[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13179-13184]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 454, WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISITION REFORM ACT OF 
                                  2009

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 463, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (S. 454) to improve the organization 
and procedures of the Department of Defense for the acquisition of 
major weapon systems, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 463, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
Wednesday, May 20, 2009, at page 13047.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SKELTON. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the 
conference report currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Missouri?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to bring before the House the conference 
report on S. 454, the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.
  Last week, the House overwhelmingly approved H.R. 2101, the House 
Armed Services Committee's version of the bill, in a vote of 428-0 and 
sent us to conference with the Senate. Our conference concluded on 
Tuesday, and I can report that we reached agreement on strong 
legislation that will reflect well on the Congress as a whole.
  Every Member attending the conference committee, House and Senate, on 
a bipartisan basis signed the conference report, and it passed the 
Senate last evening on a vote of 95-0.
  It's tempting to conclude that a bill so unanimously supported must 
not do anything. How often are we able to agree unanimously on issues 
of real substance? However, in this instance, Congress will speak with 
a single voice and will, at the same time, adopt tough medicine for the 
acquisitions system.
  This bill is landmark legislation, the strongest effort to reform the 
acquisition of weapons systems since the days of Les Aspin. In fact, I 
strongly believe this bill will be much more successful than earlier 
reform efforts. The consensus on this legislation is simply the result 
of a problem that has become so obvious and so urgent that every Member 
has concluded that strong action is required.
  Too often in our current acquisition system, we end up with too few 
weapons that cost us too much and arrive too late. GAO tells us that 
DOD will exceed its original cost estimates on 96 major weapons systems 
by $296 billion. That's more than 2 years of pay and health care for 
all our troops. We can no longer tolerate this state of affairs.
  To those who oppose change, the vote yesterday in the Senate and the 
vote today in the House will send the message that the Congress means 
business, for maintaining the status quo of indiscipline and 
inefficiency in acquisition is no longer an option.
  Let me briefly summarize the bill's provisions.
  It establishes a new director of cost assessment and program 
evaluation who will ensure that in the future DOD uses realistic cost 
estimates as the basis for its decisions. The bill re-establishes a 
director of developmental test and evaluation who will coordinate 
closely with the director of systems engineering to ensure that we 
rebuild the technical expertise to oversee complex weapons programs.
  To ensure that the Department follows through on these measures, the 
bill requires DOD to make an official response for performance 
assessment. It also assigns additional responsibility to the director 
of defense research and engineering for assessing technological 
maturity and to unified combat commanders, those leading the fight, for 
helping to set requirements.

                              {time}  1245

  In the area of policy, we required DOD to balance its desire for 
cutting-edge capabilities with the limits of its resources in setting 
military requirements. We require competitive acquisition strategies. 
We require DOD to get programs right in the early stages, when problems 
can be solved at a low cost. We also require DOD to put intense 
management focus on problem programs until they are either healed or 
terminated. We strengthen the Nunn-McCurdy process, and we ask DOD to 
eliminate or mitigate organizational conflicts of interests among its 
contractors.
  Now, I know that many Members of the House have a deep interest in 
acquisition reform. Let me assure you that with the passage of this 
bill, the House Armed Services Committee has no intention of resting on 
its laurels. S. 454 deals almost exclusively with major weapons system 
acquisition, which is only 20 percent of the total that DOD spends on 
acquisition on an annual basis. There are also serious problems with 
the other 80 percent of the acquisition system and, as a result, the 
House Armed Services Committee established the Panel on Defense 
Acquisition Reform led by Rob Andrews and Mike Conaway to investigate 
further improvements to the acquisition systems.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that the Members of this body vote for the 
conference report on S. 454, move this legislation to the President's 
desk for his signature this week, and continue to work with us on 
acquisition reform in this Congress.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have some speakers on our side who have some time 
constraints, and I don't want to utilize a lot of time on my statement 
right now, so I just want to make a few opening comments, if I may.
  First of all, it seems like only days ago that we were here doing the 
House version of this bill, and the reason for that is we were here 
only days ago doing the House version of this bill. The speed with 
which this legislation has passed through both bodies, while not 
suggesting that it was done in haste, this is a well-crafted proposal, 
but rather suggests the importance of this acquisition reform 
initiative, recognizes, as well, the unanimity of feeling amongst all 
the Members of both the House and the Senate as to the task before us. 
And I think it's a tribute as well to the President, who called some of 
us down to the White House and told us that he fully supported this 
initiative and urged us to work as expeditiously as we could. Today's 
bill is a result of that effort, and I certainly want to start by 
thanking my dear friend, my partner, and my chairman, Ike Skelton, the 
gentleman from Missouri, for providing his leadership that brought the 
House and, particularly, the House Armed Services Committee, into this 
very, very important discussion that has developed this very, very 
important piece of legislation.
  As my distinguished chair said, we owe our thanks to many, and I want 
to give a special tip of the hat to as well,

[[Page 13180]]

my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), my partner, our 
representative on the special panel, Mike Conaway, the gentleman from 
Texas, and all of the special panel's members who really did an 
outstanding job in meeting with the department representatives and 
discussing the initiatives with representatives of industry and Members 
of both Houses of the legislature, and brought this important bill 
before us. It is a critical measure and it really is a best-of-all-
worlds proposal. It portends the opportunity to save literally hundreds 
and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, dollars that now probably 
go to expenses and to costs that should and could be avoided and, as 
well, ensures that every tax dollar we do spend goes appropriately to 
providing the best weapons systems we can to keep those brave men and 
women in uniform safe, who do such an amazing job with us.
  I join my chairman, Mr. Skelton, in urging all Members to soundly and 
enthusiastically, and with great pride, support this conference report. 
And we look forward to its carrying to the White House and its 
signature in the very near future.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, may I mention first that we did not rush to 
judgment on this issue. The gentleman from New York, my friend, the 
ranking member, John McHugh, and I thought it best to establish a panel 
on military acquisition, which we did. And as a result of briefings and 
hearings headed by Rob Andrews, Mike Conaway, the faith that Mr. McHugh 
and I had in the panel has been justified with the first work product 
of their efforts. That work product, of course, is the bill that stands 
before us today. And it has been a great bipartisan effort. It is also 
a monument to the outstanding staff work that we have across the board 
in the Armed Services Committee. We could not be more blessed.
  With that, I yield 10 minutes to my friend and colleague, the 
chairman of the Armed Service Committee Special Oversight Panel on 
Defense Acquisition Reform, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to rise in support of this 
legislation, and to thank the many people who made this possible, 
beginning, Mr. Speaker, with the chairman's friendship and mentorship 
and leadership. Mr. Skelton is a gifted consensus builder and a great 
role model for many Members of this House, myself included. I thank him 
from the bottom of my heart for this opportunity.
  To my very dear friend, Mr. McHugh, whose expertise is matched by his 
good spiritedness and a sense of inclusiveness. The way that these two 
gentlemen work together, Mr. Speaker, is a model for how we ought to 
serve the public's problems, and I'm very grateful to serve with each 
of them.
  I want to thank my friend, Mike Conaway, from Texas, who is the 
ranking member of the special panel, who gave this effort a great deal 
of attention and diligence. And he and I, Mr. Speaker, know that our 
job is only about one-fifth done, and we look forward to proceeding in 
the weeks and months ahead.
  We want to extend our appreciation to each of the members of the 
special panel, Republican and Democrat, who came to the meetings, 
expressed their views. Each of them had a hand in shaping this 
legislation. Many of them offered amendments at the full committee 
markup that found its way into the legislation.
  As the chairman said, those of us who are elected have the privilege 
of standing out front in these efforts, but the truth of the matter is 
that the most diligent and skillful work is done by the staffs that 
serve us with such distinction. And I do want to join the chairman's 
comments and specifically thank Erin Conaton, who's the leader of the 
staff on the majority side. She has built a tremendous team and is a 
great resource to Members of this House.
  Paul Oostburg, who is an able counsel in every respect, guides us 
through the legal thicket. Andrew Hunter did a tremendous job on this. 
He was always available, always a great resource, a person of just 
great, great diligence.
  His counterpart on the minority side, Jenness Simler, we thank her 
for her equally effective and cheerful and resourceful efforts.
  And I especially want to thank from my office staff, Nat Bell, who 
gave this around-the-clock attention, mastered the details in a very 
short period of time, and did just a terrific job.
  Mr. Speaker, when the American people hear that nearly $300 billion 
has been run up in cost overruns on major weapons systems, they're 
justifiably outraged. When we're paying $300 billion more than we 
should be for major weapons systems, they understand that we're not 
doing right by the people who wear the uniform, and we're not doing 
right by them.
  As the chairman said, to understand the magnitude of this problem, if 
we had not squandered that $300 billion in cost overruns we would have 
had enough to pay the salaries of the troops, the health benefits of 
the troops and their families, for more than 2 years. That's how much 
money that is, and it was squandered.
  So, as a result of this effort, with the able leadership of Senators 
Levin and McCain on the other side, we are going to present to the 
President today, by this vote, a solution to that problem. And here is 
the essence of that solution. When the public asks how do we really 
know how much these programs are going to cost, how effective they are, 
and when they're going to be done, for the first time, those questions 
will be answered by independent, qualified, accountable officials in 
the Department of Defense. Independent and accountable to the 
President, to the Congress and to the general public.
  When people ask, you know, we've got a weapons system that doesn't 
appear to be working out very well in the early going. Its promise 
exceeded the early signs of its performance. For the first time, in 
that early stage, the weapons system will have to meet a rigid and 
severe burden before it can go on. And if the best judgment of the 
independent experts is it shouldn't go on, it won't, and we will not 
throw good money after bad.
  When people ask the question, a weapons system has far exceeded its 
projected cost and it's taking far longer than it should, why should it 
continue to go on, for the first time, this legislation will say, well, 
it shouldn't. And if there's a different decision made, if there's an 
exception given to this weapons system so it can go on, the weapons 
system will be watched like a hawk, every day, every dollar, every step 
of the way, to make sure that if a weapons system is not terminated 
after poor performance, that it gets right, gets right in a hurry and 
stays right.
  And finally, when people ask the question, whose interests are really 
being served in this process, are the decisionmakers really looking out 
for those who serve in the military of this country and use the 
systems? Are the interests of the taxpayers being looked after, or are 
there other interests at work? This legislation institutionalizes the 
rule that I think most of our decisionmakers in the Department of 
Defense have lived by as a matter of personal ethics; but it spreads 
that personal ethic into the law, and says, when you make decisions 
about protecting those who wear our uniform and spending our taxpayers 
money, you may serve only one master. Conflicts of interest will be 
rigidly monitored and prohibited as a result of this legislation.
  Our work is just beginning. By passing this legislation, we are 
putting in place a series of safeguards and checks so we can understand 
if it looks like a system has been overpromised and underperforming. It 
is our responsibility, once this system is in place, to learn from its 
lessons so that we can give those who wear the uniform of this country 
the best that they deserve, and pay for it with the price that the 
taxpayers deserve, with not a penny wasted.
  It has been an honor to serve with my friends and colleagues in this 
process. We are eager to see this bill become law. We would urge a 
``yes'' vote from both Republicans and Democrats.

[[Page 13181]]


  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I would note the one Member that had a time 
constraint, Mr. Coffman from Colorado, not just a great and able member 
of our special panel, but also a veteran of both the United States Army 
and the United States Marine Corps, did have another appointment that 
he had to make and, therefore, was not able to stay with us to make his 
statement personally.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield as much time as he may consume 
to one of the senior members of the House Armed Services Committee, and 
a gentleman who also wore the uniform of this Nation, United States 
Marine Corps, my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman 
from New York for yielding the time.
  It seems sometimes like only yesterday when I was wearing that 
uniform and was serving in the Pentagon and in the Office of Secretary 
of Defense and dealing with the acquisition morass, and that's, in 
fact, what it was.
  When you look at the history of how the Pentagon has gone about 
making these purchases, you see President after President, Secretary of 
Defense after Secretary of Defense, senior officials, Republicans or 
Democrats, recognizing that the system was broken. We were wasting 
money. Cost overruns were the norm. Yet, even recognizing that there 
was a problem and vowing to fix it, they couldn't do it. Try as they 
might, panel after panel, effort after effort, hiring different people, 
firing people, it continued year after year after year, cost overruns, 
stealing money away from the American people and delaying the delivery 
of weapons systems that our troops need now in a system that's just not 
functioning.
  I know that I sensed the frustration personally as I was sitting 
there with them as they struggled with how to fix this. They couldn't 
do it.
  So when I came to Congress, now going on 7 years ago, and I was 
fortunate and honored to join the House Armed Services Committee, I 
started raising that question and pointing out to witness after witness 
that we couldn't seem to fix this system. So I was delighted, 
absolutely delighted, when the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member, Mr. McHugh, as has been discussed, said, You know what 
we're going to do? We're going to work on this from Congress, and we're 
going to do it the right way. We're going to take a blank piece of 
paper and put it down in front of a bipartisan panel, led by my able 
friend from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, by my friend from Texas, Mr. 
Conaway, by a wonderful panel of people, and by great staff, as has 
already been mentioned and commended by a number of speakers. They 
said, Go and see what you can do to fix this problem. Focus in on major 
acquisitions programs, and go fix it. A blank piece of paper. A 
bipartisan effort.
  As a result of that, we have legislation that is going to be passed--
I trust overwhelmingly--because I don't know of anyone, frankly, in 
this body or in the other who doesn't think this is a great idea and 
that it needs to be done. We're going to pass this legislation and get 
it to the President, and we're going to change the law and provide some 
help to the very able people in the Pentagon who have been wringing 
their hands and who have been struggling on how to fix this for 
literally decades.
  So this piece of legislation went through rapidly, as has been 
pointed out, but not in haste. It was put together the right way. The 
problem was recognized across the board. We had a hearing, which I 
thought was a tremendous hearing, with a panel of real experts. They 
agreed that this was the right way to go. I remember asking a question 
because I thought it was an important one as we look at legislation 
like this.
  I said, Does this do any harm? Absolutely not, was the answer.
  This is what we ought to be doing. I'm very proud to support it. I 
hope all of my colleagues will support it. As has been suggested, I 
hope this is the model for how this House will work in the future--with 
a blank piece of paper and with a bipartisan effort to draft 
legislation that comes out to be good legislation that is good for 
America.
  So, again, I want to thank those who did the work. I want to 
encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SKELTON. At this time, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, my 
colleague, the distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to begin by commending and recognizing the hard work done by 
Ike Skelton as well as my colleague and friend from New Jersey, Mr. 
Andrews, as well as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. 
McHugh, Mr. Conaway, and others.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of the Weapons Acquisition 
Systems Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act 
of 2009, or the WASTE TKO Act.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Ike Skelton, for his outstanding leadership in addressing this critical 
issue and for bringing this bill to the floor so quickly and with such 
strong support. I was honored to be a part of the conference committee, 
and I am happy to see such a strong bipartisan bill come back to the 
House for final passage.
  In today's world, we face a difficult balance between keeping our 
Nation safe and operating within the fiscal constraints of our current 
economic climate. The taxpayers truly are demanding that we always be 
good stewards with their dollars. We can all understand the outrage of 
the American people when they hear about billions and billions of 
dollars in cost overruns in weapons acquisitions programs, and we can 
understand their demand for change, and that's what this bill truly 
brings, accountability and change to our weapons acquisitions process.
  The WASTE TKO Act is part of a broader effort by the administration 
to tackle cost growth through ensuring accurate performance 
assessments, providing intensive care to ``sick'' programs and fighting 
cost growth in the early stages of development. Along with our efforts 
in the Congress, the Defense Department plans to add 20,000 personnel 
over the next 5 years to help implement reforms in government 
contracting. This dual effort is a positive sign of change that will 
ultimately help keep our Nation safer and more agile in its warfighting 
efforts.
  Specifically, this bill will bring oversight to the muddled process 
of performance assessments by requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
designate a principal official to provide unbiased evaluations on the 
success of our acquisitions programs. The bill will also mandate 
additional reviews for programs that fail to meet development 
requirements or that have extreme cost growth problems.
  Now, when cost overruns and schedule delays continue to haunt a 
program, it threatens the ability to provide our men and women in 
uniform with the best equipment possible to protect our Nation. This 
bill goes a long way towards increasing effective congressional 
oversight, and it will help us to continue to be responsible stewards 
of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. A lot 
of hard work went into crafting this strong bipartisan measure.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McHugh, Mr. 
Andrews, Mr. Conaway, and all of the members of the team who were part 
of this effort. I'm proud to support this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, when we try to find the right people for the 
right job, be it in the private sector--and it works this way in 
Congress as well--sometimes they're unavailable. The best people are 
always the busiest people.
  I think one of the critical challenges and primary challenges that 
both the chairman and I had was in making sure that the heads of the 
special panel were two individuals who had the power, the intellect, 
the understanding from the real world of life experiences, and a 
recognition as to the importance of the challenge.

[[Page 13182]]

  We are very blessed, certainly, with the agreement of Mr. Andrews to 
head and chair the subcommittee panel. As well on our side, the first 
person I thought of was Mike Conaway. Mike does have those 
qualifications of intellect, of the ability to relate to concepts and 
to real applications. As well, he has brought to this effort his 
service as an NCO in the United States Army.
  It is my privilege and my honor and with a great deal of thanks to 
yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member McHugh for 
those very kind words. It kind of caught me off guard. Thank you. I 
appreciate that.
  I rise today to urge the swift passage of the conference report on S. 
454, the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. This conference 
report represents thoughtful compromises that will enable the 
Department of Defense to better plan for the future and to acquire the 
combat systems that it needs to make our military as effective as it 
needs to be at a cost that we can afford.
  As always, I would like to thank the leadership of the Armed Services 
Committee for their commitment to the men and women of our Armed 
Forces. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McHugh lead our committee 
with purpose and with poise, and they never forget that our first 
responsibility is to protect our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen 
who are serving our Nation around the globe.
  I also want to thank the chairman on the House Defense Acquisition 
Reform Panel, Chairman Rob Andrews from New Jersey. It has been my 
privilege to partner with him as we work to bring these needed reforms 
to the Defense Department in how it spends our limited resources.
  While all the thanking of the members is certainly appropriate, I 
don't think you can overstate the work that our staffs do on behalf of 
the acquisitions panel. I want to thank Andrew Hunter on the majority's 
staff and Jenness Simler on our side for the great work that they've 
done. I also want to thank, on my personal staff, Tony Ciancielo, who 
is an Air National Guard fellow in my office for a year, and he is 
doing outstanding work on behalf of this country.
  As a member of the acquisitions panel, I've spent the last few months 
immersed in the details of the weapons system and in the weapons 
acquisition system. It is nothing if it is not spectacularly 
complicated. It is clear to me that the oversight of this process must 
be a never-ending commitment on the part of Congress. Yet, as the 
changes we are implementing here today mature, I urge that we remain 
vigilant but also patient. The number of the cost overruns that has 
been touted during the discussion of this panel is real, but I worry, 
as all of us have, that that number is artificially high because of 
underestimates on the front end of weapons systems decisions.
  This legislation, I think, goes a long way toward helping us cure a 
natural tendency to under-represent costs on the front end in order to 
get a program or a weapons system started. Then we are saddled with 
that decision when we come on to the real costs and to the realization 
that the real expense of a particular system turns out to be greater 
than what we estimated on the front end because of a tendency to be 
optimistic as to time frames as well as to expenditures on those front 
ends. So this legislation goes a long way toward fixing that.
  I also want to add a word of caution, and that is that we allow these 
changes to mature somewhat before we begin to tinker with them again. 
We've got great acquisition people staffing the system from top to 
bottom. As Mr. Langevin mentioned, there is going to be a 20,000 
increase in those competent professionals as we go forward. We need to 
let them work with the system long enough so that we can, in effect, 
evaluate whether or not these new changes work and if they do the 
things we want them to do. So it will be an ever-changing system, but 
we in Congress here look for the results. So be a little bit patient as 
we change the systems acquisition process again.
  That leaves us then with the bulk of the spending that's done, which 
is on services. My colleague and chairman of our acquisitions panel 
will continue to push forward on the review for how the DOD acquires 
services. It is a very mundane, everyday deal, but as to the scope and 
the reach of DOD, just think about how they all have cell phones and 
the decisions that are made across the thousands and thousands and 
thousands of installations across this world that need cell phone 
coverage. Somebody somewhere has got to decide on that contract. That's 
our next work, and it's going to be as difficult and daunting, I think, 
to understand that system and to see where it's working correctly, to 
see where we can help change it for the better and to see those places 
where it isn't working correctly.
  I've got great confidence in my chairman on the subcommittee, on the 
panel. Collectively, we're working in a bipartisan approach as we've 
done so far. I agree with the other speakers that this is a great 
example of how this House, this body, can in fact work on issues that 
don't require us to wear a jersey that has got a particular color on it 
when we go about the decisions of trying to defend this country and put 
weapons in the hands of young men and women who lay their lives on the 
line to protect this country. So I'm proud to be a part of this 
process.
  S. 454 will begin the process of fundamentally altering how the 
Defense Department procures major weapons systems desperately needed by 
our warfighters. It's important legislation that I am pleased to 
support today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference 
report.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers. So with the 
majority's permission, I'll just say a few words in closing.
  I would be remiss if I did not send my best wishes, appreciation and 
expression of admiration to our Senate colleagues, particularly 
Senators Levin and McCain, who led the fight on acquisition reform.
  As I noted to them in a meeting we had with the President at the 
White House, they really did help us hear the call to arms on this 
initiative. As we went forward, they were true and very active and very 
productive partners in making sure we could reach a conference report 
that truly does, as the bill before us speaks very clearly toward, 
embody the best provisions of the House bill and the Senate bill.

                              {time}  1315

  Lastly, I want to add my words of deep appreciation to those who, day 
in and day out, make our committee, and ultimately make every 
committee, in the House of Representatives work, and that is our 
invaluable staff people as all of the other speakers have mentioned. 
I've said in the past, they labor quietly in the shadows and we are 
able to step out in the sunlight that they provide through their hard 
work and bask in their glory. And their hand prints and their diligence 
and terrific effort is in every line of this bill.
  So in closing, I would simply say again, congratulations to my 
friend, the distinguished chair, Mr. Skelton, and strongly urge all of 
our Members to step forward and to proudly support this bill. And we 
can do something important for the war fighters and the taxpayers of 
this great country.
  And I would yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, first, I must thank my friend, my 
colleague, the gentleman from New York, for his outstanding leadership, 
cooperation, intelligence and integrity. This bill is a great 
reflection of bipartisan hard work in our committee. And I thank, in 
particular, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).
  Mr. Speaker, as we are on the brink of passing legislation that will 
completely reform the acquisition system of involving major weapon 
systems in the Department of Defense, I think back to the moment we 
were preparing to pass a bill known as the Goldwater-Nichols bill which 
dealt with jointness within the military. We knew what it said. We 
wrote it. But we had no idea that it would actually have a tremendous 
impact creating the culture of

[[Page 13183]]

jointness within the various stovepiped services that existed prior to 
that day in 1986.
  This reform act will do the same. It is not only landmark 
legislation, it is not only reform legislation, it is legislation that 
will change the culture of acquisition for major weapon systems. It's 
good. It's thorough. It's well thought out.
  And I cannot close without saying a special word about our staff. 
It's very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to single out people who work so hard 
because you're bound to leave some out. But we must mention Erin 
Conaton, Bob Simmons, Andrew Hunter, Jenness Simler, Cathy Garman, Joe 
Hicken, and all of the efforts that they put forth, the tireless nights 
in drafting and redrafting the legislation before us today. So a 
special tribute goes to them.
  So with that--and thanks to our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, Bob Andrews, Mike Conaway, and all of those who work so hard for 
this--let's get it passed, let's get it to the President for his 
signature, and let reform take place and change the acquisition culture 
that is so sorely needed.
  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to 
express my strong support for this important piece of legislation. As a 
member of the House Armed Services Committee, and a member of the 
Acquisition Reform Panel, I was honored to be appointed to this 
Conference Committee.
  As an active participant on the panel, I appreciate this opportunity 
to help ``fix'' an obviously flawed defense acquisition system. My 
emphasis on the Panel has been how to achieve the best use of taxpayer 
dollars to provide the right equipment, at the right time for our 
marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
  Maintaining a strong national defense, while maximizing taxpayer 
dollars, and reining in out of control cost growth in the development 
of major weapons systems. As a combat veteran, I realize from personal 
experience just how critical a well-functioning acquisition system is 
to our nation's servicemembers--especially our warfighters in the 
field.
  We must always fully take the ``end user'' into account whenever we 
address the acquisition process and to this end, I was pleased my 
amendment giving the Combatant Commanders a more defined role and input 
into the process was included. This legislation institutes a much-
needed level of focus and precision regarding the input sought from 
Combatant Commanders to best inform the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council as to whether a new program is truly needed and what its 
benefit to the warfighter will be. Such precise input aims to prevent 
the DOD from going down the road of spending billions of dollars on 
unnecessary programs of no real value to those in the field.
  S. 454 addresses acquisition organization, oversight of cost 
estimation, performance assessment, and weapons acquisition oversight, 
and fully takes into account the current problems within the Department 
of Defense Acquisition process.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this well-crafted and 
critical piece of legislation.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
support for the Conference Report on the Weapons Acquisition System 
Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act (WASTE 
TKO Act). This legislation will reform how the Department of Defense 
purchases weapons and help ensure the strong oversight of our defense 
budget that taxpayers deserve.
  In recent years, the Defense Department's spending plans have been 
unrealistic and unsustainable. Much of the growth in our defense budget 
has been driven by weapons programs that cost too much and take too 
long to develop. According to a Government Accountability Office study 
released this year, cost overruns from ninety-six Department of Defense 
weapons programs have totaled $296 billion. These same programs were, 
on average, 21 months behind schedule. President Obama has said that 
procurement reform could save taxpayers as much as $40 billion each 
year.
  Our current approach asks, ``how much money can we get for the 
weapon?'' But we ought to ask, ``how much weapon can we get for the 
money?'' Every dollar that we spend on an over-budget weapons system is 
a dollar that cannot be used to support the urgent needs of our 
servicemembers and their families. Cost overruns alone would pay the 
salaries for our active-duty military and health care for them and 
their families for two and a half years.
  The WASTE TKO Act will address deep-seated and systemic problems in 
how we procure weapons. This bill will require the Department of 
Defense to provide more realistic estimates of how much weapons will 
cost and punish those programs which are failing to meet schedule and 
cost goals. This legislation will demand additional focus during the 
early stages of weapons development, when small program changes can 
have major long-term consequences. When it comes to defense 
procurement, an ounce of oversight is worth a pound of cure.
  I applaud Chairman Ike Skelton, Ranking Member John McHugh, and the 
Members of the Armed Services Committee's Defense Acquisition Reform 
Panel for their work to develop this legislation.
  As a member of the House Budget Committee and the Armed Services 
Committee, I am committed to providing for a strong national defense 
that gives our women and men in uniform the tools they need to do their 
jobs, while delivering strong oversight of the defense budget that 
reins in out-of-control spending on major weapons systems. I urge my 
colleagues to join with me in supporting a strong national defense and 
accountability of taxpayer dollars by voting yes on the WASTE TKO Act.
  Mr. SKELTON. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the conference report will be followed by a 
5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1676.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 411, 
nays 0, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 286]

                               YEAS--411

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.

[[Page 13184]]


     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Aderholt
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Deal (GA)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Flake
     Grijalva
     Herger
     Kaptur
     Lummis
     Markey (CO)
     Murphy, Tim
     Price (GA)
     Rooney
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (PA)
     Wilson (OH)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1345

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote 
on S. 454, I would have voted in favor of the bill. As my daughter and 
son are graduating from college and high school respectively, I am 
unable to be present for the vote.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 286 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________