Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Gloria Chao for both her service as a librarian at the Rutgers School of Law-Camden and for her infectious positive attitude.

Ms. Chao received her Bachelor of Arts from Providence University in 1967 and a Master of Science in Library Science (M.S.L.S.) from the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at Villanova University in 1970. After graduation, Ms. Chao worked with Temple Law Library and Air Asia in Taiwan. In 1979, Ms. Chao joined the library staff at Rutgers School of Law in Camden, New Jersey. Upon joining the library team, she immediately played an integral role in establishing the cataloging department and Research Library Information Network (RLIN) system. By 1984, Ms. Chao was appointed Head of Technical and Automated Services.

In her 31 years with Rutgers School of Law-Camden, Ms. Chao has been a model of success, hard work and positivity. She is affectionately referred to as the ``sunshine'' of the law library and the law school. Currently she is using her bravery, optimism and strength to battle stage 4 lung cancer. She is facing the disease while keeping her sense of humor intact.

Madam Speaker, Ms. Gloria Chao has helped students and faculty find and secure knowledgeable resources and information while brightening the days of all around her. I congratulate Ms. Chao on her accomplishments at Rutgers and wish her the utmost strength and courage in this time of sickness.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the chairlady for yielding.

I think it is important for the House to reflect on what we are and are not doing.

What we are doing is considering a procedure by which the Congress can investigate what may or may not have happened in the tragedy that occurred in West Virginia that cost the miners their lives, setting that process in motion.

What the minority is doing is trying to bring to the floor a vote on a different matter regarding the TANF program. And that is well within their rights, so I am not going to object to their procedural efforts to do that. I am going to object to the substance of their argument.

If I understand it correctly, the cut that they are interested in making is in a program that I think most Americans think makes pretty good sense. And what it essentially says is, if you are able-bodied and you receive welfare benefits, you should work. Most Americans, when they hear that, would say it is a pretty good idea.

And I want to read to the minority that this program that they want to

debate today was commented on by a gentleman from a think tank in Washington who said: Given the state of the labor market, it is hard to imagine how any sensible person could oppose extending the emergency fund that they are talking about.

This was not from the Obama administration or one of the more liberal groups in town. It was Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute.

So I would say to the minority that their thirst for spending cuts was somehow missing when the Bush administration raised spending by 8 percent per year, when the Bush administration launched two wars on borrowed money, when the Bush administration cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and paid for it by borrowing money from the Chinese.

There is a record on spending increases in recent history. During the Clinton years, Federal spending increased by 4 percent per year on the average. During the Bush years, spending increased by 8 percent per year on the average. In the first 2 years of the President's term, spending has increased by 6 percent, given the economic emergency. But during the 8 years of President Reagan's term, spending increased by 7 percent per year.

So I am with the minority, Mr. Speaker. I think spending restraint is something we need to have, which is why we should make sure we never have another Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

I yield to my friend from California.

I would ask my friend from California if it is true or false that spending increases in the Obama years have been 6 percent and 8 during the Bush years. Is that true or false?

Reclaiming my time. If I understand it correctly, the gentleman is denying that the spending increases averaged 8 percent during the Bush years. Is that correct?

Well, then you are agreeing with me. You are not denying it.

Reclaiming my time, the best insurance policy against spending increases is a Democratic majority.

Will the gentleman yield?

How much of that 85 percent was the Recovery Act?

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the longest serving councilperson in Cherry Hill Township, Councilman N. John Amato, for his 27 years in public service. Councilman Amato has demonstrated significant leadership and dedication to his community, and for this he deserves great praise.

Councilman Amato is a graduate of Rutgers University and holds a Masters degree from Kean College. He moved to the Erlton neighborhood in Cherry Hill in 1963 where he has resided ever since. He was first elected in 1983 and continues to serve Cherry Hill Township. In addition, as a licensed public accountant, Councilman Amato is an administrator for Rutgers University's LEAP Academy, a magnet school serving the City of Camden, New Jersey.

The Councilman devotes his time and effort to his community in many different ways. He is a Eucharistic minister and lector at the Queen of Heaven Roman Catholic Church and also serves on the board of the Young Adolescent Learning Environment School for children with special needs. He is active in the Sons of Italy and is former Board President of the Camden County Vocational Schools.

Councilman Amato and his wife, Marion, have two daughters, Rosemary and Irena, and two grandchildren, Michael and Francesca. He is famous for playing Santa Claus at Christmastime for charitable organizations and the Cherry Hill Mall.

Madam Speaker, Councilman Amato's contributions to his field and to the state of New Jersey should not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank the Councilman for the exceptional leadership he has provided and the impact he has made in Cherry Hill. I congratulate Councilman Amato on his accomplishments and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard P. Miller for his contributions to our community through his service and commitment to the non-profit Virtua health care system.

Since 1998, Mr. Miller has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Virtua. Mr. Miller's hard work has helped Virtua become an international model for effective healthcare management. Virtua has been recognized twice with the New Jersey Governor's Award for Clinical Excellence and has also been honored with the Leadership Award for Outstanding Achievement by Voluntary Hospitals of America. The non- profit was also the recipient of the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 Consumer Choice Awards by the National Research Corporation.

Mr. Miller's leadership and service within the communities that Virtua serves is evidenced through his civic and community service affiliations, and his awards and recognitions. Mr. Miller is a board member of the March of Dimes of Southern New Jersey and served as chairman of the March of Dimes WalkAmerica Campaign from 1996 to 1999. He is a member of the American Heart Association board and served as chairman of the Arthritis Association Walk for Southern New Jersey in 2004 and 2005. Recently, he received the ``Distinguished Citizen of the Year Award'' from the Boy Scouts of America and has been named a ``Person to Watch'' by Philadelphia Magazine. In 2008, Mr. Miller was recognized as the Lean Six Sigma ``CEO of the Year''. He has served on the NJ Healthcare Access Study Commission and the Governor's Committee on Benchmarking for Quality and Efficiency. To add to the overwhelming list of leadership commitments, Mr. Miller is a Fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives and serves as a trustee of the National Quality Forum.

Madam Speaker, as President and CEO of Virtua, Richard P. Miller has helped the people of New Jersey by delivering a quality patient experience and a high level of care. I congratulate Mr. Miller on his accomplishments and wish him the best of luck in all of his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Cornelius E. Marek, Jr., of Morris Plains, New Jersey, who passed away on March 14, 2010. Mr. Marek's contributions should not go unrecognized.

Mr. Marek, the son of Cornelius Marek, Sr., and Grace Bowden-Marek, was born January 28, 1942, in Morris Plains, New Jersey. He served in the United States Army from 1964 until 1966 as a private first class prior to attaining his associates degree from the County College of Morris in 1968.

Mr. Marek dedicated his career to improving healthcare in New Jersey. He worked for Healthcare Materials Purchasing at Morristown Memorial Hospital from 1970 to 1980 before becoming Vice President of Purchasing at the New Jersey Hospital Association. Mr. Marek then joined FJD Ventures in 1994 before retiring in 2005. He came out of retirement to work for Liberty Health in Secaucus, NJ, from 2008 until 2010. In addition, Mr. Marek was a member and president of the Hospital Materials Management Society of New Jersey. Mr. Marek inspired all those around him and has passed along his love of politics, reading, and classic movies to his children and grandchildren.

He was diagnosed with cancer in 2008 and bravely fought the disease for 2 years, continuing to work full time at Liberty Health until January of 2010 and serving on the Board of Hospital Materials Management Society of New Jersey until March 3rd of 2010. He passed quietly in his sleep on the morning of March 14 surrounded by family and friends and was laid to rest next to his mother and father at Greenwood Cemetery in Boonton, New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, Cornelius Marek, Jr.'s commitment to his family and to healthcare in his country should not go unrecognized. I express my deepest condolences to his family for their loss and pay tribute to the memory of this outstanding individual.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

In the CMS report the minority references, the ``M'' stands for Medicare. CMS is in the business of counting and accounting for the Medicare program. Here's what they said:

Under the law before the health care bill passed, Medicare was going to run out of money in 2017. We have extended the life now to 2029 and can build on that to save Medicare.

The report also says that they made estimates, subject to interpretation, about health care costs in the rest of the system, but here's what they assumed:

They assumed that medical records sharing and technology won't save any money. Most people think it will. They assumed that wellness programs that stop people from smoking and start exercising won't save any money. Most people think it will. They assumed that insurance companies having to compete with each other will not save any money. Most people think that it will.

The fact of the matter is the health care law extends the life of Medicare by 12 years, something the erstwhile majority never did when it was in the majority.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Paul Price upon his retirement and to recognize his outstanding contributions to Camden County and the state of New Jersey.

Chief Price is known for his integrity and selfless nature. He has worked diligently to gain five million dollars in grant money for fire fighters in Camden for safety and preparedness. Chief Price goes significantly above and

beyond the call of duty to give resources to those in need, working long nights and weekends so that the fire department has everything it needs. Chief Price's commitment to Camden County is also evidenced through his civic service affiliations. He has been active in the Camden County Fireman's Association, New Jersey Deputy Chief Association, Port Security Committee, Camden Cooperate Watch, and he was Emergency manager for the City of Camden. Despite all his work, his peers point out that he has never sought the spotlight and that he has always kept the best interests of the Camden Fire Department and its firefighters in mind.

Beyond his civic duties, Chief Price has been recognized by the Camden community as always being ready to offer a helping hand in times of need. He is the driving force and backbone of the Camden Angels Program, working tirelessly every Christmas to ensure 3,500 children receive Christmas presents. Chief Price also donates his time to spring festivals, special needs carnivals and activities, and through outreach to the hungry and homeless. He also has given endless support to the Fugitive Safe Surrender Program in Camden City.

Madam Speaker, Chief Paul Price's work and dedication are truly praiseworthy. I wish Chief Price the best of luck upon retirement and I thank him for his commitment to his community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA Black Achievers Program. I applaud the participants for their achievements and the staff, mentors, and Westfield, NJ Area YMCA Black Achievers Committee for their continuing commitment as role models in our community.

The Black Achievers Program began in the 1960s at the Harlem YMCA with the mission of helping youth set and achieve educational and life- long goals. The program expanded nationally, and in 1998, the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA adopted it. The Program's goal is to prepare youth participants in grades five through twelve to become Black Achievers in their future careers by building their character and skills, while providing positive mentoring relationships with caring Adult Achievers.

The thirty-seven students who are participants in the 2009-2010 school year are: Zayna Allen, Jamirah Barden, Steven Barden, Bria Barnes, Victoria Carden, Imani Coston, Ashley Edwards, Phylicia Flagg, Joshua Forehand, Alexis Givens, Adam Harley, Aneyjah Harris, Jon'ae Jackson, Todd Jamison, Jr., Cesar Lopez, Jazsmine Mayer, Jonathan Mayer, Maya McLeod, Cameron Mitchell, Chelci Mitchell, Aunyee McCummings, Kevin Monroe, Jr., Imani Mutyanda, Munashee Mutyanda, Jason Nutt, Fredrick A. Parsons, Jameka Parsons, Ne'andrea Paulevra, Sean Paulevra, Tamar Richardson, Dwayne Scott, Jr., Jeffery Scott, Ashley Simmons, Isaiah Smith, Kwame Thompson Haynes, Diana Williams and Brianna Whitehead.

These thirty-seven individuals embody the program's core values. They have acquired the leadership skills and self-awareness needed to attain success in any endeavor they choose to pursue.

Every year, the Connell Company, based in Berkeley Heights, NJ, generously sponsors the scholarship program and provides other vital support to the Program. Their generosity has supported the Program since its inception in 1998.

The staff members dedicated to the program and its students are: Senior Director of Childcare, Camp and Teen Services Susan Morton, Coordinator Tarajee W. Russell, Assistant Coordinator Tania Mayer, Tutor Romina Cahiwat, and Alumni Volunteer Jasmine C. Farmer. These individuals, as well as the volunteers on the Black Achievers Committee of the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA Board have worked tirelessly to ensure the success of the program. The Westfield YMCA's Chief Executive Officer Mark Elsasser, Chief Operating Officer Paula Ehoff, Communications/Development Director Bonnie Cohen, YMCA Board chairman Stephen Murphy and the rest of the staff are deeply committed to the success of the Program. Lastly, the Black Achievers Committee Chairman Carlton Blake and the entire Black Achievers Committee should be acknowledged for the tremendous effort and dedication they put forth to keep the Black Achievers Program running.

Madam Speaker, please join me in honoring the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA Black Achievers Program for encouraging students to develop their fullest potential in spirit, mind, and body. I urge them to continue to raise the academic standards of our young people and inspire them to reach all of their goals. I congratulate the Westfield, NJ Area YMCA, the Black Achievers' Program Committee, the Program and its staff and participants on their accomplishments and I thank them for their commitment to their community and I thank them for their commitment to their community.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Irvin Richter for his induction into the New Jersey Business Hall of Fame. Mr. Richter has demonstrated significant leadership and dedication to his community, and for this he deserves great praise.

A Laureate induction into the New Jersey Business Hall of Fame is a lifetime achievement award for individuals making a significant, positive impact on New Jersey. Inductees demonstrate, as Mr. Richter has throughout their professional lives high ethical standards, mentorship, community involvement and innovative leadership.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hill International, Mr. Richter is known for his expertise in the field of construction contacts and claims. His reputation for excellence is worldwide, after working on projects such as the Channel Tunnel, EPCOT, Reliance Oil Refinery, Athens Metro, King Khalid Military City, Petronas Twin Towers, Washington Metro, and the Alaska Pipeline. Mr. Richter is not only an actively sought expert, but also an international arbitrator and mediator for the leading participants in the industry. In addition, he has provided expert witness testimony on numerous occasions regarding contractual and damage issues.

Mr. Richter has been honored as a Distinguished Alumnus from his alma mater Wesleyan University and from his Law school, Rutgers University School of Law, Camden. He is a member of the World Presidents' Organization (WPO) and the Construction Industry Round Table (CIRT). He is a current and past member of the Board of Trustees of Rutgers University, the Board of Directors of the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA), the Board of Governors of Temple University Hospital and the Board of Directors of the ACE Mentor Program. In 2002, Mr. Richter was made a fellow by the CMAA for his contributions to the construction management industry. At that time, he was one of only 17 Fellows in the history of the organization.

Madam Speaker, Mr. Richter's contributions to his field and to state of New Jersey should not go unrecognized. I want to personally thank Irvin Richter for the exceptional leadership he has provided and the impact he has made all over the world. I congratulate Mr. Richter on his induction to the New Jersey Hall of Fame and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th birthday of Thomas S. Higgins. Mr. Higgins has lived a life of compassion and dedication towards his family and his community and for this he deserves great praise.

Mr. Higgins was born in Camden, New Jersey on April 23, 1935. He earned his Bachelor of Science degree in political science from St. Joseph's University before earning his Juris Doctorate at Villanova Law School. After graduating, Mr. Higgins and his partners founded a successful practice in Laurel Springs, New Jersey. During his forty- year tenure as an attorney, he specialized in environmental law, serving as counsel to the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority and the Cape May Municipal Utilities Authority. Mr. Higgins represented both governmental and personal clients with the utmost vigor and integrity.

Mr. Higgins has also served as chairman of the Health Care Facilities Finance Authority. In this role, he helped obtain financing for the construction, expansion and renovation of hospitals and other health care facilities throughout the state of New Jersey. Additionally, he has served as a Camden County Freeholder, as a chief fundraiser for the Camden County Democratic Committee and as a member of the Finance team for the campaigns of New Jersey Governor Jim Florio in 1989 and 1993. Among his most rewarding moments was preparing the background information for the successful nomination of Governor Florio for the 1993 John F. Kennedy Profiles in Courage Award.

All who know Mr. Higgins know his love of law and politics is exceeded only by his love for his wife, Kathy, his partner and teammate for 27 years. Until her passing in 2006, the two were inseparable and together were an inspirational story of love and dedication. A devoted family man, Mr. Higgins' takes great pride in the successes and achievements of his seven children, and in the blissful faces of his twelve grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, Thomas S. Higgins's contributions to his field and the state of New Jersey, and his commitment to his family should not go unrecognized. I am honored to be a part of his special day, and I would like to personally wish him a Happy 75th Birthday.

Mr. Speaker, there is a justifiable and broad consensus in our country and in this Congress that the regime in Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. The issue is how to achieve that objective and why to achieve that objective.

We cannot act in isolation to achieve the objective. We must act to isolate Iran. This has been the fruit of the persistent diplomacy engaged in by the administration, assisted very nobly by Chairman Berman and our ranking member that has brought us to a point where the world is now isolating Iran. Iran stands essentially alone in support of the proposition that its behavior has been justifiable.

The sanctions that are proposed by the underlying bill will be effective because they will force the Iranian leadership to choose between the prospect of prosperity if they drop their nuclear chicanery and the certainty of economic stress if they persist in retaining it.

The best evidence that these sanctions are effective is the crash program the Iranians themselves have embarked on to switch from gasoline to natural gas as a means of propelling vehicles.

More important than how to do this, though, is why to do this. In the early 1930s, there were ugly statements and vicious images coming out of Europe. People insisted that people who worried about that were exaggerating the threat. So much of the world, including, sadly, the United States turned away as those ugly signals were sent. The result was a tragedy of unspeakable proportions: 6 million innocent people killed in the Holocaust.

Today, there are ugly signals and words coming out of Tehran.

There are ugly signals saying that one Holocaust is not enough, that the Jewish state should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

We ignore these ugly signals at our own peril. We should learn the terrible history of the thirties and not repeat it. We should act swiftly, decisively and united with the rest of the world to impose meaningful sanctions on the Iranian Government that will prevent the day of an Iranian nuclear weapon from ever occurring.

I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue, urge a ``yes'' vote and the swift adoption of the underlying legislation.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I know that tonight many Americans are going to put their head on the pillow and have a very restless and maybe sleepless night again because tomorrow's going to be another day of trudging around with a resume that no one seems to want. Maybe they're concerned that tomorrow will be the day that the final foreclosure notice arrives in the mail. Tomorrow may be the day that they have to pull the plug on their small business that they struggled so hard to sustain.

This problem began to metastasize, this cancer began to grow in this country in the summer of 2007 when the days of irresponsibly cheap credit and easy credit came to an end and the bubble began to burst. In the part of the country that I represent, between Labor Day of 2007 and Labor Day of 2009, we lost about 36,000 jobs, just evaporated, the way eight million jobs evaporated around this country.

Now, the President took office in January of 2009, inherited what I believe was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and we decided to act to try to take advantage of it, put some people back to work building highways and roads and bridges, cut taxes for small businesses to buy a laptop or a truck or a piece of equipment. We had a substantial tax cut for just about every family in the country; 98.5 percent of American families had a credit so people could buy a home and get a substantial down payment to buy a home. And these steps, although I believe they were in the right direction, opposed unanimously by the other side of the aisle, have taken us in the better direction; but they are not enough.

In my area of those 36,000 jobs we have lost between Labor Day of 2007 and Labor Day of 2009, we have gotten about 16,000 of those jobs back since Labor Day of 2009. So between September of 2007 and September of 2009 we lost 36,000 jobs. From Labor Day of 2009 to the present we have gained about 16,000 of them back.

I worry, Mr. Speaker, tonight, and I say to my colleague as well, that one of the reasons we haven't gotten enough of those jobs back soon enough is the credit crunch in this economy. I hear from entrepreneurs large and small, people running stores and factories and software companies, that they are profitable, they have collateral, they have a track record of paying their bills on time, but they cannot get credit. They cannot get the loans that they need to make their businesses grow.

This lack of credit is rooted in a lack of trust, and this lack of trust is rooted in a lack of confidence, and this lack of confidence, without a doubt, is rooted in the failure of the regulatory system to properly regulate the financial system and assure the investor and the American people they are getting a fair deal.

Now, this House late last year passed legislation that would fix that problem, that would have some even-handed regulators look at whether the system was once again teetering on the brink of collapse, that would say that if you lend money, you have to have some skin in the game. You can't have one industry that makes a profit by originating loans but doesn't collect any of them, and another industry that's solely responsible for collecting the loans but doesn't originate them.

The legislation also said that if these steps to prevent another catastrophe failed, the next time there has to be a bailout of the failure; it won't be paid by real estate agents and teachers and truck drivers. It will be paid by the people who created the mess in the first place.

Now, a version of this legislation is being considered by the other body, and I know that the rules do not permit us to comment on the affairs of the other body, so I will not. I will simply offer this generic observation. When the health care bill was in its final stages of debate, our friends on the Republican side of the aisle loudly insisted, I think correctly insisted, that there be an up-down vote on all aspects of the health care bill, and there was. It was an up-down vote on the underlying text of the Senate bill, and there was an up- down vote on the fixed bill that occurred. That's the right way to do things.

When there is a major question before the country, that will be an up-down vote. I would hope that the other body adheres to that principle. With an issue this significant, with the stakes being so high, I think the American people not only have a right to demand that the problem be fixed. I think they have a right to demand they know that their Representatives go on record and say yes or no. Mr. Garamendi, we say ``yes'' to responsible regulation, we say ``yes'' to getting credit flowing again in this economy and we would say ``no'' to those who would block a vote to block the will of the American people.

That certainly is my recollection as well that there was virtually unanimous opposition to these new rules of the road, to the people who drove the economy into a ditch.

But I will say this, that at least there was a vote, wasn't there, that the

American people got a chance to see where each of their elected Representatives stood on the question of new rules of the road for the financial industry. The gentleman from California has served in a lot of levels of public service. I believe he served in the California legislature and he served in a lot of other governing bodies. Is it correct that usually when you are trying to solve a problem you put it up for a vote? Is that usually what happens?

Has the gentleman ever been in a situation where the body sees a serious problem and says, look, we have a plan to fix it, but let's not take a yes-no vote on it because let's let a small number of people decide, because they have some interest persuading them not to support it, that we shouldn't even put it up for a vote? Is that the understanding the gentleman has the way government works in this country?

It's ironic that this Congress funds what are called institutions for democracy that help to teach fledgling nations around the world how to build democratic institutions, and I am glad we do. I think it's good for the country to do that.

It's kind of ironic that in the context of doing that we have had fiascoes where on two occasions one person has said that extending unemployment benefits to people in grave need can't even be voted on. And now we have a situation where a minority, one would theorize, is going to take a position that says we can't vote on this very important establishment of fair rules to protect the American consumer.

I thank the gentleman for calling this to the body's attention, and I am honored to serve in a body where we do take votes, and we do have majority rule and we do get on with the business of the country.

Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues today in introducing the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. On March 23, the House Armed Services Committee's Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform completed its work by unanimously agreeing to its final report after a year-long investigation of the defense acquisition system. We held 14 hearings and 2 briefings and looked at the whole spectrum of the acquisition system. We found that while the nature of defense acquisition has substantially changed since the end of the Cold War, the defense acquisition system has not kept pace.

It is still a system primarily designed for the acquisition of weapon systems at a time when the acquisition of services, and of information technology, represents a much larger share of the Department's budget. These other areas of acquisition operate very differently from weapons acquisition, but are just as complex and just as risky for taxpayers. It was clear to our Panel that changes are needed, but the extent and complexity of the problem presented a real challenge to us.

Ultimately, we did find a group of common, overarching issues that we were convinced needed to be addressed. Across all categories of acquisition significant improvements can and should be made in: managing the acquisition system; improving the requirements process; developing and incentivizing the highest quality acquisition workforce; reforming financial management; and getting the best from the industrial base. The IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 goes directly at each of these issues.

It requires DOD to regularly and comprehensively assess the performance of the defense acquisition system, and puts the newly created Office of Performance Assessment and Root Cause Analysis in charge of these assessments. These assessments would not simply be material to fill reports to Congress. These performance assessments would be linked directly with the things that matter most to the people in the system: pay, promotion, and the scope of their authority. A similar performance management system is required for the current requirements process for weapon systems and the bill requires DOD to develop a requirements process for the acquisition of services. These systems will now be held accountable to the Department's senior leaders. The bill also requires DOD to revisit its acquisition policy to correct the bias towards weapons system acquisition, and requires DOD to assign actual military units to assist in the development and evaluation of major weapon systems.

The central pillar of the defense acquisition system is the acquisition workforce. Only through supporting, empowering, rewarding, and holding accountable the acquisition workforce can the defense acquisition system be expected to improve. To achieve this, the bill gives the Department the flexibility to efficiently hire qualified new employees, and to manage its workforce in a manner that promotes superior performance. DOD is required to develop new regulations for the acquisition workforce which include fair, credible, and transparent methods for hiring and assigning personnel, and for appraising and rewarding employee performance. The bill also extends and codifies the Acquisition Workforce Demonstration Program, which already incorporates a number of these important elements, but has been dormant while the Department tried to implement NSPS.

Another key pillar of success for the defense acquisition system is the Department's financial management system. DOD's inability to provide accurate and timely financial information prevents it from adequately managing its acquisition programs and from implementing true acquisition reform. The bill requires DOD to establish meaningful incentives for the military services to achieve unqualified audits well before the current mandate of September 30, 2017. It also requires consequences if they do not meet this mandate, which was enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

The last pillar underpinning the defense acquisition system is the industrial base. The bill requires the Department to enhance competition and gain access to more innovative technology by taking measures to utilize more of the industrial base, especially small and mid-tier businesses. And in managing that industrial base, the bill directs DOD to work with responsible contractors with strong business systems. It requires contractors to disclose whether they are delinquent on their taxes when they bid on a federal contract.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation through the House in the coming weeks.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Margaret Marsh, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, for being chosen by the Rutgers University Alumni Association for induction into the Rutgers Hall of Distinguished Alumni in 2010. Ms. Marsh is one of 195 individuals who have received this award out of 380,000 Alumni. It is the highest honor given to any Rutgers University graduate.

Ms. Marsh earned her undergraduate from Rutgers-Camden University and later received her PhD. in history from Rutgers-New Brunswick in 1974. After becoming Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1998, Ms. Marsh earned a reputation as a renowned expert in women's history, gender history, American cultural history, and the connections between gender and medicine. She has shared her vast knowledge having written several books, articles, and essays on these subjects.

Ms. Marsh has shown immense dedication to the success of her institution, and with her leadership, Rutgers' ability to serve the citizens of New Jersey has grown. Ms. Marsh is both a dedicated administrator and gifted faculty member teaching both undergraduate and graduate students as a Distinguished Professor of History.

Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Margaret Marsh on this achievement. Her accomplishments represent the very definition of Rutgers pride and should not go unnoticed.