Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) as much time as he desires. And I would just note that Mr. McHugh, along with Dr. Snyder, are chief architects of this legislation; and Mr. McHugh is the guy I like to refer to as the guy from the 10th Mountain Division in New York, a guy with enormous dedication to the men and women who wear the uniform.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, a former member of the committee, for his work. We support this amendment strongly.

Mr. HUNTER. I just want to take a second, Mr. Chairman, to thank the gentleman who just spoke as one of the finest members of our committee and to point out, too, and he went over a number of the high points in this bill, and this idea of having an independent medical officer who helps the service personnel, making sure that they have got in their files when they go before that evaluation board, making sure they have got that record of that shrapnel wound to the calf or to the side, that in cases in times past you would have service personnel who were highly frustrated because they have been wounded, they knew where the wounds were, and yet somehow the paperwork had disappeared. So having that professional to help prepare it is very, very important; and I thank the gentleman for his great service and work on putting this thing together. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady, and we support the amendment on this side. I thank her for her contribution.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if I have got a couple of minutes left, if any member of the Veterans' Affairs or the Armed Services Committee would like to use the rest of the time, I would be happy to yield to them. Appearing that there isn't anybody, I yield back at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNTER. I would ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend on the great work he has done being the chief architect on this bill. And I have absolutely no objections to the gentleman's amendment. I think it is good and I support it.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield just briefly?

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. I think the gentleman would agree that 28,000 up-armored Humvees today is a lot better than the 1,300 that we had before. The body armor, you have 1 million sets of body armor today, much better than we had before.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to address my good friend, Mr. Murtha, who pointed out that there was a shortage of Humvees back here, particularly up-armored Humvees. Well, let me show you how many Humvees we had at the end of the Clinton administration: up-armored Humvees, zero. We didn't have any up-armored Humvees for the National Guard to train on, for the Army to train on, for the National Guard to deploy or for the Army to deploy. We had zero. Actually, we had 1,300 at the end of 2000, 1,300. We now have 18,400 up-armored Humvees. We have got roughly 15 times as many up-armored Humvees as we had at the end of the Clinton administration. Now, let me remind my colleagues how much body armor we had at the end of the Clinton administration, body armor. If I hear another parent call up because they are listening to this debate and they are listening to information which is erroneous, I think it is important for us to remind them, there was nobody armored at the end of the Clinton administration, not one stitch of bulletproof armor at the end of the Clinton administration. Today there are just under 1 million sets of body armor for our troops. Now, let's talk about what we didn't fund in this bill. We didn't fund the ambush protection vehicles to the full extent that the Army asked for. The Army asked for $4.75 billion worth of ambush protection vehicles. Those are vehicles with the V-shaped hulls so that land mines will be deflected and they have strong enough sides so that IEDs will be deflected. Now, my colleagues, I will tell you why everybody, Democrats and Republicans, should vote against this particular supplemental, and it is because of one of the restrictions that is placed on this. There is a 15-day notice and wait period in this bill that says that no unit can deploy until notice is given 15 days before that deployment. We have not done that since our birth as a Nation, saying you can't deploy reinforcements, you can't deploy an emergency unit. It could be a bomb-clearing unit; it could be an IED unit. It could be a medical unit. You can't deploy it for the men and women of the Armed Forces who are engaged in combat until 15 days have expired. We have gone over this with the lawyers and they say it is a 15-day notice and waiver. You can't do it. Vote ``no'' on this very bad, very defective bill.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for the courtesy of yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me just say we took a 1999 101st Airborne battalion. We compared them today with the 100,000 pieces of new equipment that they have got. The 1999 Airborne Battalion today, if it was rated C-1 in 1999, would be rated unready today, not because they are not good warfighters or capable, but because there is brand-new equipment. If you don't have your flu shot, you are rated unready for combat.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield briefly?

Mr. HUNTER. The Armed Services Committee put in 10,000 jammers.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. I am going to speak a little bit during our section on this bill, but I just wanted to invite the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, to come back down to the floor and to talk a little bit about the statement that he just made to the effect that there hasn't been any oversight over the last several years. I am reminded of our teams that left the Armed Services Committee, went out to the companies that were up-armoring Humvees, started to move that schedule to the left, that means getting those Humvees quicker to the troops; and when they were told that there was a steel shortage, moving to the steel mills, finding out what the problem was. When they were told it might be a problem with too many shifts or not enough shifts with union employees, meeting with union employees, getting those shifts put on line, getting that steel produced, getting it to the Humvee factories and moving it out to the field. I am also reminded of the times when we moved ahead quickly with what the gentleman has criticized as sole-source contracts when our troops in the field didn't have any dismounted jammers. That means the ability to stop an electronic signal that fires off a roadside bomb that hurts our troops. This committee moved quickly to give the Secretary of Defense the ability to waive all acquisition and competition regulations so you could do one thing, get equipment that protects our troops to the battlefield quicker. And we did that in terms of the first dismounted jammer that we produced, something that a marine or a GI could carry on a patrol that would keep a bad guy from detonating a roadside bomb that could kill him or his squad. Using this new system instead of the old system, we were able to, R&D, build in the United States and move into the warfighting theater 10,000 jammers for our troops within 70 days. Now, the system that the gentleman is wedded to and loves so much, the slow system, the system in which you have interminable appeals, in which you have competitions that take months and months, sometimes years, is now working on the next generation of portable jammer. It has been a year, and we don't have that jammer fielded yet for troops in a portable fashion. So I would just say to the gentleman who has been criticizing the contractor corps, 389 American contractors have been killed in this war so far, in this war against terror. They are great people, probably some of them from the gentleman's district. And the idea that he is trying to offer to this body, which I think is smart enough to reject that idea, that somehow there was no oversight in the theater, and by making these fairly minor changes, and these are fairly minor changes, we marked them up, they are nips and tucks in the oversight system. Somehow the judgment of the thousands of people who oversee our contracts around the world will now go from bad to good. That is obviously in great error. In fact, the same people are in place administering contracts; the same people are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to support our warfighters. And by and large, they are doing an excellent job. And we are going to get into later, into the added restrictions that the majority has placed on people who are participating in contract decisions, participating in a broad category called ``administering'' and the vagueness that attaches to that that might make a person civilly liable if they walk into the wrong meeting at the wrong time and they are ultimately prosecuted or fined civilly for making that mistake. You know, we have great members of our staffs in the Armed Services Committee and indeed in all the committees in the House of Representatives. We shouldn't put a more onerous burden on the people that work in the rest of government than we would put on our own staff. And I would say to my colleagues, one thing you have got to have when you have penalties, whether they are civil or criminal, that attach to action, you better define the action and you better define it clearly enough that staff members know exactly what they are doing and know exactly where the line is so they don't cross that line. And let me just finish by saying that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who I consider to be a friend, has done a real disservice to the great men and women who serve in a contracting capacity for this country by implying that somehow they haven't been doing their job and somehow the committees of this Congress have not been doing their job in this war against terror. I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding me a couple of minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have given a fair amount of consideration to this bill, H.R. 1362. I have a couple of observations to share with you. First, I am very proud of the work that the Armed Services Committee has done with respect to this bill to craft what I consider to be a better bill. I want to thank the chairman, my good friend from Missouri, Mr. Ike Skelton, for making sure that we participated in this markup and holding the markup of H.R. 1362. I had serious concerns about the original bill as reported out of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, including a number of provisions that, through amending title 10, U.S. Code, and other procurement regulations, would have had the effect of preventing the Department of Defense from serving warfighter needs in the most expeditious manner possible. That is an issue that I spoke to just a minute ago in my exchange with Mr. Waxman. As my colleagues from the Armed Services Committee know, this committee has given a great deal of attention to matters pertaining to acquisition reform. This has been especially true during wartime as our committee has worked hard to ensure that the brave men and women serving our country receive what they need when they need it as they deploy to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of operation. At the same time, we have been vigorous advocates for competition and cost control measures. I firmly believe that the Armed Services Committee is best suited to properly balance the need for improving accountability in defense contracting while at the same time ensuring that the Department of Defense can carry out its duties to the warfighter. I am pleased that the chairman agreed to hold an Armed Services Committee markup of this bill. In continuing its rich tradition of deliberation and robust oversight of matters within its jurisdiction, the committee produced a higher quality piece of legislation. I supported Chairman Skelton's mark because I believe the mark remedied the most serious deficiencies of the base bill and was truly a bipartisan measure. The Armed Services Committee mark encouraged competition and cost controls while protecting procurement flexibilities important to the national interest. Secondly, it provided Congress with additional tools for oversight and reinforced standards of integrity widely held by the dedicated men and women of the defense acquisition workforce. But, unfortunately, we are not here today to vote for the Armed Services Committee mark. We are not even here to vote for the Committee on Oversight Government Reform mark, which leads me to my second set of observations. We are here today to vote for a piece of legislation that was not voted out of any committee. Those who would say this bill received unanimous support in two committees would not be telling it as it is. The full truth is that the Speaker wanted to put a rush on this bill so she could say Congress did something about contract reform. It was introduced late one night, and in 24 hours it was being voted out of committee. In two more business days a markup was scheduled in the Committee on Armed Services. Late that night, additional text was added that changed the bill yet again, and I think in a potentially dangerous way. But no member of Oversight and Government Reform or Armed Services got to vote on those changes. Instead, the language simply appeared out of nowhere and the rule for H.R. 1362 let the new bill move to the floor. What would the new language do? It is hard to say because the text is subject to broad interpretation, which is precisely what concerns me. One thing can safely be said. It is ironic that the original bill would have required agencies to hire thousands of additional personnel, but at the same time this new language would presume those personnel are dishonest and would attempt to restrict their decisionmaking ability or their ability to seek further employment. I am all for accountability and performance in Federal contracting. I am likewise for accountability and performance in the legislative branch. Frankly, I am disappointed in the final product of this bill, and I am referring to the parts that were put in after we marked up our portion of the bill. Mr. Chairman, let me go right back to Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Waxman and their assertion that somehow we are leaving a period of no oversight, and they have brought now oversight to the warfighting process and accountability for the contracts that are let pursuant to this war against terror. That is absolutely not the truth. As anybody knows when you are fighting a war, you need to move quickly. I use once again the example of the jammers that we got out the door under a new waiver strategy where you waive all acquisition regulations. You go in and build something that the troops need immediately on the battlefield. You don't give a 6-month appeal to the folks that lose the competition. You don't give small business set- asides because there is one thing you don't have, you don't have time. When we have troops that are experiencing bombs on the battlefield that are detonated remotely, you have to move quickly to get the jammers that will jam that electronic device. When you have new explosives that are penetrating your Humvees, you have to get steel on the sides of those Humvees quickly. When you are moving a military force down the road and you have to get fuel to that force, whether it is in movement or in base, you have to move quickly. You cannot have 6-month appeal periods. You cannot have buyers' forums that take months to set up. You have to move quickly. Now, when you have time, you want to absolutely have competition, and I can just tell my colleagues that that is always in my interest to have competition, get the best buy for the buck, and we have had a number of forums incidentally. We introduced the Challenge Program where any company that could come in and say, I could make a better tire for the Humvee than the incumbent, or I can make a better windshield or a better engine, that guy or lady has got the right to go in and challenge the incumbent company that has the present contract and show how they can do it cheaper or make something that has better warfighting capability. We introduced that legislation. That is called the Challenge Legislation. But let us not mix that up with this idea that somehow you can have competition on every single aspect of the battlefield, and when you need a new jammer to stop roadside bombs, you go out and you start a month-long search, and then you have a 6-month competition, and then after the award you have a 6-month appeal, and by that time you are ready for the next war. You are not even relevant to the situation that is hurting your young men and women on the battlefield right now. So there is some good substance in this bill, and I like it, but there is a lot of rhetoric. There is a lot of worthless, political rhetoric that preceded this bill, and I hope that the American people will not be snagged by that one. There are times that you have to move quickly. I am reminded of one contractor that came back. One of the contractors who was not one of the 389 who has been killed in this war, and he showed me a picture of a crater, of a mortar crater. He said, That is where I was standing 5 minutes before that mortar landed. He said, I do not care how much you award this contract for, I am not going back to that dangerous AO. Let me tell you, there are a lot of people who do go back time and time again. They are good Americans. They are honest Americans, and they are the same folks carrying out the contracting and administering the support of our Armed Forces who were there 6 months ago. The idea that somehow they have been crooked up to now, that now they are going to be straightened out by Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Waxman is absolutely outrageous. So having said those gentle words, I look forward to the continued discussion. Mr. Waxman has taken the floor. I would be happy to yield to Mr. Waxman if he has got a rejoinder.

Mr. HUNTER. Let me just take my time back. I am not making it personal. Mr. Waxman made a statement, I am talking. Mr. Waxman, I will let you respond to this. We are not making it personal. What I am telling you is that there are exigencies in the battlefield, and you got this from your own leadership, gentlemen like Mr. Murtha who said you cannot have these long delays in awarding contracts and have this vigorous oversight period; you cannot have that hold up a battlefield situation. You do have to award sole-source contracts, and you have to award them to people who can move very quickly and get things done. That is my point. The idea that we are supposed to stop that or that we have not exercised any oversight is simply not accurate. There is no personal animosity toward you as a fine Member of this body, but those statements are not accurate, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Waxman, the two provisions that were put in after the markup, the one that talks about a person who participates in a meeting as a senior staff, that means if a person walks in a room and if they are involved in a discussion, they could be subjected to massive civil penalties at a later time if there is a contract awarded. I would simply say that I think in areas where you have civil penalties you have to have great clarity, and I have not seen a definition of ``senior staff'' or ``senior participants'' in DOD, and I think that that is a real problem. I think it is a problem of vagueness and one that could keep people from entering the civil service in this role and in this capacity.

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will allow me to say this, I think that that is a good provision. In fact, we supported that provision in the Armed Services markup. Let me tell you a provision I do not support, and maybe you can help us with this. You refer in the revolving door that says that a person cannot take a job with a company in which he has administered----

Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman allow me to have a minute of his time so I can just offer this one point?