Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany 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.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend and new colleague from Maine for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by apologizing for being tardy as I came to the floor here. I was downstairs meeting with the very distinguished Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald George's colleague, Justice Ming Chin, and several other staff members about very important foster care programs, and so I appreciate the understanding of the House as I was making my way through the corridors and up here to the House floor.

This is very important legislation that we are addressing today, Mr. Speaker. As was said in the testimony delivered by both the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, our friend from Lexington, Missouri, Mr. Skelton, and the very distinguished ranking member, Mr. McHugh, this really is Congress at its best. We share a strong commitment to our Nation's national security. I know that the President of the United States is delivering a speech at the Archives about the very great importance of national security and its relationship to the very important civil rights that the American people cherish and revere.

I know that it is an ongoing challenge, but as we deal with the issue of national security and our Nation's Armed Services, it is important for us to do everything that we can to ensure that we have a cost- effective national defense. When we are debating defense issues, Mr. Speaker, I regularly like to say the five most important words in the middle of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution are ``provide for the common defense.'' And I point to those because when one thinks about virtually everything that the Federal Government does, most all of it could be handled either by family members and local communities, at the city level, at the county level, and at the State level. But there is one thing that cannot be handled by families, communities, cities, counties, or States, and that is the national security of the United States of America. That is solely a Federal responsibility. And that is why I believe when we look at what we as a Congress are doing, as the Federal legislature is doing, it seems to me that our responsibility is to do everything that we can to provide for the common defense as directed in the Preamble of the Constitution.

As we do that, we have to recognize that there is a great deal of attention focused, Mr. Speaker, on the challenging economic times that we face. In fact, many people today are arguing, and we might have a tendency to say, that our number one priority is dealing with getting our economy back on track. And it is clearly what we are spending most of our time and effort discussing and debating as to which path we take to get our economy back on track. But we cannot forget that as important as it is for us to get our economy back on track, it comes in second to our national security. Some argue that if we spend too much money on national defense what is it that we would lose? We lose some money. If we spend too little on our national security, what is it that we lose? We lose this very precious experiment known as the United States of America.

Today, as we look at the challenges that exist around the world, the fact is that unlike wars in the past--and I did a telephone town hall meeting last night and was discussing this with a number of my constituents, who pointed to the fact that we don't have adversaries who are wearing uniforms or represent a nation. As we continue to try to work in a bipartisan way to prosecute this war against radical extremism, we have conflicts today that are much different than those that we as a Nation had faced in the past. But we also, as I said, are facing extraordinarily difficult economic times.

And that gets to the very point of this legislation. While we say we want a strong national defense, I always like to have that little caveat, ``cost effective.'' We want to make sure that we have a cost- effective national defense. I'm looking at my colleague from New Jersey, my new colleague from Maine, and I don't know if they were here, I know my colleague from Maine wasn't here, I don't know if my colleague from New Jersey was here, but we had raging debates that took place in this institution over $600 hammers and items that people could clearly look at as being horrible examples of wasteful spending. And they were tangible items that they could see. I mean, $600 for a hammer, whatever it was, $800 for a toilet seat, those kind of things that came out in the news back then, they led to understandable outrage on the part of the American people, and it was reflected in this Congress. And so we tried to turn the corner, making sure that we had a more cost-effective national defense when it came to those issues.

Again, I always say when you talk about smaller levels of spending, people can relate to them more. What we are here dealing with today are ways in which we can bring about reductions in spending for massive large weapons systems. That is what this is all about, putting into place a structure that will allow that to happen.

That is why I am so pleased that Mr. McHugh was able to join with Mr. Skelton and our colleagues in the Senate as well, Senators Levin and McCain, and work very hard on this. They came together with a bipartisan recommendation. It was reported out of this House by a vote of 428-0. And I don't recall for sure, I think it must have been unanimous in the Senate as well. I don't know if they had a recorded vote over there. But I do remember the vote that we had here.

So here we are today dealing with an area of complete agreement. I will say procedurally this conference report could have been passed without either of us taking the time of the Rules Committee or standing here. All I would have done, all my friend from Maine would do, as Rules Committee members, we wouldn't have done it, we would just have Mr. Skelton and Mr. McHugh stand up, and Mr. Skelton could propound a unanimous consent request that this conference report be adopted, and it would be adopted unanimously.

So I will say procedurally, it is great to have a chance to stand here and talk to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. I enjoy it probably more than they. But the fact is we don't need to be here doing this because there is agreement. But it is, I believe, important to focus on the fact that we have been able to work in a bipartisan way to do everything possible to bring about a more cost-effective national defense.

And when you think about cost effectiveness, it means that resources will be able to be utilized for something that we all hold near and dear, and that is the men and women in uniform that are out there. I remember in debate we had last week one of the amendments that unfortunately was not made in order was an amendment by my colleague from Illinois, Mrs. Biggert, who wanted to have an increase in compensation for our men and women in uniform. I strongly supported her right to offer that amendment, and I would have supported that amendment. I suspect my colleagues would have as well if we had had that amendment made in order.

The fact that we are going to be able to save, and I asked Mr. Skelton and Mr. McHugh last night what they believe we would be able to save quantifiably with this, and numbers in excess of hundreds of billions of dollars were the kinds of numbers thrown out. And so I hope very much that we are able to do that and that those resources will be able to be used for a much greater purpose, and that is for our men and women in uniform who need the kind of continued support that we can give in this institution.

So Mr. Speaker, I am strongly supportive of this legislation. I congratulate my Democratic and Republican colleagues for working together on this, and by virtue of that, I will be supportive of the standard conference report rule that we have here which will allow for 1 hour of debate for the managers of the legislation, and then we will be able to proceed with something that is, I suspect, more controversial as we come back after the break.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any other requests for time. As I said, there's no controversy on this rule. It's something that could have been done. So I'll reserve the balance of my time and see if my colleague has any speakers.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I believe that this is the institution at its best. My friend from New Jersey has pointed out the work that he and Mr. Conaway did. I congratulate them for their tireless efforts in dealing with this, and I hope that we are able to save hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that can go for a much better purpose than the kind of waste that obviously has come forward in the past; but at the same time, it is of the utmost importance that we make sure that in so doing that we don't in any way take a retrograde step on the national security capabilities of the United States of America.

And I believe passionately that as we look at these challenges that exist around the world, it is a very, very dangerous place, this planet, and we are the world's only complete superpower: militarily, economically, and geopolitically. And we are going through trying times here in the United States and around the world economically, and I know that the weakened economy could enhance the likelihood of greater military challenges ahead.

And so as the work proceeds of these two entities that are being put into place at the Pentagon, I know that they will not in any way take steps that diminish our capability to defend the United States of America or our interests around the world.

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

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 463 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 454, the WASTE TKO Act of 2009.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider the conference report to accompany S. 454, the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. Last week, the House took an important step toward sending this legislation to the President when it passed H.R. 2101, the WASTE TKO Act of 2009, as amended, by a vote of 428-0. I would like to thank my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McHugh, Representative Andrews, and Representative Conaway, for their tireless work on this bill.

The conference report before us today includes three key provisions from H.R. 2101. First, it requires the Secretary of Defense to designate one official as the principal expert on performance assessment in acquisition.

Second, the agreement mandates that weapons systems which are not meeting the standards set in statute or which have incurred critical Nunn-McCurdy breaches will receive additional reviews, along with increased oversight from Congress and the necessary corrective measures to ensure that these programs succeed.

Lastly, the agreement requires the Department of Defense to develop a system for tracking cost growth and schedule changes before a weapons systems moves into the systems development phase.

With these key provisions, the conference agreement includes the strengths, ideas, hard work, and spirit of both H.R. 2101 and S. 454. It is the culmination of the thoughtful and thorough efforts of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, and it is a noteworthy example of what the Congress can accomplish with a focused bipartisan and bicameral effort.

However, while I am proud of my colleagues, I am truly excited about what this legislation will accomplish on behalf of the American people. According to the GAO, the Department of Defense is the largest buying enterprise in the world. What this means is that the American taxpayer is truly invested, in every sense of the word, in the capability, efficiency, and accountability of the Department of Defense.

In March 2009, the GAO identified $296 billion in cumulative cost growth on 96 major defense acquisition programs. Mr. Speaker, let me put this in perspective. We are spending more on cost overruns than the amount that we spend on salaries and health care for the entire American military for 2 full years.

The GAO also found that these major weapons programs were behind schedule, on average, by 22 months.

This is shocking and unacceptable to the American public, especially in such challenging economic times. We can do better than this. We can do better than $300 billion over budget and nearly 2 years behind schedule at a time when our Nation's resources are limited, our men and women in uniform are in harm's way, and our family budgets are being cut back to provide only the bare necessities.

In my home State, Mainers have always lived with an ethic of hard work, a spirit of responsibility, and a determination to provide the best they can with what they have.

This legislation was crafted in that very same spirit. By ensuring accurate assessments in the performance of a weapons systems and accurate assessments in its cost, a taxpayer can be certain that they are getting the best bang for their buck by providing ``intensive care'' for sick programs, and our soldiers can be assured that they receive the necessary capabilities and appropriate technology to defend our country and themselves. In short, this legislation keeps the taxpayer in mind and the men and women of the Armed Forces at heart.

I look forward to completing the work on this bill.

And I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say to my good friend and colleague from California, I, too, agree that it is nice to be on the floor talking about a wonderful bipartisan effort and having such agreement on an issue that is very important to the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, at this moment, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the Armed Services Committee who did considerable work on the issue we're talking about today and made it possible for us to bring it to the floor.

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

I will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed. I have no other speakers.

Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from California has mentioned, we have some essential responsibilities as Members of Congress. Our constituents have charged us with several responsibilities. It would be impossible to list them all today, but I think it is essential to highlight three of those charges.

Our constituents have charged Congress with keeping our country safe and secure, from both the threats of today and the threats of tomorrow. Our constituents have asked to stand up for and defend our men and women in uniform, just as our men and women in uniform have defended us. And our constituents have asked us to spend their tax dollars in a way that is prudent, productive, and responsible.

Today, we take a step forward in living up to these responsibilities as the House considers the conference report for S. 454, the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 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.

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.