government Accountability Office, an employee of 
     an executive agency responsible for contract oversight or 
     management,''; and
       (2) by striking ``information relating to a substantial 
     violation of law related to a contract (including the 
     competition for or negotiation of a contract)'' and inserting 
     ``information that the employee reasonably believes is 
     evidence of gross mismanagement of an executive agency 
     contract or grant, a gross waste of executive agency funds, a 
     substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, 
     or a violation of law related to an executive agency contract 
     (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract) 
     or grant''.
       (b) Clarification of Inspector General Determination.--
     Subsection (b) of such section is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Investigation of 
     Complaints.--'' and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) Except as provided under subparagraph (B), the 
     Inspector General shall make a determination that a complaint 
     is frivolous or submit a report under paragraph (1) within 
     180 days after receiving the complaint.
       ``(B) If the Inspector General is unable to complete an 
     investigation in time to submit a report within the 180-day 
     period specified in subparagraph (A) and the person 
     submitting the complaint agrees to an extension of time, the 
     Inspector General shall submit a report under paragraph (1) 
     within such additional period of time as shall be agreed upon 
     between the Inspector General and the person submitting the 
     complaint.''.
       (c) Acceleration of Schedule for Denying Relief or 
     Providing Remedy.--Subsection (c) of such section is amended 
     in paragraph (1), by striking ``If the head of an executive 
     agency determines that a contractor has subjected a person to 
     a reprisal prohibited by subsection (a), the head of the 
     agency may'' and inserting after ``(1)'' the following: ``Not 
     later than 30 days after receiving an Inspector General 
     report pursuant to subsection (b), the head of an executive 
     agency concerned shall determine whether there is sufficient 
     basis to conclude that the contractor concerned has subjected 
     the complainant to a reprisal prohibited by subsection (a) 
     and shall either issue an order denying relief or shall''.
       (d) Definitions.--Subsection (e) of such section is amended 
     in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or a grant'' after ``a 
     contract''.

     SEC. 4402. MANDATORY FRAUD REPORTING.

       (a) Amendment of Federal Acquisition Regulation.--The 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be amended within 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act pursuant to 
     FAR Case 2007-006 (as published at 72 Fed Reg. 64019, 
     November 14, 2007) or any follow-on FAR case to include 
     provisions that require timely notification by Federal 
     contractors of violations of Federal criminal law or 
     overpayments in connection with the award or performance of 
     covered contracts or subcontracts, including those performed 
     outside the United States and those for commercial items.
       (b) Covered Contract Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``covered contract'' means any contract in an amount greater 
     than $5,000,000 and more than 120 days in duration.

     SEC. 4403. ACCESS OF GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE TO CONTRACTOR 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Civilian Agencies.--Section 304C of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 
     254d) is amended in subsection (c)(1) by inserting after 
     ``records'' ``,or interview any employee,''.
       (b) Defense Agencies.--Section 2313 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended in subsection (c)(1) by inserting 
     after ``records'' ``, or interview any employee,''.

     SEC. 4404. PREVENTING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

       (a) Organizational Conflicts of Interest.--Not later than 
     12 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy 
     shall review the Federal Acquisition Regulation to determine 
     whether it contains sufficiently rigorous, comprehensive, and 
     uniform Governmentwide policies to prevent and mitigate 
     organizational conflicts of interest in Federal contracting. 
     In reviewing such regulations, the Administrator and the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, in consultation with 
     the Office of Government Ethics, shall, at a minimum, make 
     appropriate revisions to the regulations to--
       (1) establish a standard organizational conflict of 
     interest clause, or a set of standard organizational conflict 
     of interest clauses, for inclusion in solicitations and 
     contracts that set forth the contractor's responsibilities 
     with respect to its employees, subcontractors, partners, and 
     any other affiliated organizations or individuals;
       (2) address conflicts that may arise in the context of 
     developing requirements and statements of work, the selection 
     process, and contract administration;
       (3) ensure that adequate organizational conflict of 
     interest safeguards are enacted in situations in which 
     contractors are employed by the Federal Government to oversee 
     other contractors or are hired to assist in the acquisition 
     process; and
       (4) ensure that any policies or clauses developed address 
     conflicts of interest that may arise from financial 
     interests, unfair competitive advantages, and impaired 
     objectivity.
       (b) Personal Conflicts of Interest.--Not later than 12 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be amended to establish 
     uniform, Governmentwide policies to prevent personal 
     conflicts of interest by contractor employees in Federal 
     contracting. In

[[Page 10836]]

     developing such regulations, the Federal Acquisition 
     Regulatory Council, in consultation with the Office of 
     Government Ethics, shall, at a minimum--
       (1) develop a standard contractor employee personal 
     conflicts of interest clause or a set of standard clauses for 
     inclusion in solicitations and contracts that set forth the 
     contractor's responsibility to ensure that employees who are 
     performing contracted services for the Federal Government are 
     free of personal conflicts of interest;
       (2) identify the contracting methods, types and services 
     that raise heightened concerns for potential conflicts of 
     interest; and
       (3) establish specified principles, examples, a definition 
     of personal conflicts of interest relevant to contractor 
     employees working on Federal Government contracts, specific 
     prohibitions, and where applicable, greater disclosure for 
     certain contractor employees, that will accomplish the end 
     objective of ethical behavior.
       (c) Best Practices.--The Administrator of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy, in consultation with the Office 
     of Governmentwide Ethics, shall develop and maintain a 
     repository of best practices relating to the prevention and 
     mitigation of organizational and personal conflicts of 
     interest.

               TITLE XLV--ENHANCED CONTRACT TRANSPARENCY

     SEC. 4501. DISCLOSURE OF CEO SALARIES.

       (a) Disclosure Requirements.--Section 2(b)(1) of the 
     Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (Public 
     Law 109-282; 31 U.S.C. 6101 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (E);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) the names and total compensation of the five most 
     highly compensated officers of the entity if--
       ``(i) the entity in the preceding fiscal year received--

       ``(I) 80 percent or more of its annual gross revenues in 
     Federal awards; and
       ``(II) $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from 
     Federal awards; and

       ``(ii) the public does not have access to information about 
     the compensation of the senior executives of the entity 
     through periodic reports filed under section 13(a) or 15(d) 
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a), 
     78o(d)) or section 6104 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.''.
       (b) Regulations Required.--The Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall promulgate regulations to 
     implement the amendment made by this title. Such regulations 
     shall include a definition of ``total compensation'' that is 
     consistent with regulations of the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission at section 402 of part 229 of title 17 of the Code 
     of Federal Regulations (or any subsequent regulation).

     SEC. 4502. DATABASE FOR CONTRACTING OFFICERS AND SUSPENSION 
                   AND DEBARMENT OFFICIALS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the authority, direction, and 
     control of the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, the Administrator of General Services shall establish 
     and maintain a database of information regarding integrity 
     and performance of persons awarded Federal contracts and 
     grants for use by Federal officials having authority over 
     contracts and grants.
       (b) Persons Covered.--The database shall cover any person 
     awarded a Federal contract or grant if any information 
     described in subsection (c) exists with respect to such 
     person.
       (c) Information Included.--With respect to a person awarded 
     a Federal contract or grant, the database shall include 
     information (in the form of a brief description) for at least 
     the most recent 5-year period regarding--
       (1) any civil or criminal proceeding, or any administrative 
     proceeding to the extent that such proceeding results in both 
     a finding of fault on the part of the person and the payment 
     of restitution to a government of $5,000 or more, concluded 
     by the Federal Government or any State government against the 
     person, and any amount paid by the person to the Federal 
     Government or a State government;
       (2) all Federal contracts and grants awarded to the person 
     that were terminated in such period due to default;
       (3) all Federal suspensions and debarments of the person in 
     that period;
       (4) all Federal administrative agreements entered into by 
     the person and the Federal Government in that period to 
     resolve a suspension or debarment proceeding and, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, agreements involving a suspension 
     or debarment proceeding entered into by the person and a 
     State government in that period; and
       (5) all final findings by a Federal official in that period 
     that the person has been determined not to be a responsible 
     source under either subparagraph (C) or (D) of section 4(7) 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     403(7)).
       (d) Requirements Relating to Information in Database.--
       (1) Direct input and update.--The Administrator shall 
     design and maintain the database in a manner that allows the 
     appropriate officials of each Federal agency to directly 
     input and update in the database information relating to 
     actions it has taken with regard to contractors or grant 
     recipients.
       (2) Timeliness and accuracy.--The Administrator shall 
     develop policies to require--
       (A) the timely and accurate input of information into the 
     database;
       (B) notification of any covered person when information 
     relevant to the person is entered into the database; and
       (C) an opportunity for any covered person to append 
     comments to information about such person in the database.
       (e) Availability.--
       (1) Availability to all federal agencies.--The 
     Administrator shall make the database available to all 
     Federal agencies.
       (2) Availability to the public.--The Administrator shall 
     make the database available to the public by posting the 
     database on the General Services Administration website.
       (3) Limitation.--This subsection does not require the 
     public availability of information that is exempt from public 
     disclosure under section 552(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code.

     SEC. 4503. REVIEW OF DATABASE.

       (a) Requirement to Review Database.--Prior to the award of 
     a contract or grant, an official responsible for awarding a 
     contract or grant shall review the database established under 
     section 2.
       (b) Requirement to Document Present Responsibility.--In the 
     case of a prospective awardee of a contract or grant against 
     which a judgment or conviction has been rendered more than 
     once within any 3-year period for the same or similar 
     offences, if each judgment or conviction is a cause for 
     debarment, the official responsible for awarding the contract 
     or grant shall document why the prospective awardee is 
     considered presently responsible.

     SEC. 4504. DISCLOSURE IN APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, Federal regulations shall be 
     amended to require that in applying for any Federal grant or 
     submitting a proposal or bid for any Federal contract a 
     person shall disclose in writing information described in 
     section 2(c).
       (b) Covered Contracts and Grants.--This section shall apply 
     only to contracts and grants in an amount greater than the 
     simplified acquisition threshold, as defined in section 4(11) 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 
     401(11)).

     SEC. 4505. ROLE OF INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE.

       (a) Requirement.--The Interagency Committee on Debarment 
     and Suspension shall--
       (1) resolve issues regarding which of several Federal 
     agencies is the lead agency having responsibility to initiate 
     suspension or debarment proceedings;
       (2) coordinate actions among interested agencies with 
     respect to such action;
       (3) encourage and assist Federal agencies in entering into 
     cooperative efforts to pool resources and achieve operational 
     efficiencies in the Governmentwide suspension and debarment 
     system;
       (4) recommend to the Office of Management and Budget 
     changes to Government suspension and debarment system and its 
     rules, if such recommendations are approved by a majority of 
     the Interagency Committee;
       (5) authorize the Office of Management and Budget to issue 
     guidelines that implement those recommendations;
       (6) authorize the chair of the Committee to establish 
     subcommittees as appropriate to best enable the Interagency 
     Committee to carry out its functions; and
       (7) submit to the Congress an annual report on--
       (A) the progress and efforts to improve the suspension and 
     debarment system;
       (B) member agencies' active participation in the 
     committee's work; and
       (C) a summary of each agency's activities and 
     accomplishments in the Governmentwide debarment system.
       (b) Definition.--The term ``Interagency Committee on 
     Debarment and Suspension'' means such committee constituted 
     under sections 4 and 5 and of Executive Order 12549.

     SEC. 4506. AUTHORIZATION OF INDEPENDENT AGENCIES.

       Any agency, commission, or organization of the Federal 
     Government to which Executive Order 12549 does not apply is 
     authorized to participate in the Governmentwide suspension 
     and debarment system and may recognize the suspension or 
     debarment issued by an executive branch agency in its own 
     procurement or assistance activities.

     SEC. 4507. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Administrator of General Services such funds as may be 
     necessary to establish the database described in section 2.

     SEC. 4508. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of 
     General Services shall submit to Congress a report.
       (b) Contents of Report.--The report shall contain the 
     following:
       (1) A list of all databases that include information about 
     Federal contracting and Federal grants.
       (2) Recommendations for further legislation or 
     administrative action that the Administrator considers 
     appropriate to create a

[[Page 10837]]

     centralized, comprehensive Federal contracting and Federal 
     grant database.

     SEC. 4509. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT DATA 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Enhanced Transparency on Interagency Contracting and 
     Other Transactions.--Not later than 12 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall direct appropriate revisions to 
     the Federal Procurement Data System or any successor system 
     to facilitate the collection of complete, timely, and 
     reliable data on interagency contracting actions and on 
     transactions other than contracts, grants, and cooperative 
     agreements issued pursuant to section 2371 of title 10, 
     United States Code, or similar authorities. The Director 
     shall ensure that data, consistent with what is collected for 
     contract actions, is obtained on--
       (1) interagency contracting actions, including data at the 
     task or delivery-order level; and
       (2) other transactions, including the initial award and any 
     subsequent modifications awarded or orders issued.
       (b) Amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 19 of the Office 
     of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 417(d)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Transmission and Data Entry of Information.--The head 
     of each executive agency shall ensure the accuracy of the 
     information included in the record established and maintained 
     by such agency under subsection (a) and shall timely transmit 
     such information to the General Services Administration for 
     entry into the Federal Procurement Data System referred to in 
     section 6(d)(4), or any successor system.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this Congress, the House and Senate, have 
passed important Federal contracting reforms, but neither body has 
assembled them into a comprehensive package. My ``clean contracting'' 
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act consolidates these 
provisions into a single reform measure.
  I want to particularly thank Chairman Skelton for working with me to 
help bring this amendment before the House today. He has been a 
tremendous partner in the fight to root out waste, fraud and abuse.
  The clean contracting amendment would require agencies to enhance 
competition in contracting, limit the use of abuse-prone contracts, 
rebuild the Federal acquisition workforce, strengthen antifraud 
measures, and increase transparency in Federal contracting.
  The provisions of the amendment are based on provisions that have 
already passed the House or Senate, or are government-wide versions of 
Defense provisions that passed in last year's DOD authorization. They 
respond to procurement abuses that the Oversight Committee, the Armed 
Services Committees, and other committees have identified in hearings 
and investigative reports.
  The egregious procurement practices that have occurred in Iraq and in 
response to Hurricane Katrina and at the Department of Homeland 
Security need to be halted. They may enrich companies like Halliburton 
and Blackwater, but have squandered billions of dollars that belong to 
the taxpayer.
  This amendment says that Congress is serious about stopping waste, 
fraud and abuse. One important provision deals directly with no-bid 
contracts and requires agencies to develop plans to promote 
competition. This provision is needed because the value of contracts 
awarded without full and open competition has more than tripled since 
2000, rising from $67 billion in 2000 to almost $207 billion in 2006. 
Full and open competition provides the government with its best 
guarantee that tax dollars are being spent economically and 
efficiently.
  Another important measure would limit the length of no-bid contracts 
awarded in emergencies to 9 months. This provision would end the abuses 
that occurred after Hurricane Katrina when many ``emergency'' contracts 
were allowed to continue for years.
  The amendment would also curb the use of cost-plus contracts, which 
provide contractors with little incentive to control costs. Spending 
under this kind of contract grew over 75 percent between 2000 and 2005.
  Another important provision would prohibit contractors from charging 
excessive mark-up charges for work done by subcontractors. This would 
prevent the infamous ``blue roof'' scandal following Hurricane Katrina 
where taxpayers paid almost $2,500 for something that actually cost 
$300.
  Other vital provisions of this amendment would provide whistleblower 
protections to civilian contractor employees, fund increases in the 
acquisition workforce, and prevent the abuse of interagency contracts, 
as was the case at Abu Ghraib, where interrogators were hired using an 
Interior Department contract for information technology.
  The amendment also includes three provisions which have recently 
passed the House under suspension of the rules. One, authored by 
Representative Welch, requires mandatory reporting of fraud by 
contractors. Another, based on the bill by Representative Murphy, 
requires the disclosure of CEO salaries if a company makes most of its 
money from government funds. The third, based on a bill authored by 
Representative Maloney, requires the development of a database of 
suspension and debarment information. I want to commend these Members 
for their hard work on these issues.
  I also want to particularly thank Chairwoman Velazquez of the Small 
Business Committee for working with us to perfect some of the language 
in this bill.
  I urge Members to support the Clean Contracting amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on the 
amendment filed by Chair Waxman to the FY09 Defense Authorization Act.
  This amendment is an amalgamation of various government contractor-
related proposals, many of which are currently working their way 
through the legislative process. Most of the more than 20 components of 
this amendment represent attempts to, quote, reform the Federal 
Government's acquisition system through restrictions and reports geared 
towards greater regulation and oversight.
  More specifically, this amendment would limit the duration of 
contracts awarded under unusual and compelling conditions, require 
agencies to develop plans for the use of sole-source contracts, 
restrict the use of lead system integrators in acquisitions of major 
systems, restrict the acquisition of commercial services, and disclose 
the salaries of executives of privately held firms that are receiving 
government funds.
  While I remain skeptical these provisions will do much to address the 
most serious problems facing our Federal acquisition system today, I 
very much appreciate that Chairman Waxman has worked with me to revise 
the provisions before bringing them to the floor to help ensure they 
don't impose undesired and unintended burdens on the acquisition 
system. In addition, I am pleased that the amendment includes a 
provision aimed at promoting a stronger and more robust Federal 
acquisition workforce.
  Section 4301 of the amendment creates a government-wide acquisition 
workforce development fund funded by a percentage of the amount 
expended by agencies for service contracts to be used for the 
recruitment, the hiring, the training, and the retraining of our 
Federal acquisition workforce.
  He noted that there are too many cost-plus types of contracts. This 
contract vehicle is only utilized when the government isn't sure of its 
requirements. How in the world can you fixed-price something if you 
don't know what you need and what your final requirements are? Having a 
better acquisition workforce to better define these requirements and 
having them in touch with their client I think is the best way to get 
rid of these cost-plus contracts which the chairman and others have 
criticized rather than trying to legislate into law limitations.

[[Page 10838]]

  In fact, if this amendment were only to include the provisions in the 
acquisition workforce title we would be much better off because I think 
that does more to address the issues in government contracting and the 
excesses and the problems than anything else in here.
  An endless stream of reports, an endless stream of restrictions and 
limitations really does very little to help our stressed Federal 
acquisition workforce cope with the increasingly complex demands of the 
Federal Government for goods and services.
  Other provisions in the amendment, however, cause me more concern. 
Section 4403 of the amendment would give the Government Accountability 
Office the unprecedented and the new authority to interview private 
individuals employed by Federal Government contractors in order to get 
information during its audits. There are serious issues involved with 
forcing private citizens to talk to government auditors. What happens 
if the person doesn't want to talk? Can the GAO use its subpoena power? 
And who within the GAO would have such authority to order private 
citizens to talk? A senior GAO official? Any GAO functionary? A mid-
level official? This is not a provision which has been discussed or 
debated in Congress. In my judgment, it is not ready for prime time. I 
think it has some merit, but I think it's going to need really some 
additional debate and research before it's implemented into law.
  When the chairman intended to include this provision in a bill 
recently being considered by our committee, he withdrew it when I 
requested him to do so. I assumed at the time we would discuss and 
debate it before bringing it to the House floor. I'm disappointed that 
it has been unilaterally included in the amendment, which would 
otherwise, I feel, be all right to this authorization bill.
  Further, Mr. Chairman, many other concerns that I have with this 
amendment are the same concerns I expressed last year when the House 
took up H.R. 1362, the chairman's Accountability in Contracting Act.
  The Federal acquisition system has been under considerable stress in 
recent years because of the extraordinary pressures of a shrinking 
acquisition workforce combined with an increasing reliance on Federal 
contractors for major activities such as providing logistical support 
for our troops in Iraq. This strain has resulted in a series of 
management problems that have been trumpeted by the press and exploited 
by opponents of the system. Nevertheless, the systems work pretty well, 
and the vast majority of government acquisitions have been conducted 
properly. And in the cases where we have found fraud, the system has 
uncovered these in many cases, audits have uncovered these, and we've 
been able to deal with them.
  I remain concerned that controls, reports, procedures and 
restrictions will not go very far in addressing the most serious 
challenges facing us today. Reverting to the bloated system of the 
past, weighted down with ``process,'' will not help the Federal 
Government acquire the best value goods and services the commercial 
market has to offer and our government so desperately needs and our 
taxpayers can afford.
  As I have said many times before, reverting to the past under the 
rubric of fraud, waste and abuse and ``cleaning up'' the system may 
provide flashy sound bites and play well back home, but it doesn't give 
us the world-class acquisition systems that Federal taxpayers deserve.
  More controls and procedures will not remedy poorly defined 
requirements or provide us with a sufficient number of Federal 
acquisition personnel with the right skills to select the best 
contractor and the best contracting vehicles to get there and manage 
the subsequent performance of those contracts.
  Despite these concerns, I don't intend to ask for a rollcall, but I 
intend to oppose this amendment. And I hope to be able to work with 
Chairman Waxman and other interested stakeholders on these provisions 
in conference to try to make sure that we're not imposing unnecessary 
burdens on our Federal acquisition system.
  Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, one aspect of this that I thought was troubling also was 
the fact that private contractors will have to disclose the amounts of 
money that their particular people make. That's going to go out, 
presumably, to others; competitors will see that. These aren't publicly 
held companies. I think that that's an intrusion we don't necessarily 
need to make.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Let me say to my friend, this was a concern, 
but in working with Mr. Murphy, the author of this provision, we feel 
that in the light that--the sirens will go out, not just for 
contractors, but for grantees, too, on Federal grants and the like. And 
it will go out not under the rubric of just contracts, but be available 
on a Federal database which the Congress approved last year.
  So I appreciate Mr. Murphy working with us on that. We're, at this 
point, comfortable with that provision, having massaged it through the 
committee process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my appreciation to 
Ranking Member Davis for the hard work and contribution; he helped us 
in fashioning so much of this legislation.
  At this point, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut, who is an author of an important provision in this bill 
and is a very valued member of our committee.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I would like to thank Chairman Waxman for 
putting this very valuable amendment before us today. We've spent an 
awful lot of time on the Government Oversight Committee looking into 
the contracting practice of the Federal Government. I think this goes a 
very long way towards safeguarding our taxpayer dollars, and also 
shining some transparency on it, which is the piece of the amendment 
that I would like to speak on today.
  This amendment includes legislation that passed the House on voice 
vote several weeks ago, the Government Funding Transparency Act. The 
act requires that companies that make almost every penny of their 
revenue from the Federal Government, essentially quasi-public agencies, 
requires them to disclose to the American public the amount of profit 
that they're taking off of those contracts. These companies making over 
80 percent of their money shouldn't be allowed to hide this type of 
financial data from the American taxpayers.
  I would like to thank Ranking Member Davis for working through this 
bill as it moved through the committee process. This really has moved 
from a contracting bill to a disclosure bill, one that I think is going 
to give the American public and this Congress the access to the data 
that they should have when we are awarding large contracts to 
essentially government agencies that don't have the requirements that 
other agencies and public vendors do.
  I would like to thank Chairman Skelton as well for working through 
this amendment as we brought it forth today. I support its passage and 
the underlying legislation.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just say to my friends, if we really 
want to reform the acquisition system, the most important thing we can 
do is, first of all, start with a better job of defining our 
requirements on these particular vehicles and then recruiting and 
retaining acquisition professionals, the best and the brightest we can 
find. And when we do that, that means we have to pay them 
appropriately, we have to train them appropriately, we have to give 
them the appropriate incentives and bonuses. Think of a multibillion-
dollar acquisition that comes in on time and under budget. That is 
worth its weight in gold. We have had so many of these vehicles that 
have gone sideways on us and end up costing us billions of dollars. It 
is better to spend a little money up front training

[[Page 10839]]

the right people to oversee these contracts, define the requirements 
along the way. This amendment does do something in that regard. I think 
we need to continue to work in that direction.
  I look forward to working with my friends on other amendments as we 
can strengthen the acquisition system.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which consolidates a number 
of other provisions, has within it a provision that the House also 
passed on the suspension calendar authored by the gentleman from 
Vermont, Congressman Welch. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to him at this 
point.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I want to thank Chairman Skelton for his 
leadership, Chairman Waxman, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Davis.
  I have been listening to Mr. Davis, and he makes a good point; you 
have to, when you're spending $1 trillion on a war--and we're pushing 
that--have a good acquisition team. But that really begs the question, 
we have to have oversight. And there has been documented an astonishing 
amount of waste, fraud and absolute rip-off in this expenditure of 
close to $1 trillion. And that does require some simple reporting 
requirements.
  Mr. Murphy's amendment, where private companies that go into 
contracts from $700,000, and then when the war starts over the next 4 
years to $1 billion, that 10 percent cut for the owner of that company, 
or the owners, the public has a right to know. Sunlight is going to put 
some limits on how much profit is reasonable when our soldiers are 
working so hard for so little.
  Secondly, when we have no-bid contracts--and these have proliferated 
so that they are about over $1 trillion--and the companies that have 
those contracts become aware of fraud, why is it not plain common sense 
that that company would have the obligation immediately to report to 
the American government their knowledge of fraud so that we can save 
taxpayer dollars, particularly when these involve national security 
contracts, oftentimes with things that are going to protect our troops? 
We owe them no less and we owe our taxpayers no less. So I thank the 
gentlemen for the work that they've done to restore fiscal 
responsibility.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a 
very valuable member of our Oversight Committee who has been a watchdog 
to make sure that we are not wasting taxpayers' dollars, the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, at its simplest level, the House Armed 
Services Committee is the military's best friend, the best friend to 
the soldier, the sailor, the airman, and the marine. And under the 
leadership of Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter, we are 
demonstrating this once again with this bill.
  The House on Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Waxman's 
committee, is the taxpayer's best friend. And it's very important that 
these committees work together, as they are doing today, to make 
government work both for the taxpayer and for the military. And that's 
what these clean contracting amendments do.
  It's an amazing group of amendments to try to minimize, for example, 
sole source contracts. Why should the government have to add all this 
business to one company without competitive bidding unless it's a 
national emergency? This amendment takes care of that why should we 
have cost-plus contracts? Those guarantee a profit whether it's 
deserved or not. We try to minimize those things.
  This is an excellent example of cooperative work between committees, 
really forgetting jurisdictional lines, and making government work for 
the people back home.
  I'd also like to thank Mr. Waxman in particular because he pointed 
out something that even the excellent staff of the House could not have 
been able to see so far, which is workmen's compensation for defense 
contractors, an issue that we had not delved into. But just last week, 
in an excellent set of hearings that Chairman Waxman called, we were 
able to produce legislative language that, thankfully, the House has 
accepted and to get this reform underway already. So in just 1 week's 
time, we are solving this problem for the taxpayer.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my very 
good friend and respected leader, the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also wish to 
compliment him on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there was a lot of hard work that went into this, and 
what it would do is add the Clean Contracting Act of 2008 to national 
security and defense. It compiles provisions that have already passed 
the House or would extend acquisition reforms passed for the Department 
of Defense in prior authorization bills in identical form. It also adds 
a couple of new measures.
  This Waxman amendment complements last year's bill in which we 
extended several of the reforms beyond the Department of Defense, and 
it also included several bills that have already passed, such as the 
Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act offered by 
Representative Maloney, the Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act 
offered by Mr. Welch, and the Government Contractor Accountability Act 
offered by Mr. Chris Murphy.
  There's a lot of hard work that goes into this. And we are always 
going to have difficulties in the acquisition process and the 
contracting process. But this is a major step in that direction, and I 
favor it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the amendment offered by the distinguished chairman of the 
Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Representative Waxman, that 
would make important reforms to the contracting process.
  Particularly, I want to note my support for provisions in the 
amendment based on my legislation which passed the House last month, 
H.R. 3033, the ``Contractors and Federal Spending Accountability Act.'' 
That bill and this amendment would fortify the current federal 
procurement system by establishing a centralized and comprehensive 
database on actions taken against federal contractors and assistance 
participants. It requires the contracting officer to document why a 
prospective awardee is deemed responsible if that awardee has two or 
more offenses which would be cause for debarment within a 3-year 
period. Additionally, it improves and clarifies the role of the 
Interagency Committee on Debarments and Suspension, and requires the 
Administrator of General Services to report to Congress within 180 days 
with recommendations for further action to create the database.
  Currently, federal agency officials lack the information that they 
need to protect our business interests and taxpayers' dollars. This 
amendment will make it easier for these individuals to prevent those 
who repeatedly violate federal law from receiving millions of dollars 
from the federal government.
  As a New York City Councilwoman, I successfully led an effort to 
implement a similar system. This system has aided the City of New York 
tremendously, and it has helped to prevent habitual bad actors and 
felons from being awarded city contracts.
  The United States is the largest purchaser of goods and services in 
the world spending more than $419 billion on procurement awards in 
FY2006 and $440 billion on grants in FY2005. It is Congress's 
responsibility to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are used wisely 
and not wasted by some contractors who are more interested in lining 
their pockets with profits than providing the American people with the 
goods and services they are paying for.
  I also want to acknowledge Representative Mark Udall for his 
supportive efforts to improve the federal contracting system, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pomeroy). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Lee

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in House Report 110-666.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 10840]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Ms. Lee:
       At the end of subtitle B of title XII of the bill, add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 12XX. LIMITATION ON CERTAIN STATUS OF FORCES AGREEMENTS 
                   BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND IRAQ.

       No provision of any agreement between the United States and 
     Iraq described in section 1212 (a)(1)(A)(iv) shall be in 
     force with respect to the United States unless the 
     agreement--
       (1) is in the form of a treaty requiring the advice and 
     consent of the Senate (or is intended to take that form in 
     the case of an agreement under negotiation); or
       (2) is specifically authorized by an Act of Congress 
     enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First let me thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for 
their work on this bill and also for their devotion to the men and 
women of our Armed Forces.
  Thank you very much on behalf of my dad, retired Lieutenant Colonel, 
recently deceased, Garvin Tutt. Thank you, Mr. Skelton; thank you, Mr. 
Hunter.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. It provides 
that no provision contained in any Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, 
negotiated between the President and the Government of Iraq which 
commits the United States to the defense and security of Iraq from 
internal and external threats is valid unless this agreement has been 
authorized and approved by Congress.
  This may sound complicated but it really is not. The issue is really 
simple. Should President Bush, this President, or any President be 
allowed to obligate our troops to a long-term commitment to spend 
resources and provide troops to defend Iraq against its enemies 
internal or external without congressional review? The longstanding 
answer and constitutional answer to this question is ``no.'' So, Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment should not be controversial.
  And why is it needed? Because in November, 2007, President Bush and 
Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki signed the Declaration of Principles for 
Friendship and Cooperation, which included an unprecedented commitment 
to defend Iraq against internal and external threats. Frankly, this is 
not only unprecedented, but it is really insulting when one considers 
that the agreement does require the review and approval of the Iraqi 
Parliament but not our own Congress. That doesn't make any sense. If 
prior review and approval is good enough for the Iraqi Parliament, it 
is good enough for the United States Congress. In fact, it is essential 
for the United States Congress to give their approval.
  I want to take a moment to address the position of the administration 
and some of my Republican colleagues who would argue that the agreement 
is nothing more than a garden variety. Status of Forces Agreements, for 
the most part, don't require congressional involvement or approval. But 
the reality is that this Declaration of Principles goes far beyond what 
is typically covered in the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA. The 
reality is that routine SOFAs do not include any guarantee to defend a 
host country against external or internal threats. That just has not 
been part of prior SOFA agreements.
  I cannot underscore just how serious this commitment is. An agreement 
of this kind to commit American troops to the defense of security of 
another country is not routine or typical or minor. It is a major 
commitment that must have the support of the American people, and that 
popular support will only be reflected through the Congress of the 
United States, the people's House.
  Mr. Chairman, if a decision is made about keeping troops in Iraq 
indefinitely, then it is the Congress that should have a say. My 
amendment does that.
  I want to be clear, though, that this amendment is not about 
redeploying our troops from Iraq, a position that I strongly support, 
nor is it about timelines or reconstruction or oil or the various other 
debates raging around our occupation of Iraq. We can't undo the 
suffering, the death, the horrible injuries, the deep psychological 
scars, or the millions of lives that are forever altered, and we can't 
erase the misrepresentations made, the mistakes made, or the damage 
done. But we can, however, prevent future mistakes. And it would be a 
disastrous mistake to let the current declaration move forward without 
congressional debate and approval.
  So this amendment is about the future. Do we want the next President 
and Congress to inherit a situation where our troops are committed to 
fight Iraqi civil wars and any entity the Iraqis deem a threat? Do we 
really want that? Do we want to do that without even having debated it 
or allowing congressional review? Do we really want that?
  This is about standing up for Congress and the Constitution. Again, 
this amendment is responsible, practical, and necessary. For these 
reasons, I urge all Members to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment 
because of my great respect for the gentlewoman. But this Status of 
Forces Agreement is something that we've done now in over 80-some 
countries. And it's not a guarantee of security. It's not a guarantee 
of defense. It is not and should not be considered as a treaty. It is 
simply for the protection of American soldiers and American civilian 
personnel.
  It sets out, for example, if you are sued, if you're charged with a 
criminal action, there has to be an agreement between the countries as 
to how people are treated, that is, how American personnel are treated, 
and under the agreement that Iraq has made with the United States.
  Now, Secretary Gates has testified to us in the Armed Services 
Committee, and he has been asked about the SOFA, and he has said there 
are no security guarantees in this SOFA. We're going to have the same 
team that has done SOFAs, these Status of Forces Agreements, in many 
other countries, moving in to do the same Status of Forces Agreement 
that will go over the same types of things. And, again, this does not 
rise to the level of a treaty because this is not going to be an 
agreement with respect to security guarantees for Iraq. It will contain 
no security commitment, and it will not obligate force structure or 
troop strength or assure any other security guarantees.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is not a treaty. And I appreciate the 
gentlewoman's statements and her intent, and there may be at some point 
an agreement between Iraq and the United States that will be a treaty 
with respect to security commitments. This doesn't do it. What this 
does is protect American personnel. We need it and we need to negotiate 
it. We need to get it done. It's not a treaty, and we should not make 
it subject to ratification by Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the chairman 
of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, this is really a reflection of 
constitutionality. This refers to any agreement that requires the 
United States to take action on behalf of an ally in the face of an 
attack. This is one that is an agreement that is a security agreement, 
and it requires either a treaty ratified by the United States Senate or 
a provision passed by the entire Congress of the United States.
  It's unclear, for instance, that if the Iraqis could repel any 
external invasion or address a serious internal

[[Page 10841]]

threat without America that the United States could avoid being 
involved against its will in such a situation. Quite honestly, it is a 
requirement that the Constitution be followed. A security agreement, by 
the way, is different from a Status of Forces Agreement. I favor the 
amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, once again, these Status of Forces 
Agreements, which are pretty run of the mill, do not manifest security 
commitments by the United States to protect the countries that they are 
made with. They talk about the treatment and describe the treatment of 
Americans with respect to getting licenses, licensing their vehicles, 
how they're going to be treated in cases of civil or criminal actions. 
Basically how the American who is in that particular foreign country, 
and again we have got 80 of them that we have done, how they are going 
to be treated by that host country.
  Now, they are not security commitments, and if you have something 
that does, in fact, commit the United States to a security agreement 
with another country, and in this case Iraq, I have no dispute with my 
colleagues, that at that point you have a treaty, and a treaty, because 
it manifests commitments, has to be ratified.
  But I don't understand why we are saying that the Status of Forces 
Agreement, which is going to talk about how our troops are treated in 
the same way that we talk about how American military personnel who are 
in Germany or Japan or 80 other countries are treated, how that now 
becomes something special because it's Iraq and, in the case of Iraq 
alone, we have to have a ratification by Congress.

                              {time}  1630

  I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LEE. I would yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, as we speak, the administration is 
negotiating a strategic framework agreement with Iraq that goes well 
beyond the typical Status of Forces Agreement. Contrary to what my 
colleague, Mr. Hunter says, from California, essentially it does amount 
to a treaty. Read the words of the Declaration of Principles. It will 
need to be ratified by the Iraqi Parliament and therefore it must be 
ratified by the United States Congress as well. This is the issue that 
goes to the heart of our constitutional duties as a Congress and the 
power to declare war, with which we have been entrusted as 
representatives.
  After voting against this war, I have supported the goal of 
responsibly redeploying our troops for over 2 years, and after 
President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki signed the Declaration of 
Principles last year. It is a document that outlines unprecedented 
security commitments and assurances to Iraq from the United States. If 
in fact it is just a Status of Forces Agreement as usual, then the 
administration should repudiate this Declaration of Principles and 
start with a genuine Status of Forces Agreement.
  I introduced the Iraq Strategic Agreement Act. I compliment my 
colleague, Ms. Lee, and support her amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Once again, the gentlelady talked about a strategic 
framework agreement. That does manifest security commitments, and that 
does have to be ratified. But that is not the Status of Forces 
Agreement. The Status of Forces Agreement is simply about the treatment 
of American military personnel in that particular place. We are talking 
about two different things; one that has to be ratified and the other 
that doesn't. And I have heard no good argument as to why, of the 80 
Status of Forces Agreements that we have around the world, why this one 
has to be ratified by Congress and none of the others have to be.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  Mr. McDERMOTT. I will give you a reason why we ought to have this 
amendment. We know what happens when we give this President a blank 
check. It always goes badly. We get a banner, Mission Accomplished, and 
he gets to continue a failed war that has now claimed the U.S. economy 
as its latest casualty. That is why I urge my colleagues to approve 
this Lee amendment.
  This lame duck President must not be able to indenture the next 
President to carry on a disastrous war of security. This is a lame duck 
administration trying to rewrite history, and they will tie the hands 
of the Nation into a knot in the process if we let them. The next 
President and the next Congress are the only ones who should determine 
the future policy in Iraq. This amendment ensures this will happen.
  The President has had a blank check since 2001, and we see where we 
are. This amendment brings some balance to the process. It's time to 
close the blank check account for a lame duck President. We ought to 
approve the Lee amendment and preserve our chance in the future to get 
out of Iraq.
  Ms. LEE. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support Congresswoman 
Barbara Lee's amendment. In fact, Mr. Chairman, if it were not for 
abusive power grabs, we would not need this amendment today. As 
Chairman Skelton just said to us, this amendment actually strengthens a 
right guaranteed to the Congress by the Constitution. With 
Congresswoman Lee's amendment, we simply affirm that any major 
international agreement signed by the representatives of the United 
States, the U.S. Government, it must be approved by the Congress.
  Whether you call it a treaty, whether you call it a Declaration of 
Principles, this Congress will fulfill our constitutional duty today 
because every one of us, every Member of Congress takes an oath to 
defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and today we 
will do just that.
  So, again, I thank Congresswoman Lee, and I urge support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. How much time do we have left, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my colleagues, 
including the gentleman from Washington who spoke I think somewhat 
disparagingly of the President, this is part of the duties of an 
administration anywhere where you have American troops. You lay down 
rules of how they are going to be treated with respect to civil 
actions, criminal actions, licensing of vehicles, payment of taxes, all 
the things that affect a person who is now physically residing in that 
foreign country, whether it's an American civilian or a military guy 
who's stationed there. It's a necessary thing.
  The idea that we are going to elevate this thing, which has been a 
fairly ministerial thing, to a treaty on the basis that the people who 
are speaking don't like the President doesn't make any sense. You know, 
when the Secretary of Defense comes in, testifies to our committee that 
there will be no commitments manifest in this particular SOFA with 
respect to security, he testifies to us to that effect, the idea that 
we say we are not going to believe him, and certain members of the 
other side don't like the President so they come down to say anything 
he does now has to be ratified by Congress, I think that disparages the 
process, Mr. Chairman.
  We have got a fairly run-of-the-mill ministerial thing that we need 
to do and, once again, I say to my colleagues, this protects American 
personnel. The same team that has negotiated this with presumably 
dozens of countries and gone over the same ministerial stuff with 
respect to how people are treated in that country, will be talking to 
the Iraqi leadership and making that same negotiation on those same 
points.
  So the idea that we now elevate this to a treaty; if a treaty is 
coming with this strategic framework, that does

[[Page 10842]]

have to be ratified by Congress, and should be ratified by Congress. 
But let's not mix the two up. Let's protect our personnel and then 
let's move to this ratification or this decision of what any security 
commitments might be.
  I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. I would like to yield now 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
California. We have two issues here. The first is whether this body, 
the Congress of the United States, is going to exercise its 
responsibility or abnegate its responsibility to the President of the 
United States.
  We have a bit of a factual dispute about the nature of this 
agreement. The chairman of our committee, a distinguished veteran, has 
made it clear that this can be in the nature of a treaty. That is what 
it applies to. It could implicate us in the second issue, and that is 
where the United States should be providing security when essentially 
you have a civil war.
  The agreements and Status of Force Agreements that Mr. Hunter has 
described have been with countries that have stability. This is a 
country that has Shia fighting Shia, Shia fighting Sunni, the Kurds 
sitting on the side, waiting. The United States should not be providing 
security guarantees without the vote of Congress in that circumstance.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the remaining time to close 
to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, this is first-year law school discussion. 
If you read the amendment offered by the gentlelady, it makes reference 
to 1212(a)(1)(a)(4). It applies only to this. I read that section: 
``Any security agreement, arrangement, or assurance that obligates the 
United States to respond to internal or external threats against 
Iraq.'' That doesn't say a thing, not a blooming thing about Status of 
Forces Agreement. So that is what we are talking about. That is why a 
treaty is required or a consent of Congress.
  Mr. HUNTER. Just one other point, and that is in the U.N. Security 
Council Resolution, under which our troops operate now, which provides 
for how they are treated in Iraq, expires in December. That is why we 
need to have a Status of Forces Agreement. If we don't have, and we now 
elevate this to a treaty, and Congress doesn't act on the treaty, they 
will lose their protection when the United Nations provision expires.
  It doesn't make sense to put this onus on them, that somehow we are 
going to raise this thing to a treaty level and Congress, by golly, is 
going to have to now ratify it before we can decide how an E-5, a 
sergeant with a couple of stripes, living in Baghdad, how he is going 
to be treated with respect to the laws of that country. It doesn't make 
a lot of sense.
  I think we ought to leave this thing alone. When we go to any 
treaties that actually manifest security commitments by the United 
States, certainly that has to be then ratified by Congress. This isn't 
one of them. It will be the 81st SOFA that we have had without 
requiring Congress to ratify it.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
by my colleague from the Foreign Affairs Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It provides that any 
security commitment, arrangement, or assurance that obligates the 
United States to respond to internal or external threats against Iraq 
must be approved by an act of Congress or by a treaty that receives 
advice and consent.
  Mr. Chairman, the United States has many friends around the world, 
including in the Middle East, with whom we have non-legally binding 
arrangement about security. However, legally binding security 
commitments to use the Armed Forces of the United States have only been 
entered into with the approval of Congress. U.S. security commitments 
to NATO and Japan, for example, have been made pursuant to a treaty 
subject to advice and consent with the Senate.
  I believe that past precedent should be our guide as to how to deal 
with any legally binding obligation of the United States that would 
commit both the current President and all of his successors to 
defending Iraq. If the President believes this is wise for the country, 
he should not do it alone; it should only be taken with congressional 
approval.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an esoteric or hypothetical situation. This 
past weekend I was in Baghdad with Speaker Pelosi's delegation. It's 
quite clear from our discussions there that the government of Iraq at 
the highest level expects that any strategic framework or other 
agreement between the United States and Iraq will include a legally 
binding security commitment that would require the United States to 
respond to threats against Iraq.
  This amendment ensures congressional approval and, implicitly, 
congressional oversight of any proposed legally binding commitment to 
Iraq's security. I would hope that all my colleagues, irrespective of 
their political affiliation and their views about the conflict in Iraq, 
would agree that Congress should not be sidelined when it comes to what 
could be a millennial commitment to defend a country in the heart of 
one of the hottest regions on the planet.
  I strongly support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 50 Offered by Mr. Israel

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 50 
printed in House Report 110-666.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
  Amendment No. 50 offered by Mr. Israel:
       At the end of title XII, add the following new section:

     SEC. 12__. EMPLOYMENT FOR RESETTLED IRAQIS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of State shall jointly establish and operate a 
     temporary program to offer employment as translators, 
     interpreters, or cultural awareness instructors to 
     individuals described in subsection (b).
       (b) Eligibility.--Individuals referred to in subsection (a) 
     are individuals, in the determination of the Secretary of 
     State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, who--
       (1) are Iraqi nationals lawfully present in the United 
     States; and
       (2) worked, for at least 12 months since 2003, as 
     translators in the Republic of Iraq for the United States 
     Armed Forces or other agency of the United States Government.
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     program established under subsection (a) shall be funded from 
     the annual general operating budget of the Department of 
     Defense.
       (2) Exception.--The Secretary of State shall reimburse the 
     Department of Defense for any costs associated with 
     individuals described in subsection (b) whose work was for 
     the Department of State.
       (d) Rule of Construction Regarding Access to Classified 
     Information.--Nothing in this section may be construed as 
     affecting in any manner practices and procedures regarding 
     the handling of or access to classified information.
       (e) Information Sharing.--The Secretary of Defense and the 
     Secretary of State shall work with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security, the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, and nongovernmental 
     organizations to ensure that Iraqis resettled in the United 
     States are informed of the program established under 
     subsection (a).
       (f) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense, in coordination 
     with the Secretary of State, shall prescribe such regulations 
     as are necessary to carry out the program established under 
     subsection (a), including establishing pay scales and hiring 
     procedures, and determining the number of positions required 
     to be filled.
       (g) Termination.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     program established under subsection (a) shall terminate on 
     December 31, 2014.
       (2) Earlier termination.--If the Secretary of Defense, in 
     coordination with the Secretary of State, determines that the 
     program

[[Page 10843]]

     established under subsection (a) should terminate before the 
     date specified in paragraph (1), the Secretaries may 
     terminate the program if the Secretaries notify Congress in 
     writing of such termination at least 180 days before such 
     termination.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1218, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Israel) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment solves a critical deficiency 
in our warfighting and our peacekeeping capabilities by strengthening 
the Arab language capabilities in the Department of Defense and 
Department of State. There are literally hundreds of Iraqis in the 
United States who supported our military units as translators in Iraq. 
They risked their lives, they risked their families' lives. They went 
on patrol in very dangerous areas, told our servicemembers what the 
enemy was saying, what was being said.
  Then they came here to escape persecution, and when they got here, 
they wanted to continue providing those critical linguistic abilities 
and they were told there was no place for them to work. Many of them 
today are working in Safeways and working in Home Depots and working in 
restaurants, instead of providing the linguistic capabilities that we 
desperately need in the military theater.
  Study after study after study, including the Quadrennial Defense 
Review, points to the critical deficiency we have in understanding the 
cultures and languages that we are fighting in. Our Nation now has 
hundreds of people who grew up in those cultures, speak those 
languages, pass background checks, risk their lives, and what do we do, 
even though we need their skills? We let them bag groceries at a 
Safeway. It doesn't make any sense.
  This amendment would help solve that problem by instructing DOD and 
the Department of State to create a temporary program that would offer 
employment as translators, interpreters, or culture awareness 
instructors in Iraq, who meet certain rigid criteria. One, they must be 
here legally. Two, they must have worked for at least the last 12 
months as translators in Iraq since 2003 for our troops or for another 
U.S. Government agency.
  This amendment is endorsed by the Episcopal Church, Veterans for 
Common Sense, the International Rescue Committee, Church World Service, 
which works very hard on it, and many additional groups.

                              {time}  1645

  I would like to read into the Record, Mr. Chairman, a statement by 
Major Andrew Morton, U.S. Army Active Service, a former Director of 
Strategic Communications for Multinational Forces in Iraq, where he 
says, ``Representative's Israel's proposed amendment is a critically 
needed program to assist these many Iraqis who have put themselves and 
their families in harm's way to assist our joint operations in Iraq.''
  This is a very important amendment in helping those who were 
protecting us, and I urge its passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, first let me express my great respect for 
the gentleman who is offering this amendment. He does wonderful work on 
the committee and truly has a heart for those who have been impacted by 
the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  On that point, I would say I remember the time we were in Fallujah 
and a young Marine captain came up to us with some language he had 
written. In fact, his name was Kevin Coughlin. He thinks he has traded 
up. He moved on to the FBI from the committee staff. But we were so 
impressed with the language he had written to protect translators that 
we brought him back with us and made him part of the HASC staff. He did 
leave us a ``Dear John'' note after he left to go to work for the FBI, 
but a great young Marine captain. And he felt the same way we had, 
which is that our translators needed to be protected.
  We have a program which protects them. Now, the question here is, are 
we going to mandate employment for them? That is the way I read this 
particular legislation. I don't think that is the right way to go.
  I think that, first, a lot of these folks have got great initiative. 
They are happy to be in a free country. If we have a program to help 
make sure they know of all the job opportunities that are available and 
perhaps help them with language, make sure that they are connected with 
folks that are recruiting our people who need those language talents, I 
think that is great.
  But I think the idea, at least the way I read this thing, that there 
is mandated employment, I think that is going a step far. I think it is 
something we haven't done for other folks. In this case we have taken 
people and their families who helped the United States and we have 
relocated them in the greatest country in the world with the freedom to 
travel all these new roads that they have never been able to travel 
before.
  But I think, for one thing, that the idea of guaranteed employment, 
if they have got a lot of spirit and a lot of initiative, that is the 
first way to kill spirit and initiative, is to give a guaranteed 
lifetime job to someone. I think we ought to take these folks who have 
this great energy, they have obviously displayed a loyalty to the 
United States, help them hook up with these thousands and tens of 
thousands of employers, including those in the government, but not have 
a program that guarantees employment.
  So I thank the gentleman for the spirit of his amendment.
  I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman. I would assure him that this in no 
way mandates a program. It asks the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of State to create one, but it is totally at their discretion 
and provides ultimate flexibility for them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank the gentleman from New York.
  The Israel amendment recognizes that we have a responsibility to the 
Iraqis who by helping us have put a bull's eye on their back. The 
interpreters every single day are in immense jeopardy. They have many 
people who, if their identity is determined, will kill them.
  But as aggressive as Mr. Israel is in promoting this amendment, he is 
really the second-most aggressive advocate. The most aggressive are our 
soldiers, who have benefited day in and day out from the services of 
people they have come to call their brothers. They want us to stand up 
for the people who have stood up for them.
  And do they need a job when they come here? Of course they do. This 
is about doing work so that they can maintain body and soul. It is also 
about them having work that can continue to help our men and women in 
uniform.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goode).
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I too want to salute the gentleman from New 
York and his work on the Armed Forces Committee, but I must 
respectfully disagree with this amendment and what I believe is the 
philosophy behind it.
  We need to be encouraging Iraqis to stay in Iraq. Iraq is improving. 
The situation there is expanding. They need to rebuild Iraq. They need 
to have a better economy. And by encouraging the best and the brightest 
to come to this country, we are doing a disservice. We should not be 
encouraging the Iraqi translators to abandon their country, to leave 
their country. We should be promoting their staying in Iraq.
  If we have jobs programs, I suggest that first, with the mandatory 
language that exists in this amendment, that we focus on jobs for U.S. 
citizens. Refugees get food stamps, SSI and Medicaid. That is often 
more than U.S. citizens get. We should be rolling out

[[Page 10844]]

the red carpet for our citizens first, instead of adopting programs 
like this.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to my good friend 
from Virginia that these translators did risk their lives to help our 
troops in Iraq. If they stayed in Iraq, they would in all likelihood be 
killed. The reason they come here is to escape assassination.
  With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I go back to the basics, and that is, read 
the amendment before you. This amendment asks that the Secretaries 
jointly establish and operate a temporary program to offer employment 
as translators, interpreters, et cetera. This is not a mandate in the 
words at all that are before us. Under this amendment, these Iraqis 
must have assisted our country in Iraq for at least a year and be here 
in the United States legally.
  As a practical matter, these are the Iraqis who have been brought to 
our country under the legislation offered by my good friend Duncan 
Hunter that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2 
years ago, which is good language. We are also not talking about a 
large number of people. We are talking about 760 people who have been 
brought to the United States.
  I think we can do something for them. I think a careful reading of 
the amendment will solve a lot of discussion today. Mr. Israel is 
right.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of both Mr. Israel 
and the ranking member. I am just looking at the language, and it says 
``shall offer employment.'' So it clearly says, if I was going to read 
that as an agency head, I would say that means I must hire these folks.
  Again, this committee worked to make sure that they got over here, 
that they were protected and that their families were protected, and I 
am glad we did that. I will offer my small offices. We have had jobs 
fairs at Bethesda and Walter Reed for our returning wounded warriors 
where we bring people from industry and we bring people from the 
agencies and we try to get them together with our wounded vets who are 
returning and help them to match up and get jobs. I would be happy to 
do the same thing with respect to these interpreters. And, indeed, 
interpreters have special skills. This should be something that can be 
done.
  The only thing I would object to is the mandated job. We don't offer 
that to our veterans. I just think that is a step a little bit too far. 
But I would be happy to work with the gentleman in terms of helping 
them to access jobs.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Braley of Iowa) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________