Providing 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.

I thank my chairman and mentor and friend for yielding.

I want to begin by thanking Chairman Skelton and Mr. McKeon for their guidance and leadership. The two of them have run the Armed Services Committee as I believe Congress should run, on a factual, nonpartisan basis, and I appreciate very much the leadership they have shown. I also want to specifically thank Congressman Mike Conaway of Texas, who is the senior Republican on the panel, who served

with tremendous diligence and fortitude and made a tremendous contribution to this. I do want to thank some other people later in the debate in detail, and I certainly will.

Here is what this bill is about: The Department of Defense, even after you take away the purchase of aircraft carriers or fighter jets or what have you, is spending almost $1 billion every day of the week, every week of the year. Almost $1 billion. And sometimes the people who run that system of buying everything from software to lawn mowing services do a really good job. They provide value to the taxpayer and great tools for our servicemembers. But that's not always the case.

A few years ago the Air Force went to buy a refrigeration unit to put on a plane, and they paid $13,000 for the refrigeration unit. Less than 24 months later, they bought exactly the same refrigeration unit for the same sort of plane and paid $32,000 for the same thing. I would not want to go home, Mr. Chairman, to my spouse and explain to her I had done that kind of cost overrun buying anything for our household, and I don't want to have to explain that to the American taxpayer either.

A few years ago there was a contract let, or at least discussed, to provide refined petroleum products to truck them from Kuwait up into Iraq, and it was about a $220 million contract, and $201 million was paid for and committed before the contract was even signed. This is a $220 million contract where $201 million was paid out before there was a written contract even signed. None of us, Mr. Chairman, would buy a house that way or an automobile that way or have our kitchen remodeled that way. Neither should the taxpayers here.

When the Department of Defense buys software or hardware, when it buys information technology, from the time they think of what they need to the time they actually start to use the technology, it typically takes 81 months. Now, the way computer technologies work these days is about every 18 months, computer power doubles, which means that every 36 months or so what was a cutting-edge product is now obsolete. This would be the equivalent of using a phone that you used in 2003 as the phone you use today.

The phone that most of us used in 2003 just made phone calls, and we were happy that it did. Today the little machines that our children and others carry around can record video, can upload and download video, they can access the Internet, send text message, e-mails, act as a GPS. Imagine using a 2003 phone in 2010. That's the equivalent of what we're doing when it takes us 81 months to go from the idea of a piece of technology to actually fielding it.

This bill changes that and it has a couple of key ideas. The first key idea is that the people who are running these procurement organizations should be held to very high standards in quality and cost and time, and when they meet these high standards, they should be paid for it. They should be compensated more for doing a good job and saving money for the taxpayer. When they fail to do so, however, there should be significant consequences, and there are.

Another idea in this bill is that if a system would work well for the Marine Corps or the Air Force, then there ought to be one system, not two or three or four. And yet another idea is before we buy services, we ought to think about what we really need before we start spending money.

The second very good idea comes from Mr. Conaway, an issue he has pursued his entire time in the Congress, which is that every part of the Defense Department should be auditable, meaning that auditors and accountants ought to be able to look at the books and see if the money is being spent on things it is supposed to be spent on, the way virtually every business and organization in America is today.

The third idea of this bill is our workforce, that we not only enlarge the number of people working in our purchasing organizations-- --

I thank the chair.

Not only do we want to increase the number of people working on solving this problem, we want to increase the quality of their work. So this bill provides for education and training. It provides for diversification of our workforce. It provides for the use of the best and the brightest to get the job done.

The final aspect of this bill is to induce and provide more competition in the provision of goods and services to our Department of Defense. You know, somewhere in America today, there are probably a couple of people who are scientists on a college campus or who are working in a tool and dye shop somewhere in the country who have a much better solution to some problem than a person working for an immense defense contractor. Now, if the immense defense contractor has the best solution, that's what we ought to buy. But if the three people in the college lab or the five people in the tool and dye shop have a better idea, we need to get them into the competition so they can have their idea heard, have their proposal heard, and if it's the best one for the servicemembers and for the taxpayers, that's the one that ought to be chosen. We refer to that as broadening and diversifying the industrial base.

I'm especially gratified, Mr. Chairman, that, by my count, 43 Members of this body will have written a part of this legislation by the time it reaches final vote later this afternoon. That includes the seven members of the panel; it includes a number of members of the full committee who offered amendments in the committee voting process; and it will include a number of amendments that we will consider here today. So just as we're trying to get the best and the brightest to contribute to the process of buying a billion dollars a day worth of items, we try to get the very best ideas of the Members of this body, Democrat and Republican, on the committee and not on the committee.

So I'd like to conclude by again thanking Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, and Congressman Conaway for their work in making this process work. I believe we have come up with a product that will do very well by our servicemembers and do very well by our taxpayers as well. I would urge careful consideration of the amendments as we go through the afternoon, and I would obviously urge a ``yes'' vote from both parties for final passage of the bill.

Mr. Chair, this bill has the potential to save $135 billion over 5 years. I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, someone who has made a career-long commitment to fiscal discipline, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

At this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new member of the committee who clearly understands the balance Mr. Hoyer just spoke of between a strong national defense and fiscal responsibility, my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth), the author of a key provision in this bill regarding tax cheats and defense contracts.

Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), the gentlelady who built on the work Mr. Ellsworth just talked about to make sure that same standard applies to subcontractors.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), who brought the expertise of a technical base in her district to the deliberations on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, the only thing I would like to do in general debate is thank the staff and other Members and read their names into the Record. With that, we would close general debate.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to begin by thanking Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their extraordinary efforts. I want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Conaway in thanking the other panel members--Mr. Cooper, Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Sestak on our side, and Mr. Coffman and Mr. Hunter on the Republican side. The panel members all worked very hard on this, and we appreciate that.

We obviously want to extend our appreciation to the incredible members of the staff of the committee and the panel. I want to thank Andrew Hunter, who did a tremendous job on this; Cathy Garman, who particularly worked very hard on the issues regarding labor relations; Jenness Simler, who was an all-star on last year's bill and once again proved her impeccable credentials; Zach Steacy; Jennifer Kohl; Paul Arcangeli, who is our brand-new staff director; Bob Simmons; Kevin Gates; Mary Kate Cunningham; Debra Wada; Megan Howard; Matt Bell, who worked very tirelessly on this in my office, and I appreciate his excellent efforts; Phil MacNaughton; and Lara Battles. And if there are any others, I apologize for that, but there was extraordinary work.

Mr. Chairman, did you want to add anything during general debate?

Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to thank the Members for their cooperation and for your stewardship of this debate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.

We find it completely acceptable to yield to the minority if they have any comments. Otherwise, we support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from Texas for offering this amendment. I think it makes a very significant contribution to this legislation.

What it effectively says is that competition should always be the general rule. Only when there is a compelling reason for an exception should there be one. So, for example, if there is a national emergency or there truly is only one entity that could provide a good or service, then in those exceptional circumstances, but only in those exceptional circumstances, should there be no competition before rewarding of a contract.

Again, I think the amendment is very much consistent with the purpose, spirit and letter of the bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk as the designee of the author, Mr. Hastings.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hastings makes a very valid amendment to this bill that acknowledges that when we want to build the best workforce and brightest workforce, we should reach for diversity of the workforce. Mr. Hastings' amendment acknowledges the fact that we are living in a global economy, and one of the principal assets of our country is the diversity of our population in understanding literally every corner of the world because our people come from every corner of the world.

Mr. Hastings's amendment directs that the Department of Defense, in its efforts under Title II of this bill, to improve the quality of our workforce, take into account the diversity of life experiences and backgrounds of those who apply for those positions. It is a very worthy amendment, entirely consistent with the purposes of the bill. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although we do not oppose the amendment.

We support Mr. Hall's amendment. He has been an advocate for government transparency since his first day in this institution. This amendment is a significant stride forward for transparency.

Last year's major weapons system bill and this bill vests significant authority in the PARCA office, which is the review office or the auditing office of the Secretary of Defense. This office, under this bill, will compile annual reports judging the quality of the work by procurement organizations throughout the Department of Defense.

Mr. Hall's amendment ensures that those reports become public documents so the taxpayer can understand with great specificity the quality or lack thereof by which their tax dollars are being spent. Mr. Hall is providing a valuable tool for oversight. Future Congresses will be able to understand those reports and act efficiently in terms of their oversight responsibilities.

I think even more importantly what Mr. Hall has done is given the public an opportunity for that oversight. Some of the very best work on ferreting out wasteful government spending has come as a result of the First Amendment, from the press and from the public.

So Mr. Hall's amendment will give the press and the public, as well as the Members of this body, an opportunity to understand the quality or lack thereof of procurement activities. I commend him for that, and urge support of his amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time in opposition and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment. Again, I would yield to the minority at any time it wishes.

I want to strongly support the gentlelady's amendment. I think there is scarcely a Member of this body who has not encountered a situation where a strong, viable business just outside the gate of a military establishment finds frustration that it cannot fairly compete for business opportunities, and the gentlelady has well described the situation.

I have never heard a constituent say they want a special deal or they want to have special rules under the competition. What I've heard them say, Mr. Chairman, is that they want a fair and even chance to compete, but they want to be able to show there is some benefit to shopping locally. I think this is true in each of the districts that we all represent.

I think the gentlelady has struck exactly the right balance between the need for true competition, so if the best deal is further away, you take it; but where there is careful and deliberate consideration of the companies and vendors that already exist in the community in which the military base is located, not only does this have the benefit of offering better value for the tax dollar, it also, I think, will build better community relations for our bases throughout the country.

So I think she has done a great service by offering this amendment.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote on it and reserve the balance of my time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment and for her fierce advocacy for the people not only of the Milwaukee area, but small businesses across the country.

The gentlelady is correct that one of the underlying ideas in this bill is that defense procurement organizations within the Department of Defense will be evaluated by measurements of how well they are doing their job. They in turn will measure contractors, prime contractors, on how well they are doing their job for the servicemember and for the taxpayer.

One of the criteria by which the procurement organization should be measured and by which the prime contractors should be measured is their compliance with the law with respect to inclusion of small businesses. That is what the gentlelady's amendment does. We strive to include small businesses not only because we acknowledge on both sides of the aisle that small businesses are the economic generator of three- quarters of the private sector jobs created in our country, but also because we understand that competition that is engendered by the inclusion of more small businesses improves the quality and value of the contracting process, it improves the quality of what we're buying for the servicemembers and their families, and value for the taxpayer as well.

So the gentlelady's amendment, I believe, institutionalizes the practice of evaluating inclusion of small business competition, not in lieu of a better deal, but to create a better deal for the servicemembers and for the taxpayer. So I thank her very much for her contribution to this bill.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote in favor of her amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time in opposition.

I yield back the balance of my time in opposition and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from Connecticut for offering this very important amendment which clarifies the legislation and which, I think, drives home a very important point.

He has been very focused, as many of us have, on protecting and on expanding the industrial base of our country to create jobs and national security. He tells the story of his visit to the firm in Connecticut that has six or seven employees. That is precisely the firm that title IV of this bill wants the Department of Defense to reach out to, not simply because we understand the job creation benefits of it but because we understand the ingenuity and the creativity of small firms like the ones that Mr. Murphy just mentioned. Some of the very best solutions--engineering solutions, software solutions, logistical solutions--have come from very small organizations that are agile enough and creative enough to solve very big problems.

In his careful reading of this bill, Mr. Murphy realized that there was some question as to whether or not that outreach would occur to firms based in the United States or in Canada under the terms of the statute to which he referred, and I think he has made a very important contribution in making sure that that outreach is targeted to those firms as this is not only a mechanism for creating jobs in our country and for assisting the national security of our country but for inviting ingenuity and competition into the defense procurement process, therefore, saving the taxpayers money.

So I very much appreciate his efforts in bringing forth this amendment, and I would urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time in opposition.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Quigley for offering this amendment, as well as Ms. Giffords and Mr. Bartlett for their joint authorship of this amendment.

As I stated earlier, the basic mechanism in this bill is to provide performance criteria for the purchasing organizations within the Department of Defense. This amendment says that one criterion may be energy-efficiency standards in the purchasing.

Now, what does this mean?

It means that the procurement organization should get the very best deal from the point of view of the servicemember as well as of the taxpayer and that one of the factors that should be taken into account is energy efficiency. For example, if under this bill the procurement organization is purchasing landscaping services and if, all other things being equal for the quality of the landscaping services and the price, one of the organizations uses more energy-efficient lawnmowers or other gardening machines, that purchase would be favored under this mechanism to encourage but not to require energy efficiency.

This goes to a much broader question in our country that obviously involves the fact that we are buying nearly $300 billion a year worth of imported oil from countries around the world which may or may not be friendly to us.

The largest consumer of energy in the United States' economy is the Department of Defense. Commendably, the Department under Republican and Democratic administrations has adopted, as a matter of policy, a methodical increase in the amount of renewable energy the Department is using. One of the ways it can reduce consumption toward that goal is by implementing energy efficiency.

The amendment the gentleman from Illinois is offering is entirely consistent with that purpose because what it does is integrates into the procurement decisionmaking process a set of ideas which says that the procurement organization will look at the energy-efficiency ideas of a given competitor for a given contract.

We support this amendment because we believe it will save the taxpayers money, that it will add value to our efforts to protect the environment, and that it will provide inducements to the ability to promote renewable energy, so we would urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to one of the coauthors of the amendment, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I, in fact, support this amendment. I think it not only adds important tools to the bill before the body today but to the law that was enacted last year.

Both today's bill and last year's law require the Department of Defense to make early decisions about whether a product or service it is buying or a system that it is buying is on track or not. If it is not on track, the idea is to either get it on track or to not buy it. This is how we can eliminate some of the $296 billion in cost overruns in weapons systems that the Government Accountability Office found in its report of 2 years ago.

What Mr. Quigley has done is to say that the cost estimators on whom we are relying need to be truly independent and competent. If that estimator has a vested interest in buying the product or building the system, then he or she is not going to give us an accurate or honest judgment about whether to go forward. So this amendment assures that there will be both independence and competence in those cost estimators. I think it's an excellent addition to the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I support the amendment. I also share my friend the ranking member's concerns. I think the amendment addresses them in two ways. One is that the language of the amendment is quite flexible, that as long as there is transparency and adherence to high quality, the department is not restricted from these relationships. It simply has to be more careful about them. And secondly, obviously the committee has continuing oversight over this issue. The gentleman has my assurances that if we see an undue restriction on access to talent, then we are in a position to take appropriate action to correct that problem.

I thank my friend for yielding.

I would like to thank our friend from Tennessee for his comments, which we embrace. I think one of the purposes of Mr. Schrader's amendment, which we just adopted, was to try to address that concern, and we thank him for his support.

I want to commend and thank my friend from Virginia for his excellent amendment. We have tried to establish in this bill the idea that the Defense Department should coordinate the industrial base and broaden it so the servicemembers and taxpayers get a better deal and we invite ingenuity and innovation. Mr. Connolly has made sure that our good intentions in this bill will become a good reality. By the establishment of the council that Mr. Connolly establishes, there will be a group that oversees the implementation of the ideas that we have.

So I think it strengthens the bill considerably. I commend Mr. Connolly for being a fierce advocate for his district and his area, which is so intimately involved in solving this problem. I thank him for his contribution and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

I thank my friend from Mississippi for offering this very well-thought-out amendment.

One of the key ideas of this bill is that we have a high-quality, well-trained acquisition workforce. Mr. Childers's amendment makes sure that that workforce is well trained in a key area, which is understanding that a contract does not simply affect the firm that wins the contract and the employees that work for that firm. It affects the entire region for which a contract is awarded.

Now, again, nothing in Mr. Childers's amendment would divert the procurement organizations away from best value for the taxpayer dollar. But what he does suggest is that when one defines the concept of value, it's broader than just the four corners of the contract being considered. The area he represents so ably is one where the economy really pivots on the presence or absence of military contracts, and in his efforts to try to make sure that his region prospers, I know that he wants to be sure, as each of us does, that there is fair consideration of the regional and community economic impact of a contracting decision.

I think the amendment that he has offered, which goes to the training of decision-makers, is entirely appropriate in that regard. We appreciate his contribution to the bill, and I would encourage the Members to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which is almost as striking in its common sense as it is striking that there is any legal issue as to whether a canon should be done. There is such a legal issue, unfortunately, and the gentlewoman's amendment clears that legal issue up.

Here is the situation her amendment contemplates: The Defense Department lets a contract to a vendor. The vendor is performing the contract. Because of a new efficiency or a drop in the price of a material, let's say that the price of food or gasoline that the vendor is using drops dramatically, the vendor offers to continue the contract at a lower price. There are rules which today would preclude the Defense Department from taking advantage of that offer.

What Mrs. Dahlkemper's amendment says is that so long as the quality is preserved and so long as there at least is a 15 percent savings at a minimum and all other rules are complied with that the Defense Department can take advantage of that offer. Any business in this country would jump at that opportunity. And the gentlewoman has offered an amendment which makes an awful lot of sense, which will let the Department of Defense operate on those sound business principles.

Again, her amendment does not provide for any deviation from the rules of conflict of interest or legal procedure, but it says if there is an opportunity to achieve at least a 15-percent reduction and all other things are appropriate, then we should achieve that reduction. This makes eminent common sense.

We thank her for offering the amendment. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlemen from North Carolina and from Maine for offering the amendment and support it.

The general rule under the law is that the Defense Department must buy goods and services made in the United States. There's an exception to that rule which deals with vouchers, essentially, where if there's a voucher given to a servicemember to buy certain goods, there's an exception to that.

The gentlemen who are offering this amendment are interested in finding out whether that exception could be accomplished in a way that would protect the choice and quality for the servicemembers while promoting the purchase of American goods and services. I think that inquiring into that is entirely appropriate.

At this time I would like to yield to my friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), for his comments on this.

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to reviewing the results of the GAO study so we can work with all the gentlemen to achieve the objective they have set forth.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we would urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank my friends from Florida, Mr. Grayson and Mr. Hastings, for offering this amendment. It makes eminently good sense. It says this: if a procurement officer decides to buy the

product that isn't the least expensive, a couple of rules apply. First of all, price has to be at least equal to the greatest factor that's being used. It can't be any less than equal. And if it is less than equal, the procurement officer has to explain why.

Now this makes pretty good sense. I think most people would agree that it's not always true that the least expensive item is the best. But if you think a more expensive item is the best, then you ought to explain why. I think most of us would want that in the way we manage our household budgets, our businesses, our towns, our local school districts.

Mr. Grayson, based upon his years of experience in this field, has written an amendment that carries that idea forward. I think it's very worthy. Again, I think it strikes the right balance between flexibility for the procurement officer to make a decision that he or she thinks is the right one, but justification to the public as to why we're not spending the least amount of money on something that we're buying. I think most of our constituents would want us to presume that we should get the best price available; and only if it can be demonstrated that the best price available is not the best value available, should we make a different decision. So I think this amendment makes very, very good sense. I would urge its adoption.

I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment. I do share the concerns of my friend from Pennsylvania. I believe that the amendment that's in front of us here, I think the language of the amendment addresses the concerns the gentleman raises. I think it provides sufficient flexibility. I commend the gentleman for offering it.

I urge a ``yes'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit because the language of the recommit does what the gentleman's argument doesn't do.

The language of this argument says we should have full, accurate transparency about the cost of the new health care bill as it applies to defense contracts. In other words, we ought to know the facts. We agree with that. With all of the respect of the gentleman's argument, the facts were kind of missing. Here is what the facts are:

As to the report that he references from CMS, I would take due note of the fact that the ``M'' in CMS means ``Medicare.'' Here is what the report said:

Before the President signed the health care law, the Medicare Trust Fund was due to run out of money in 2017. Because the President signed the health care law, the Medicare Trust Fund will live for at least 12 more years.

The fact is that the report said that future forecasts of health care costs are, to quote the report: only a prediction, difficult to ascertain, subject to interpretation.

Well, here are some interpretations that the American public are beginning to see: When sons and daughters under the age of 26 years old can be covered on their parents' policies, the American people support that. When people cannot be turned away from buying insurance or cannot have their premiums raised because they had breast cancer or asthma, the American people support that. When an insurance company cannot cancel people's policies when they're on the way to the operating rooms after they've paid premiums for years, the American people support that.

We embrace and support the idea of learning the facts about the health care bill. That's what the amendment says. We support the idea of speaking the truth about the health care bill. That's what all Members of the House should do. That's what the American people are entitled to do.

Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bipartisan bill.

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

I rise in strong support of H.R. 5013, which is known as the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. For many years we've witnessed waste in the Department of Defense's acquisition system spiral out of control, placing a heavy burden both on the American taxpayers as well as our men and women in uniform. Less frequently, but still far too often, fraud and abuse have crept into the system, as sadly it happened recently in Iraq. Our troops rely on the acquisition system to buy the equipment they need to keep them safe on the battlefield as well as to protect our country. And when that system breaks down, they suffer.

In recent years, I and many of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee have become increasingly concerned that this flawed defense acquisition system was not responsive enough to today's mission needs, not rigorous enough in protecting the tax dollars of millions of families who are struggling financially, and not disciplined enough in the acquisition of weapons systems for tomorrow's wars.

We took action. Mr. Chairman, last year we worked with the Senate to enact legislation to reform weapons system acquisition, which covers about 20 percent of all of the military acquisitions. However, weapon systems make up only a small piece of our defense. That bill was a great launching pad; however, we need to do more.

In the House, we continued the effort by creating a Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform, ably led by Congressmen Rob Andrews and Mike Conaway to carry out a comprehensive review of the current system and to identify what steps we need to take to make this system work. The panel could not have done a better job scrutinizing the defense acquisition system. It deals with everything from paper clips to boots to food, everything under the acquisition umbrella.

During the course of this past year, this panel held 14 hearings plus two briefings on a broad range of issues dealing with the acquisition system, unearthing everything from contract fraud to simple process errors that led to billions of wasted dollars. They put together an excellent report with suggestions to fix the system. And we are here today, with the good will of the House, to pass legislation that will enact those recommendations as outlined in the panel headed by Mr. Andrews and Mr. Conaway.

This act will overhaul the defense acquisition system in many respects. Basically, however, requiring the department to set clear objectives for the defense acquisition system and manage performance in achieving those objectives; requiring the department to introduce real accountability into the requirements process, and create a requirements process for the acquisition of services; strengthening and revitalizing the acquisition workforce; requiring the department to develop meaningful consequences for success or failure in financial management; and strengthening the industrial base to enhance competition and gain access to more innovative technology.

In other words, the legislation before us today would require the Department of Defense to adopt the basic management practices that are necessary for anything as complex as the acquisitions system to function properly. These changes will make sure that the men and women who are risking their lives to protect our country are getting

the proper equipment they need to do their jobs and to protect themselves, and that they get it sooner. Additionally, we expect this bill to prevent the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars over the next 5 years.

This is a bipartisan bill. I am very proud of that fact. It passed our Armed Services Committee by a vote of 56-0. A great deal of credit goes to Mr. Rob Andrews and Mr. Mike Conaway. And a special thanks to my partner, Buck McKeon, the ranking member, the gentleman from California.

I urge my colleagues to join us in sending the strongest possible message to the men and women in uniform, as well as to the American people, that we are serious about protecting the taxpayers' dollars and making the acquisition system work more smoothly. It's really for them as well as for our country.

Committee on Ways and Means,

U.S. House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, April 21, 2010.

Hon. Ike Skelton,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Skelton: Thank you for working with the

Committee on Ways and Means (``Committee'') on H.R. 5013, the

``Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms

to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010.'' As you

know, section 403 of H.R. 5013 is of jurisdictional interest

to the Committee as it would require tax return information

to be supplied by the Internal Revenue Service (``IRS'').

Generally, tax return information is confidential. However,

Section 6103(c) of the Internal Revenue Code permits the

Secretary of the Treasury to disclose the tax return

information of a taxpayer to such person as the taxpayer

designates. The Committee continues to monitor the expanding

IRS workload and remains concerned about programs that

greatly increase the agency's workload outside of its core

mission. In calendar year 2009, the IRS made nearly 11,000

tax disclosures under section 6103(c). It is unknown how many

additional disclosures will be made under H.R. 5013. As such,

the Committee worked with the Armed Services Committee to

develop a provision that is administrable by the IRS. The

Committee remains committed to ensuring that any additional

responsibilities imposed on the IRS do not strain agency

resources and welcomes the opportunity to re-evaluate this

provision in the future.

As we have discussed, this exchange of letters will be

placed in the Committee Report on H.R. 5013 and inserted in

the Congressional Record as part of the consideration of this

legislation in the House. Thank you for the cooperative

spirit in which you have worked with the Committee regarding

this matter.

Sincerely,

Sander M. Levin,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, at this time let me pay tribute to members of our committee. Buck McKeon, the ranking member, a gentleman of the first order, is helping so very, very much to achieve end results in a bipartisan manner. National security is an American challenge. It is not a Democrat or a Republican challenge but one that is bipartisan. And I certainly appreciate his efforts.

Rob Andrews, Mike Conaway, and all those on the panel, the bipartisan panel, which made the recommendations for this legislation did so unanimously. We had a full hearing, debating the issues that arise in this bill, and it was passed out to this floor with a vote of 56-0. So I want to say a special thanks to the members of the Armed Services Committee, all the members, and especially the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his untiring efforts in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and my colleague, who is also the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

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

Let me point out that this acquisition legislation is based upon a complicated set of facts. You just don't go down to the local store and buy the necessary equipment for the young men and young women in uniform. Many of the issues deal with the production, with the purchase, with the right sizing, and all of the intricacies and technologies of today's high-level type of efforts.

So to explain all of this in much greater detail is the gentleman who is the key sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman who chaired the panel, and I compliment him on the excellent job that he and Mr. Conaway and the other members of the panel did. So I yield at this time 5 minutes to my friend, the sponsor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 5 minutes.

No. I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey. I have nothing further to add, except that hopefully this bill will receive a unanimous vote at a later moment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us is one that is technical in nature. It merely seeks to clarify certain technical errors and inconsistencies that arose during the process of drafting the bill. It conforms the bill to the intent of the Armed Services Committee in its markup. It makes no substantive changes, is noncontroversial, and I would certainly hope that we could adopt the amendment.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman is correct. The Armed Services Committee has under consideration a number of requests from Members of the House related to the impacts of current law regarding titanium and other specialty metals on the industrial base. We will consider these requests when we mark up the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011.

I look forward to working with Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Shuler, and Mr. Davis on the issue in the coming weeks so that these important concerns are addressed. I thank the gentleman for his efforts on this bill, H.R. 5013, and for agreeing to assist the committee in putting together our authorization bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do not oppose it.

The amendment before us is a sense of Congress amendment. In essence it says, we should follow the law. It reaffirms Congress' support for the Buy American Act and other United States labor laws, and Congress has acted in recent years to make contracting officers aware of firms seeking contracts that have engaged in certain violations of the law. This is a ``wake up and pay attention to the law'' sense of Congress.

Today, Mr. Chairman, we have done more than adopt 16 amendments and had an excellent general debate on this bill. We have exhibited in a very substantial and substantive piece of legislation that Democrats and Republicans can work together, that, in a bipartisan effort, we can make things better for the young men and women in uniform, that we can save the taxpayer dollars, and over a period of time, it will be in the billions of dollars if this legislation becomes law. And we certainly hope that it will not only pass here with a substantial vote but also pass the United States Senate with a substantial vote, because it is a hallmark piece of real legislation. It should have been done before, but it wasn't. And here we are, taking up legislation that will be good for the young men and young women in uniform and save the American taxpayer dollars.

I am really proud of the committee. I am really proud of Buck McKeon, the ranking member, for his excellent cooperation and work; Rob Andrews, the chairman of the panel that I appointed; Mike Conaway, for the excellent work that he did, in particular, the sections relating to the required audits that will be part of this legislation. We have just done marvelous work. I could not be prouder of the Armed Services Committee and those who worked on it as well as those who offered the very important amendments.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful for the work that has been done, and I do urge a ``yes'' vote on this particular amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition, though I do not oppose the motion.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 5013, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise today in support of H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. First, I want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for the trust and confidence they placed in the Defense Acquisition Reform Panel. I want to give special thanks and commendation to my good friend, Rob Andrews, for the hard work he did in leading this effort. He led it very, very well. He proved once and for all that we can start meetings on time and get our work done, even if those meetings start at 8 a.m. in the morning. So I have enjoyed this work with Rob. He and I may not agree on certain things, but in this arena and most things on the Armed Services, we are in pretty good agreement, and on this work, full agreement. I want to tell him thank you very much for the good work and his commitment to making this thing work.

The panel truly did approach its work on a nonpartisan basis. In fact, if you were to read the transcript of the hearings and read the questions without the names attached, you could not tell or distinguish between a Republican question or a Democratic question. I think that speaks volumes for the way most of the work on the Armed Services Committee occurs and in particular the work of our panel. I was very proud to be a part of that and to lend my efforts.

I also want to thank Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their generous praise for Rob and me, but I would be remiss if I don't also acknowledge the other dedicated members of the panel: Jim Cooper, Duncan

Hunter, Brad Ellsworth, Mike Coffman, and Joe Sestak. This bill, as Rob said, bears many fingerprints, but the seven of us have the most fingerprints on it. And I want to thank my colleagues for work they have done.

I also want to thank the staff. They did an outstanding job, Andrew Hunter and Jenness Simler, who made this work--they put this together and did the heavy drafting--as well as the staff from my office, Serge Morosoff, for the great job that they did in making this work product come together as quickly as it did.

As ranking member of the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform, I can attest that H.R. 5013 will truly be instrumental in reforming the full range of the defense acquisition system. I believe this bill will improve the way we measure value in acquisition, create a more responsive requirements process, sustain the acquisition workforce, and will manage certain elements of the acquisition system.

My colleague, Mr. Andrews, has talked at length about the reforms the bill implements, but I would like to speak to one that's a little dearer to my heart that's a little less obvious but no less important, a provision that plays a critical role in improving the financial management practices of the Department of Defense and provides incentives to achieve an unqualified audit opinion for all of the Department of Defense. The publication of a clean audit, an unqualified audit of DOD would finally give the American people the confidence that their tax dollars are, in fact, being accounted for and spent wisely in the defense of this great Nation.

Since 1990, there's been a requirement for the Federal Government to publish audited financial statements, but the Federal Government is not in compliance with that Federal law. A large share of the responsibility for that circumstance rests with the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense is the largest agency in the Federal Government, owning about 68 percent of the government's assets, estimated at $4.6 trillion.

Over the last two decades, money has been spent by the Department of Defense in an unsuccessful quest to obtain auditable financial statements. There have been good people working very hard on this issue for a long, long time, and good people today in the Department of Defense who are working hard at this issue. But we're not there yet. We have got a lot of work to go. Quite frankly, we cannot allow these past failures and past unsuccessful efforts to deter us from the heavy lift that's ahead of us to get this job done.

I'm a CPA and I used to audit entities. And I'm fully aware how hard this is; it is not an easy task. But it is possible and it's necessary to implement the financial control systems necessary to generate auditable financial statements. This bill ensures that DOD is no longer held to a separate standard from the public business and the rest of government.

The reliability of financial data is crucial to improve acquisition outcomes. Without understanding where the money is being spent or understanding what assets it owns, there will not be the proper accountability for acquisition costs or new requirements. Perhaps every dime is in fact being well spent. But we don't know that, the Department of Defense doesn't know that, and the taxpayer doesn't know that. Financial accountability must continue to be the high priority. If correctly implemented, this legislation will allow American tax dollars to be stretched further and will have a substantial impact on waste, fraud, and abuse.

I applaud the panel and the House Armed Services Committee for adopting these recommendations and encourage each of the components of the Department of Defense to take full advantage of the incentives provided in this bill to accelerate the auditability of the financial statements of the Department of Defense. Again, I want to thank my colleague, Rob Andrews, for the hard work he did in moving this forward by his strength of will.

In closing, I look forward to the progress this legislation will allow, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill later on this afternoon.

One comment and then I will reserve, and that is that some of the criticisms about the multitude of defense acquisition reform studies and laws and bills that line the shelves of many offices is that they haven't worked. This one, Mr. Chair, I would argue will have a better chance of working with proper oversight by the Armed Services Committee, which I know the chairman and the ranking member are committed to, because the matrixes that are laid out for the agencies to abide by are such that we can conduct proper oversight. We will know that the programs have been put in place, and then we will also be able to see that the Department of Defense is using them properly to manage their business. So unlike previous efforts in this regard, I think these improvements are subject to being properly oversighted, if that's a proper word, by the Armed Services Committee, and I know that we are committed to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just add a word of caution to the amendment. We intend to support it. The Department of Defense has in fact instituted a suspension of the policy that led to these problems, and have put in place a policy that looks very similar to this codification of the rules. The Department of Defense will live under those rules over the next several months, but I worry that the policy is too strict and will limit Department of Defense's access to the right people for the right information at the right time. None of us want that.

We all want transparency, we all want evidence of conflict of interest to be out there so that we all know that. I am in agreement with the spirit of what the gentleman is trying to do; I just offer a word of caution that if the practice under the Department of Defense's current policy, which is very similar to this, shows problems and issues that we don't anticipate with this, that we would in conference come back and address those properly.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

With that, I will support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition even though I am in support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate that. I also tentatively support the amendment--certainly, the spirit of the Berry amendment--as well. But, as drafted, the GAO study, I think, will be very

difficult to implement. Servicemembers are not required to keep records of the items that they purchase with their clothing allowance; nor are they required to set aside these dollars in a teacup to purchase uniforms only. So the GAO may not be able to determine what servicemembers bought with their clothing allowance, let alone whether those items were produced domestically.

If the sponsor will allow us to revise the amendment in conference to specifically evaluate the sufficiency of the domestic supply of military uniforms, then I can certainly support that. But I support it with some reservations that the study as drafted specifically under this rule would be less than optimal. And if the sponsor would allow us to work on it in conference, I would support it.

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.

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, 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1300 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.