[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6527-6529]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5013, IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT FOR 
 PERFORMANCE AND RELATED REFORMS TO OBTAIN VALUE IN EVERY ACQUISITION 
                              ACT OF 2010

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1300 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1300

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5013) to amend title 10, United States Code, 
     to provide for performance management of the defense 
     acquisition system, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question. All 
     points of order against such amendments are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Armed Services or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. 
Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate 
only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous materials into the Congressional Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. The 
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. It makes in 
order the committee amendment as an original bill and provides that the 
bill shall be considered as read.
  The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment 
except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in 
order the 16 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report and 
waives all points of order against those amendments except those 
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides one motion 
to recommit with or without instructions.
  The rule provides the Chair may entertain a motion that the committee 
rise only if offered by the Chair of the Committee on Armed Services or 
a designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the 
enacting words of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, over the years we have watched as countless stories 
revealed flaws in the military's procurement operation. Disappointment 
with the way the Department of Defense manages the money we appropriate 
it reflects poorly not just on the Pentagon, but on Congress as well. 
The $640 toilet seat is now the stuff of legend, but sadly it is often 
just the tip of the iceberg.
  In recent years, excesses stemming from the ill considered rush 
towards

[[Page 6528]]

privatization championed by the previous administration have become 
increasingly common. The push to contract out nearly every part of the 
military's mission has inevitably led to waste, fraud, and abuse 
involving some of the biggest corporate names in this country. Sadly, I 
believe that many years from now historians will associate a 
significant part of the war in Iraq with wasteful and poorly managed 
contracts that made private companies millions of dollars, billions of 
dollars, actually, often at the expense of our own men and women in 
uniform and certainly of taxpayers.
  Two years ago in Congress, I was here on the floor as the House 
debated H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act. That, too, 
was intended to save taxpayer money. Earlier in the 110th Congress, I 
worked with my friend, Ms. Schakowsky, on H.R. 897, the Iraq and 
Afghanistan Contractor Sunshine Act. I hesitate to say that those and 
other efforts towards contracting reform have been unsuccessful. 
Clearly, we have made significant reforms and part of our work in 
Congress involves regular and diligent oversight. It is a never-ending 
process.
  For my part, one of my proudest efforts during my career in Congress 
has been to force the Pentagon to acknowledge that some of the testing 
done on body armor for troops during an early part of the war was 
deeply flawed. My work on this issue grew out of a 2006 audit that I 
read about in The New York Times that found that 80 percent of marines 
who had died in Iraq of upper body wounds would have survived with the 
proper body armor. I waited for other committees to take the lead, but 
no one came to the floor.
  We are still working on this issue, but we have come a very long way. 
Major changes have been made in testing labs, some of them taken back 
into the Army rather than contracted out, which in this case did not 
work. Thankfully, however, the work did accomplish one thing: the 
military agreed to no more poorly managed deals for outside contractors 
to test the body armor. All current and future body armor testing will 
be conducted internally by the Department of Testing and Evaluation 
within the DOD with strict standards to ensure our troops receive 
nothing but the highest quality of body armor.
  When it comes to the safety of our troops, which we send into battle, 
it is foolish to put the bid out to the lowest-priced contractor.
  But today we have moved into a new chapter of oversight and reform, 
and I am happy to see it come. This morning we are bringing up an 
important piece of legislation intended to help the Pentagon reform 
inefficient procurement operations. It's called the Implementing 
Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every 
Acquisition Act of 2010, otherwise known as the IMPROVE Act. This bill 
will help the Defense Department immediately, once this is signed, to 
crack down on cost overruns and lax oversight of contractors. Not only 
that, but the bill should help reduce our dangerous reliance oftentimes 
on outside companies to do so many varied functions on behalf of the 
military.
  It is hard to overstate how important this bill is. My colleague, Mr. 
Conaway of Texas, who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services 
Committee Defense Acquisition Panel, offered the following testimonial 
on how urgent the need is for contracting and acquisition reform. He 
said: ``The Department of Defense is the largest agency in the Federal 
Government, owning 86 percent of the government's assets, estimated at 
$4.6 trillion. Over the last two decades, millions of dollars have been 
spent by DOD in the quest to obtain auditable financial statements.'' 
Yet getting those numbers has proven elusive, if not at times 
impossible. No more, Mr. Speaker, after this bill is signed.
  This bill mandates that the Pentagon consider shifting work away from 
contractors if they don't meet the cost goals. It will set up a new 
system of cost objectives and schedules which DOD procurement officers 
would have to follow. The bill says that by 2017 Pentagon agencies must 
prepare records that can be audited and draft a new policy that 
wouldn't reward those who don't meet requirements. These are simple, 
sensible reforms that the American people can understand and 
appreciate.

                              {time}  1130

  No matter what anyone in Congress thinks of the ongoing wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, all of us know that the men and women who are 
serving overseas rely on the equipment, and they deserve to know that 
the funds for their equipment are not being squandered and that they 
are given equipment of the highest quality.
  Another bright note on this legislation is that, when it was approved 
by the Armed Services Committee, the vote was 56-0. Such bipartisanship 
is rare in the House these days, and I am happy to speak on a bill that 
all of us can agree on. Although there is not currently any pending 
movement on the bill in the Senate, it is my hope a decisive and strong 
bipartisan vote today on this bill will spur the Senate into action. 
Billions of taxpayer dollars and the trust of our troops depend on it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from New York for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that the underlying bill we have 
before us today is being brought forward under a structured rule, 
adding to the record number of structured and closed rules the 
Democrats have arbitrarily used since they have been in the majority.
  Today, the Democrats in charge have rejected nine amendments offered 
by their colleagues, and they have refused to allow these amendments to 
be debated and for their colleagues' voices to be heard. Democrats have 
chosen to stifle and control the debate today, presenting the Congress 
with another structured rule, eliminating the ability of both the 
Republicans and the Democrats to offer important amendments affecting 
their constituents.
  After promising to have the most honest and open Congress in history, 
why has the Speaker consistently gone back on her word? Why are the 
Democrats in charge shutting off debate and silencing their colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle? Are they afraid of debate? Are they 
protecting their Members from tough votes?
  Regardless of their motives, one thing is clear: The Democrats in 
charge are doing the American people an injustice by refusing to allow 
their Representatives to offer their amendments on the floor of the 
people's House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject 
this structured rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I need to point out to the gentlewoman that there were 
26 amendments offered on this bill. Only one was a Republican 
amendment. Ten amendments were not allowed, but the Republican 
amendment was. We are not afraid of debate. We are not afraid of 
discussion. As a matter of fact, I am somewhat taken aback by your 
calling for a ``no'' vote on this rule given that this legislation 
passed unanimously out of the committee.
  I have no further requests for time, so I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. I appreciate the comments of the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, I do realize that the bill passed out of committee 
unanimously, and I am sure it is going to receive strong support on the 
floor. Yet we know that providing protection for our Nation is one of 
the few jobs specifically assigned to the Federal Government by the 
U.S. Constitution. Indeed, the Federal Government is the only level of 
government that can provide for the defense of this Nation. However, 
based on the policies of this administration and the Democrats in 
charge, who have slashed defense spending even in the midst of ongoing 
terror threats, only to increase domestic spending and our national 
debt, you would never know this was true.
  I am very concerned about the backward spending priorities of this 
administration and of the Democrats in charge. While the defense budget 
proposed by the administration is flat,

[[Page 6529]]

growing only by 1 percent last year, automatic spending grew by $77 
billion, or 5 percent. Military spending represents less than one-fifth 
of the Federal budget and approximately half of the average level of 
defense spending during the Cold War as a percentage of our economy. 
Meanwhile, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the President's new 
health care takeover are on course to consume the entire Federal 
budget, including defense. According to the Heritage Foundation, under 
current projections, it is expected that the Federal Government will 
spend more on interest payments for the national debt than on defense 
by the year 2015, if not sooner.
  The Obama administration's recently released Nuclear Posture Review 
and New START agreement will weaken national security, and it will make 
our Nation less safe. It will cause the U.S. to fall dangerously behind 
at a time when other countries are seeking to strengthen and to develop 
their own nuclear weapons. The President seems to believe that the 
power of New START's example will somehow encourage Iran and North 
Korea to surrender their ambitions, but there is no evidence to believe 
this is the case. Since the end of the Cold War, these countries have 
only increased their attempts to gain nuclear weapons even as the U.S. 
and Russia have been reducing their supplies.
  What would do far more good is a loud and clear declaration that the 
U.S. and Russia will stop Iran from gaining a nuclear military 
capability by whatever means necessary. The NPR references existing 
treaties that our enemies disregard and treaties that have yet to be 
negotiated, which will take years of diplomatic effort to achieve but 
will do little to make America more secure.
  The threat to international nonproliferation is a nuclear Iran, not 
the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons are an inevitable truth in 
our modern-day world, so, unfortunately, they are essential to our 
national survival. As long as they exist, we must have the world's most 
effective nuclear arsenal and possess a missile defense system to 
protect ourselves against any actor that employs nuclear weapons. This 
is necessary in order to comply with the Constitution's requirements to 
provide for our common defense.
  The NPR signifies that the Obama administration plans to neglect this 
responsibility. The administration's NPR provides many carrots but few 
sticks. It commits the U.S. to unilateral disarmament while hoping that 
this will give incentives to other nations to do the same, which it 
will not. It leaves the U.S. with no deterrent against rogue nations, 
such as North Korea and Iran, which continue to develop nuclear 
arsenals and to assert they will use nuclear weapons if they so much as 
feel threatened by the U.S.
  A ``nuclear zero,'' which the Obama administration talks eloquently 
about, cannot be achieved unilaterally or even bilaterally. It will 
require many countries to make the strategic decision that nuclear 
weapons are unnecessary for their security. Yet the rest of the world, 
including our allies, friends and foes, see the continuing value in 
nuclear weapons.
  Winston Churchill once warned the U.S. to ``be careful, above all 
things, not to let go of the atomic weapon until you are sure and more 
than sure that other means of preserving peace are in your hands.''
  We are not even close to meeting Churchill's requirement, because we 
have not yet found an alternative basis for preventing war. Weakening 
our nuclear arsenal will stop us from being able to follow through on 
our commitments to our allies. Many of our closest allies see U.S. 
nuclear weapons as a large component of their security and the reason 
they remain nonnuclear. Without the U.S. nuclear umbrella, they may 
fear that they lack security and, thus, will develop their own 
alternative nuclear deterrent capabilities.
  As the late British nuclear expert, Sir Michael Quinlan, stated, 
``Better a world with nuclear weapons but no major war than one with 
major war but no nuclear weapons.''
  Nuclear weapons have served our Nation as a primary deterrent and are 
the reason we have not had a world war since their inception. Without 
them, we will lose our ability to deter rogue nations from attacking us 
or our allies. Thus, we will lose the ability to lead our world towards 
peace.
  Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Democrats in charge were outspoken 
critics of the Bush administration's spending. However, it is clear 
that these same Democrats either have very short memories or their 
criticism was all for show because, since being in charge, they have 
not only failed to improve our current economic situation but have 
undeniably made it worse. While both Republicans and Democrats need to 
work to hold the line on spending, it is only appropriate that the 
Democrats in charge be reminded of their criticisms of deficit spending 
under a Republican Congress, which their own spending under their 
Democrat Congress now dwarfs.
  In 2006, then-Minority Leader Pelosi stated, ``When Republicans spend 
the Federal budget into the red, the U.S. Treasury borrows money from 
foreign countries. Our national debt is a national security issue. 
Countries that own our debt will not only be making our toys, our 
clothes, and our computers, pretty soon, they will be making our 
foreign policy.''
  Actions speak louder than words. If only Speaker Pelosi still held 
these beliefs today, maybe our fiscal situation would look quite 
different.
  Again in 2006, Minority Leader Pelosi is quoted as saying, ``If 
something is important to you, figure out how to pay for it, but do not 
make my children and grandchildren have to pay for it or anybody's 
children or grandchildren have to pay for it. It is immoral for us to 
heap these deficits on our children.''
  How ironic, Mr. Speaker, to have had those words spoken by now 
Speaker Pelosi.
  In 2006, then-Minority Whip Hoyer told Republicans, ``You have voted 
for budgets which have provided the largest deficits in our history. 
You are in charge of the House; you are in charge of the Senate, and 
you have the Presidency.''
  I would tell the majority leader today to heed his own words and to 
ask himself if his Democrat Congress is doing the right thing by the 
American people, by our children, and by our grandchildren.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on both the 
previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________