[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11898-11899]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 WEAPON SYSTEMS ACQUISITION REFORM ACT

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Weapon 
Systems Acquisition Reform Act, which would overhaul our defense 
procurement system and improve mechanisms for identifying and 
eliminating waste. I thank Senators Levin and McCain for introducing 
this critical piece of legislation and recognize them for their effort 
moving it through the Armed Services Committee.
  This bill is an essential step toward eliminating wasteful 
inadequacies that have permeated the weapons procurement system. I am 
sure my colleagues share my deep concern about the Government 
Accountability Office's conclusion last year that ``. . . DOD 
[acquisition] programs continue to be suboptimal'' resulting in ``. . . 
lost buying power and [lost] opportunities to recapitalize the force.''
  This is unconscionable and unacceptable for the world's strongest 
military power, especially as we continue to have troops in harm's way.
  Today, Senators Levin and McCain will discuss some of the most 
egregious examples of a lack of oversight in the acquisition process 
and cost discrepancies that surfaced over time. This is why this bill 
requires the Secretary of Defense to implement mechanisms that 
guarantee consideration of the tradeoffs between major weapon systems 
cost, schedule, and performance at each phase of the procurement 
process.
  This bill would give the Department of Defense the tools it needs to 
improve the acquisition process to avoid ``suboptimal'' results, reduce 
waste, and ensure that the cost of developing specific weapon systems 
is commensurate with our defense needs.
  According to Secretary Gates, this will require ``. . . a holistic 
assessment of capabilities, requirements, risks and needs'' which will 
entail, among other things, ``. . . a fundamental overhaul of our 
approach to procurement, acquisition and contracting.''
  Both President Obama and Secretary Gates have indicated their strong 
support for this legislation because they want to do everything in 
their power to protect our troops, advance national security goals, and 
keep America safe.
  Unfortunately, we will not get a refund from the mistakes of the 
past, but we can make better decisions today that will lay the 
foundation for more pragmatic decisionmaking in the future.
  The military challenges we are facing today are unlike conventional 
wars of the past. Let me repeat. The military challenges we face today 
are unlike wars of the past and, therefore, require a reconfiguration 
of defense spending. I agree with the assessment of leading defense 
experts that we must better prepare to win the wars we are in, as 
opposed to those we may wish to be in.
  Last month, I had the privilege of traveling with Senator Jack Reed 
to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, where it was abundantly clear that 
we must focus future spending on our growing counterinsurgency needs.
  In Iraq and Afghanistan, we are engaged in a four-stage process of 
shaping the environment, clearing the insurgents with military power, 
holding the area with effective security forces and police, and 
building through a combination of governance and economic development.
  The four stages, again, are shaping the environment, clearing the 
insurgents, holding the area, and building through a combination of 
governance and economic development.
  In order to be successful in this complex process, we must ensure 
that our commanders have the necessary tools to effectively engage in 
counterinsurgency operations, and this requires a fundamental 
rebalancing of our defense priorities.
  As we shift resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, we hear over and 
over, we are facing potential shortages of some of the high-demand 
equipment and ``critical enablers,'' such as UAV operators, engineers, 
air traffic controllers, and road-clearing units.
  The allocation of these scarce resources forces our military 
leadership to make difficult decisions as it balances competing needs 
in Afghanistan and Iraq. These shortages underscore--underscore--why we 
must eliminate waste and reshape our defense priorities.
  It is in this regard that I wish to highlight section 105 of this 
bill which directs the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to seek and 
consider input from combatant commanders prior to identifying joint 
military requirements.
  This provision is essential because it incorporates the views of our 
commanders on the ground to ensure they have the tools they need to 
better protect our troops, defeat militants, and succeed in our 
missions overseas.
  As Secretary Gates wrote in ``Foreign Affairs'' earlier this year, we 
must build innovative thinking and flexibility into the procurement 
process,

[[Page 11899]]

and ``the key is to make sure that the strategy and risk assessment 
drive the procurement, rather than the other way around.''
  This is why we must institutionalize these changes into the 
procurement process which must be flexible enough to respond to 
developments on the ground and better equip our troops to engage in 
counterinsurgency.
  I wish we had the procurement system set up under this bill years 
ago, but it is never too late to institute needed change. I thank the 
authors, Senator Levin and Senator McCain, of this important initiative 
and encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________