PACT Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1676) to prevent tobacco smuggling, to ensure the collection of all tobacco taxes, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as States and localities face increasing pressure on their budgets around the country, there is one source of revenue that not only raises money for those localities but also performs an important health function, and that is to provide taxation on packs of cigarettes. The taxation varies dramatically from State to State, and, frankly, in New York State we have the highest State tax in the Nation, $2.75 a pack, and the highest local tax as well. We have a $4.25 per pack. In some places it's much lower.

But every State in the union has some taxation that they put on their tobacco products, and it is collected, by and large, by wholesalers that put a tax stamp on. Most citizens, when they go out and purchase their cigarettes, do so legally, pay the tax, and there is no problem.

However, as the taxes have gone up, we have unwittingly created a large and growing black market for smuggled tobacco products. And this legislation, which has bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee and in this House, seeks to solve that problem. It does so in a number of ways.

One, it makes it much more difficult for someone to sell tobacco over the Internet. Right now, UPS, DHL, the common carriers all are under agreement that they, themselves, are saying, We are not going to ship tobacco across the Internet because too often it's used as a way to avoid paying the taxes. There is one common carrier, the Postal Service, which still permits it. That is the carrier of choice for the overwhelming number of illegally smuggled cigarettes. And, frankly, the Postal Service has said, Congress, if you want us not to ship those cigarettes, you've got to tell us in a law that you want us not to. That's what we are doing today.

Also, it increases the penalties under the Jenkins Act. If someone is going to seek to avoid paying tobacco taxes, violating the Jenkins Act is going to be a felony under this act. It is going to make it a requirement that sellers of Internet tobacco verify the purchaser's age and identify them through easily accessible databases, which is, in many cases, going to put some of these Internet tobacco carriers out of business.

This is not only a matter of revenue, though, Mr. Speaker. This is also the source for a black market that has emerged that, according to the GAO, has allowed organizations as nefarious as Hezbollah to make the money on the float: buying tobacco, say, in South Carolina, driving it to Michigan, taking money that they saved by not charging people the tax, and taking that money and exporting it to fund terrorist activities. That is not a hypothetical. That's something that the GAO actually found to have happened.

So I urge my colleagues to support this. This has broad support. We have worked very hard, that even organizations as disparate as the wholesale marketers, Phillip Morris, the National Association of Attorneys General, Lorillard, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, all are supporters of the PACT Act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this and so many issues on the Judiciary Committee.

It is indeed the fact that a lot of these Web sites continue to exist because they provide delivery by the United States Postal Service. The irony here is that UPS, FedEx, DHL, the big carriers have entered into an agreement with the State of New York that they are now following in all 50 States that they won't transport those tobacco products because there is a reasonable expectation that these Web sites are operating, and often brag about the idea that, if you go shopping for tobacco on the Internet, you're not going to have to pay the taxes.

Well, we need to stop that activity. You can be against the high taxes in some States, or in favor of them. I think that the States, in their sovereign responsibility, have the right to come up with their own levels of taxation. But I think that we should all be able to agree that right now there is a

giant truck-sized loophole that exists in the law that allows many people to avoid paying the taxes and allows the funds to go to nefarious hands.

According to the GAO, Hezbollah raised $1.5 million from the sale of illegal tobacco in the 5 years 1996 through 2000. The largest case that they found was that millions of dollars of cigarettes were smuggled to Michigan from North Carolina in 1996--seized cigarettes and property and currency worth $2 million and proceeds that had been transferred to Beirut.

But it's more obviously often smaller bore problems that have been created as well; that if you have people who are increasingly seeking, because of the large amount of taxation that there is on many of these products, a lot of the programs in our States that are funded theoretically from the tax revenues from tobacco are seeing shortfalls. In fact, we're reaching a point now where the rising tobacco tax rights are producing less revenue in some States.

Some people thump their chest and say, Isn't that great. We have less smoking. But if you look at the back end, you see that the wholesalers and the manufacturers are still sending the same number of cigarettes out; we're just not collecting the revenues for it.

I want to offer my gratitude to Mr. Scott for his chairmanship on the Crime Subcommittee, through which the bill passed. I also want to express gratitude to many members of the staff who have worked to make not only the bill work, but also the compromises and changes that we made.

Mr. Coble, for example, was concerned that we wanted to allow some of the smaller test brands to be able to be sent out so market research could be done. We accommodated those concerns. And I think his staff was very, very helpful.

If the Speaker will indulge me, I want to mention some of them by name: Perry Apelbaum of the Judiciary Committee; and Ameer Gopalani, Jesselyn McCurdy, Kimani Little and Caroline Lynch of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security; John Mautz of Congressman Coble's staff; and Joseph Dunn of my staff.

Also, some of the folks in the private sector who helped us craft this bill in a way that doesn't impact legitimate operators: Artie Katz, Lenny Schwartz, and Steve Rosenthal with the New York Association of Wholesale Marketers, who helped enlighten the committee on how the process actually worked; John Hoel and Sarah Knakmuhs with Altria; Eric Lindblom with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids; Anne Holloway with the American Wholesale Marketers Association; Lynn Beckwith with the National Association of Convenience Stores; and Laurie McKay with Dickstein Shapiro.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank Mr. Poe again, and I just want to make one other point: that there are colleagues on other committees who have had an interest in this, and they have been working hand-in-hand with the Judiciary Committee.

I will insert an exchange of letters with one of those committees, the Oversight and Reform Committee, at this point in the Record.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 19, 2009.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Conyers: I am writing about H.R. 1676, the

``Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009.'' The

Judiciary Committee ordered this measure reported, as

amended, on April 28, 2009.

I appreciate your efforts to consult with the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform regarding those provisions of

H.R. 1676 that fall within the Oversight Committee's

jurisdiction. These provisions relate to the treatment of

cigarettes and smokeless tobacco as nonmailable matter and

new requirements which will be placed on the U.S. Postal

Service as a result.

In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 1676,

the Oversight Committee will not separately consider relevant

provisions of this bill. I would, however, request your

support for the appointment of conferees from the Oversight

Committee should H.R. 1676 or a similar Senate bill be

considered in conference with the Senate. Moreover, this

letter should not be construed as a waiver of the Oversight

Committee's legislative jurisdiction over subjects addressed

in H.R. 1676 that fall within the jurisdiction of the

Oversight Committee.

Please include our exchange of letters on this matter in

the Congressional Record during consideration of this

legislation on the House floor.

Again, I appreciate your willingness to consult the

Committee on these matters.

Sincerely,

Edolphus Towns,

Chairman.

I thank you very much, and I thank the ranking member for his informed remarks about this bill. I want to thank also the chairman of our full committee for reaching it to this point.

You know, the fact is that the various States have different levels of tax on their tobacco products. Some States are very high. My State of New York is among the highest. Our city puts an

additional tax. It is one of the prerogatives of the different States-- some have chosen to tax more; some have chosen to tax less.

But the fact is that there is an enormous economy around avoiding that tax, essentially violating the law. There are Internet tobacco sites that exist with their sole purpose apparently being to deliver tobacco to people outside the realm of taxation. That's a problem. It's a problem not just because it makes it impossible for States to collect taxes that they've levied, but it's also a problem because the sale of Internet tobacco encourages underage smoking. It also makes it very easy for anyone who wants to commit illicit acts.

When the Government Accounting Office took a look at a smuggling ring that they discovered in the early part of this century, they found that Hezbollah, the international terrorist organization, was using this difference in taxes to fund their illicit activities. Here's how it worked: They would purchase tobacco at a low tax rate in North Carolina; they would ship it to a higher tax State in Michigan; and the difference that they'd save by selling the cheaper tobacco in Michigan would produce millions of dollars.

But it is not just international terrorist organizations and not just underage smokers that are using this gap in the laws to undermine our interstate commerce. It is also just everyday citizens who have become scofflaws by using Internet tobacco sales.

So how does this PACT Act, which was sponsored by Senator Kohl and is sponsored by my Republican friends in the House and passed by a broad margin when we earlier considered this, how does this solve the problem? Well, it does it in a couple of ways.

One, it is already by agreement that UPS, FedEx, DHL, the major common carriers have said, You know what? We think it's wrong to be facilitating this by making deliveries for Internet tobacco companies, so we're not going to do it. They've agreed to it. It's in place in all 50 States. There's only one common carrier that today still delivers tobacco through the mail--the United States Postal Service. They came to us and said, Congress, if you really want us not to mail this, you've got to define what a nonmailable material is, and you've got to add that to the list. That's what the PACT Act does. It says that you can no longer mail tobacco through the mail once this becomes law. So it's going to make it very, very difficult, if not impossible, for Internet tobacco sales to continue.

A second thing that it does is that transaction that I described, where you buy something cheaply and don't pay taxes on it or pay a lower tax than you're supposed to in your State, is already a violation of the law. But effectively, those violations are never prosecuted because under the Jenkins Act, which is the structure of the law that enforces this, it's only a misdemeanor. Well, that's going to change. In this bill, it's going to become a felony. If you think you're going to skirt the law by driving to your neighborhood Indian reservation, buying boxes and boxes or cases and cases of cigarettes, not paying taxes on it, well, now that's a violation of the Jenkins Act that rises to a felony. So it might make sense for the U.S. Attorney or for an attorney general to say, You know what? We're going to do a stakeout here, and if we find untaxed tobacco is being sold or undertaxed tobacco is being sold, we're going to crack down on it.

A third thing that it does is it increases the enforcement of the act that is supposed to happen. When you buy something in a low tax State, you're supposed to pay the taxes in your home State. So this is going to increase the reporting requirements. Anyone that sells these products is going to have to report back to your home State on the taxes that are owed.

Now, what is this going to mean? In addition to cutting down on underage smoking, this is going to mean that States and localities are going to find that they're going to start collecting the taxes they're supposed to. And again, we have people who support lower tobacco taxes on this bill, people who support higher tobacco taxes on this bill. This is not an issue of whether you think there should or should not be tobacco taxes. I think there is bipartisan agreement that there is, within the right of the 50 States, the ability to levy this taxes, and the sovereignty of those 50 States depend on them being able to collect it. What this is going to be able to do now is we are going to make sure that, in the context of this debate, that these tobacco taxes get collected.

No one knows exactly what was being evaded here, but there was one estimate that said as much as $1 billion in New York State alone is being evaded, and we are finally going to be able to get control of this problem. All 51 State attorneys general have supported the PACT Act, the National Association of Convenience Stores, the American Wholesalers Association. Even the major tobacco companies who understand that there is a regime that has been set up in the 50 States, they want it to be followed, too. So companies like Altria and Lorillard are saying, You know what? While there are a lot of hot debates about tobacco use in this country, there should not be a hot debate about whether or not we enforce the laws of the 50 States.

I also want to thank my Republican colleagues here. Mr. Smith and his colleagues and a bipartisan coalition said, You know what? You're going to be tough on crime; we're going to be tough on this crime as well, and have every step of the way made suggestions that have improved this legislation.

And also--this is the part that is the toughest to say--I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate. There have been 290 times that we have sent legislation in their direction, and while I think it was Benjamin Franklin who called the Senate ``the cooling saucer of our democracy,'' they've been more akin to a meat locker in recent months. And I want to commend Senator Kohl for figuring out a way to extract something from that frigid environment. Hopefully, we'll be getting this to the President's desk.

This is an important thing, what we're doing here. This is going to allow States to collect the revenue they're supposed to have. Every antismoking organization that's concerned about underage smoking has been active in making this happen--27 public health groups, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association. I think all of us who are concerned about keeping tobacco out of the hands of children recognize that this giant gap in our law that allows them to get it on the Internet without any age verification, which is another element of this bill that's going to become law, has a stake in making this bill a reality.

I want to thank Mr. Cohen for so deftly managing this bill.

I would like to thank members of the Democratic and Republican staff of the Judiciary Committee and my staff, who worked tirelessly on this legislation. In particular, I would like to thank Perry Apelbaum, Ted Kalo and Danielle Brown on the House Judiciary Committee, Jesselyn McCurdy, Kimani Little and Caroline Lynch with the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, Marni Karlin on the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Mautz with Congressman Coble's staff and Joe Dunn on my staff.

I would also like to thank Artie Katz, Lenny Schwartz and Steve Rosenthal with the New York Association of Wholesale Marketers, John Hoel and Sarah Knakmuhs with Altria, Eric Lindblom and Brian Hickey with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Anne Holloway with the American Wholesale Marketers Association, Blair Tinkle with the National Association of Attorneys General, Lyle Beckwith with the National Association of Convenience Stores and Laurie McKay with Dickstein Shapiro.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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).

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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, 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. 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).

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.