[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 25, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3621-H3630]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 112-88 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 1540.
{time} 1701
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1540) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012
for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year
2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. McClintock (Acting Chair) in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 28 printed in House
Report 112-88 by the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) had been
postponed.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mrs. Maloney
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is
now in order to consider amendment No. 26 printed in House Report 112-
88.
Mrs. MALONEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title VIII, add the following
new section:
SEC. 845. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF SENIOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OFFICIALS EMPLOYED WITH DEFENSE CONTRACTORS.
(a) Amendment.--Section 847 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181;
122 Stat. 243; 10 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Public Availability.--Not later than 30 days after
the provision of the written opinion under subsection (a)(3),
the Secretary of Defense shall publish on a publicly
available website the information submitted under this
section, including the names of each official or former
official described in subsection (a)(1) and the contractor
from whom such official or former official expects to receive
compensation.''.
(b) Previously Submitted Information.--With respect to the
publication of information required by subsection (e) of
section 847 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 243; 10
U.S.C. 1701 note), as added by subsection (a), for
information that was submitted before the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall publish
such information on a publicly available website not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require public
disclosure of information submitted under section 847 of this act.
This amendment is about bringing more accountability and sunshine to
the $379 billion average annual defense contracting business by making
a revolving door database, which already exists, publicly available. It
would allow the public access to important ethics information about
some DOD employees who leave to go through the resolving door to jobs
in the defense contracting industry, often with companies with whom
they have been negotiating billions of dollars in contracts.
Current and former public servants should not be able to use their
positions for private gain, and powerful defense contractors should not
be able to rig the system.
But, unfortunately, this relationship is not uncommon. One way
contractors gain influence in the government is to hire away civil
servants and political appointees with access to inside people and
information from their government positions. In some cases, highly
skilled and well-connected former senior government officials enter the
private sector as executives or officers or lobbyists or on the boards
of directors of government contractors, a practice known as the
revolving door.
It is also widely acknowledged that there are inherent conflicts of
interest in the revolving door, potential ethical problems that can
lead to the wasteful spending of taxpayers' dollars and worse.
For this reason, DOD currently collects ethics opinions on certain
acquisition employees who go to work for contractors within 2 years of
leaving DOD. This amendment would simply require this database to be
publicly available online.
This amendment would not add any requirements or change the current
post-employment restrictions. The law already requires DOD employees
who hold a key acquisition position to obtain a written ethics opinion
from a DOD ethics counselor before taking a job with a contractor in
the 2 years after leaving DOD.
The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 mandated
that covered DOD acquisition officials, that would be certain executive
schedule, Senior Executive Service, and general or flag officer
positions, must obtain a post-employment ethics opinion before
accepting a paid position from a DOD contractor within 2 years after
they leave DOD service. It also requires that DOD contractors ensure
that new hires have an ethics opinion.
The law also requires that each request for a written opinion made
pursuant to this section, and each written opinion provided pursuant to
such a request, shall be retained by the Department of Defense in a
central database for not less than 5 years beginning on the date in
which the written opinion was provided.
[[Page H3622]]
But these ethics opinions are not currently shared with the public.
Why should this information be secret and hidden from public view?
At times the overly cozy relationships between DOD and contractors
lead to cost overruns, loose ethical standards, and lack of
accountability. This problem is compounded by the dramatic increase in
DOD contract spending in recent years. The inability of DOD's
acquisition workforce to effectively manage that dramatic growth and
increasing industry consolidation have caused DOD to become too
dependent on a handful of companies to provide essential goods and
services.
It has become impractical or even outright impossible for DOD to bar
any of these companies from contracting or impose punishment more
severe than a mere slap on the wrist.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chair, the examples of lack of accountability are
endless:
BAE Systems: Last year, BAE settled an international bribery case in
the U.S. and UK for $450 million and pleaded guilty to criminal
charges. But it was allowed to keep doing business with the federal
government and has won billions of dollars in contracts since then.
Even last week's run-in with the State Department, when BAE paid $79
million after State discovered they had withheld vital info while
negotiating last year's settlement, hasn't hurt it.
BP: Last year, the EPA was considering debarring BP for its many
environmental and workplace safety violations, but DoD pressured them
to back off because BP supplies 80 percent of the fuel to U.S. forces.
KBR: Still a key DoD supplier despite a long history of misconduct,
including incidents that put the lives of soldiers and employees at
risk.
Charles Tiefer of the Commission on Wartime Contracting nicknamed
five large companies that do business with DoD (KBR, Agility, Louis
Berger Group, Tamimi, First Kuwaiti) the ``Flagrant Five'' for
continuing to receive contracts despite claims of fraud, misconduct and
poor performance.
At a time when the public is questioning the ethics and integrity of
the federal government and its spending of taxpayer dollars, the very
least we can do is to shine a little light on the revolving door
between the government and large private contractors.
This amendment would do just that.
It would direct DoD to make the information they already collect
publicly available online to increase accountability and improve the
ethics in relationships between DoD acquisitions and defense
contractors. Groups like the nonpartisan Project On Government
Oversight have urged DoD to make the database public, to no avail. DoD
is not prohibited from putting the information online, but clearly has
resisted doing so.
There is no public interest in keeping this information secret or
hidden from view. The only interest served by keeping this ethics
information in the shadows are those of current and former public
servants use their positions for private gain means powerful private
corporations can rig the system in their favor. This costs taxpayers,
limits or eliminates competition from businesses that may be the best
for the job, and results in flawed policies and bad procurement
decisions. It also harms the public trust.
Public access to the revolving door database represents the kind of
open government that the public wants and deserves, especially at this
time of ever-escalating spending of taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon.
It will improve the integrity of the federal contracting system, shine
light on the revolving door between the Pentagon and the defense
industry, and act as a deterrent to overly-cozy relationship that could
lead to wasted taxpayer dollars.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McKEON. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I will just make three brief points.
Public disclosure of this personal information serves no purpose but
to infringe on the rights and the privacy of civil servants.
The second point, the data required is already being reviewed by the
DOD Inspector General. There's no oversight value in making it publicly
available. This will only hamper the DOD's efforts to recruit talented
acquisition personnel.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, in addition, I think it should be
pointed out that in the FY 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, the
Congress required that the Panel on Contracting Integrity review
policies related to post-employment restrictions. Now that report is
supposed to be delivered this summer.
{time} 1710
It seems to me to be prudent that we listen to what we ordered them
to tell us before we start making new restrictions and new requirements
without even hearing what their report says.
So I appreciate the concerns that the gentlelady brings up on this
issue. But as the chairman indicated, study after study related to our
acquisition process talks about the difficulty of attracting top
quality acquisition folks and yet the importance of having those very
people.
I think it's very important, while we obviously must consider the
ethical considerations, we also, just as obviously, have to consider
whether we are attracting top quality talent or repelling top quality
talent. And it would be very helpful for Congress to hold off and
listen to the report that we have ordered them to give us before we
start making additional legislation and additional requirements that
could have severe adverse consequences in this area.
So, I think we should reject this amendment, listen to the report,
see what it says, and see if and when additional action is needed after
that.
Mr. McKEON. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\3/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I think one of the things that we do in this
bill is look at redundancy and the things that we are trying to make
simpler, not more complex. I think, as the gentleman said, we've
already asked for a report on this. We will get that report back, and
then there will be time to see if there is any reason to go further in
this direction.
I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Himes
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 112-88.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 414, line 4, strike ``and''.
Page 414, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 414, after line 20, insert the following:
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Direction of Funds.--Any savings realized under this
section shall be deposited into the general fund of the
Treasury and used for deficit reduction.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. HIMES. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on behalf of my amendment to H.R.
1540. The underlying text of the National Defense Authorization Act
calls for the shift of certain inherently governmental functions,
currently being performed by contractors, to civilian employees within
the Department of Defense.
My amendment is simple. It requires that any cost savings achieved by
this transfer be used for deficit reduction. I'm going to say that
again. Any cost savings associated with shifting work from contractors
to civilian employees will get used for deficit reduction.
Reaching the debt limit last week was a stark reminder of the
consequences of ballooning spending throughout the Federal Government,
including defense spending. Committing cost savings to deficit
reduction is the first step toward returning to a fiscally sustainable
budget. By reducing
[[Page H3623]]
the deficit with identified savings from the Department of Defense, we
will help to ensure that we have enough to invest in education,
infrastructure, and job-creating priorities that we all share while
cutting spending to reduce the deficit.
This is a smart and fiscally responsible amendment. I urge my
colleagues to adopt it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORBES. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing
this amendment. I know he is sincere in talking about deficit
reduction, and I certainly appreciate that. All of us on this side are
equally sincere. In fact, I'm one of only 17 Members of this body who
voted against every single one of the bailouts and stimulus bills
because we realized what it was doing to the deficit in this country.
Secondly, I share the gentleman's concern when he talks about some of
DOD's decisions to change from private contractors to civilians because
some of those decisions haven't been based on business models. But just
because they have not all been correct doesn't mean they have all been
wrong. And the problem with this approach is that it's exactly the
wrong approach because it will be a disincentive to the Department of
Defense to try to reach these efficiencies.
The reason that DOD has an incentive to try to make these
efficiencies is so that they can reprioritize and use these dollars for
programs that are absolutely vital and important for the national
defense of the country. To say that every time they make those savings
we are going to take off of the top line of the Department of Defense
will be a disincentive for the Department of Defense to make those
savings.
And here are the effects that we have. If we don't have civilians
doing these jobs, we have had testimony coming before our committee
from our generals and our admirals that basically what that means is
they have to take military personnel to do that work, which means they
don't have the time to do the training that they need to do to be
prepared to fight and defend this country.
The other concern we have with some of the reductions that we would
be taking out of DOD, in the budget submitted to us this year, they
were actually pushing back on facility maintenance that we needed to
keep our facilities updated to only 80 percent of the maintenance that
was required.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think it's vitally important that we do a lot for
deficit reduction. I think it's vitally important that we look at the
fact, for example, that on some of our stimulus bills we're talking
about $800 billion. In this, we're talking about several million
dollars.
But I think the most important thing, Mr. Chairman, is that we make
sure we are giving DOD the incentives they need to make sure they are
prioritizing correctly the dollars that they have and that we not take
money off of the top line of the defense budget, which I think would be
detrimental to us at this time.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the argument of my colleague
from Virginia, he is saying that by taking away money for the purposes
of debt reduction from the DOD that we will be disincentivizing action,
which we all know to be the right thing to do here.
So let me just toss out a couple of facts.
Fact No. 1, Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
has identified the debt of this country as perhaps the single largest
strategic threat to the security of the country.
Fact No. 2, in DOD, we are talking about people who, if anywhere in
the government are dedicated to doing the right thing by all of us,
sacrificing for the good of this Nation, and their leader said that the
single largest strategic threat to this country is our debt, how can
you make an argument against this amendment? Think about the words of
Admiral Mullen.
The argument seems to me to be an insider Washington argument, which
is if you take away their cheese, they're going to be angry. They won't
do the right thing because you're taking away their cheese.
I will stop speaking, but I will just ask my colleague from Virginia
whether he believes in the context of what Admiral Mullen said about
deficit reduction and the debt and whether he really believes that the
DOD will do the wrong thing here.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer my good friend's
question by saying I absolutely believe what Admiral Mullen said. When
you look at the efficiencies that the Department of Defense has been
talking about, we're talking about roughly $179 million. But I would
suggest my friend look at comparing that to the $800 billion that we
spent on a stimulus package which I voted against because I realized
what it was doing to the deficit in this country, exactly what the
admiral mentioned.
The other thing, Mr. Chairman, that I would suggest to the gentleman
is, quite honestly, I will tell him I do not know if the Constitution
mandates or gives us the authority to bail out the auto industry or the
insurance industry or the banking industry or the mortgage industry or
whatever else we've been bailing out, but one thing I do know is this.
When some of the smartest people this Nation has ever birthed came
together and agreed on one thing in our Constitution, the thing they
mandated that this Congress do is to maintain strong armies and navies
and to defend this country. And one of the things I unabashedly will
say is that we need to stand firm and make sure the Department of
Defense has the dollars that they need to defend and protect freedom
and to pass it on to our children and our grandchildren. And I believe
this amendment goes a step towards taking that ability away from them.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut has 2\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Chairman, all I've got to say about that is, wow. Here
we are talking about the DOD and what we should do with savings found
in the DOD, and the gentleman from Virginia is bringing up stimulus and
TARP and $800 billion, which has absolutely nothing to do with the
question at hand, a mechanism that is used all too often by the other
side.
The gentleman mentions the Constitution. Nobody in this room is
saying that we shouldn't adequately fund the Department of Defense.
That's not what this is about any more than this is about TARP or
stimulus or any of the other things that my colleague spoke about.
The Constitution also says that it is this body--this body--that will
determine how funds are spent. My colleague from Virginia is saying
that extra money at the DOD that is saved in a mechanism that we all
agree makes sense, that it should be a slush fund, if you will, that
the DOD should decide how they use that. The Constitution of the United
States is very clear. That's our job.
{time} 1720
Nobody is saying that we should underfund defense; that is not what
this is about. And I am delighted that the gentleman takes such great
pride in having voted against the stimulus and the TARP, which by the
way, I would say the day after Chrysler has repaid its government loan
6 years early, the gentleman might revisit his point on that, but that
is not what this is about.
This is about good government and deficit reduction and abiding by
the spirit of the Constitution that says we decide how money is used,
not the agencies.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by
[[Page H3624]]
the gentleman from Connecticut will be postponed.
Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in House Report 112-88.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 417, after line 7, insert the following:
SEC. 941. ASSESSMENT OF CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN
FUNCTIONS ON SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND
CONTROLLED BY WOMEN AND MINORITIES.
No Department of Defense function that is performed by
Department of Defense civilian employees and is tied to a
certain military base may be converted to performance by a
contractor until the Secretary of Defense conducts an
outreach program to benefit small business concerns owned and
controlled by women (as such term is defined in section
8(d)(3)(D) of the Small Business Act) and small business
concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals (as such term is defined in section
8(d)(3)(C) of the Small Business Act) that are located in the
geographic area near the military base.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I see
my good friend from Pennsylvania is on his feet, and I know that he is
going to help me help small businesses because that is the simplicity
of this amendment.
It is simple. It is engaging, embracing. It is recognizing that all
of us have our good neighbors back in our district. It is also an
affirmation of the importance of the work of the United States
military, and the many, many small businesses who desire to be of
service. And so this amendment is simply informational, but it has a
basis in success; outreach, to make sure that our small businesses
around the Nation have a sense of what available opportunities are
there for them.
It calls for renewed vigor in advocating and constructing effective
policies that will make the United States the most talented, diverse,
effective, and powerful workforce in the increasingly globalized
economy.
We also realize, and I always say to my small businesses that they
are the job creators of the 21st Century, and they do so in conjunction
with the United States military. It may be janitorial services,
painting buildings, mowing lawns, and related activities. Our small
businesses can do that.
So this amendment simply asks the Department of Defense, as it
outsources its work, to make sure that it reaches out to the small
business community so that they will be, if I might use the vernacular,
in the mix. They will have the understanding and the opportunity to get
jobs, to get business based on their qualifications and based upon
their ability to do work.
In addition, might I say that many of us have come across situations
where our base leadership is trying to be fiscally responsible and has
taken in business that they had heretofore outsourced. My point is that
it is important to assess that impact on small businesses.
I heard a discussion earlier on the floor that we want to equalize
the playing field for our small businesses. We know that the larger
companies, they have got the roadmap. This is simply an opportunity to
say to Americans, all of you are taxpayers, all of you have the
opportunity to do something for the United States military, and that
may be using your talents as a small business to have the opportunity.
Let's outreach so they have the information. Let's make sure that we
are engaged. Let's make sure that we create jobs.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment #31 to H.R. 1540,
``National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2011,'' which
requires the Secretary of Defense to utilize an outreach program to
attract small and minority owned businesses prior to the outsourcing of
military contracts related to local military bases.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have sponsored legislation that
promotes diversity. I stand proudly before you today to call for
renewed vigor in advocating and constructing effective policies that
will make the United States the most talented, diverse, effective, and
powerful workforce in an increasingly globalized economy. This
amendment will require the Department of Defense to consider the impact
that changes to current outsourcing guidelines will have on small
minority and women owned business by requiring them to engage with
these businesses. Promoting diversity is more than just an idea it
requires an understanding that there is a need to have a process that
will ensure the inclusion of minorities and women in all areas of
American life.
As a practical matter the Department of Defense has the discretion to
choose whether a contract should be in-sourced or out-source. Since
March of 2009 it is understood that certain federal contracts that were
formerly completed by civilian employees would be returned to federal
employees. It is important to find balance between contracts that
should be conducted by the federal government versus civilian
contractors. As it stands the policies implemented by the DOD has the
unintended consequence of harming small minority and women owned
businesses by taking away civilian contracts that are not inherently
serving a federal government purpose such as janitorial services,
painting building, mowing lawns and related activities. These service
contracts which tend to be the bread and butter for minority and women
owned business are slowly being withdrawn and returned to the federal
government.
JOHN FREEMAN, PRESIDENT OF HALLMARK
Take for example my constituent John Freeman.
Mr. Freeman operates Hallmark Capitol group, a Houston based small
women and veteran owned business which specializes in providing
transportation services, vehicle repair, and preventive vehicle
maintenance.
Mr. Freeman currently has 14 Department of Defense contracts across
the US.
One of Mr. Freeman's contracts is at Patrick Air force base in
Florida. The Department of Defense decided to in- source VOM (Vehicle
Operation Maintenance). The value of this contract is approximately $4
million a year and Hallmark employees nearly 40 people on this
contract. The government has decided to in-source this contract
effective which will result in the loss of nearly 40 jobs. They will be
out of a job by the end of the year and will not receive any
preferential hiring treatment from the federal government.
Hallmark filed a lawsuit in the court of federal claims to prevent
the Air Force from in-sourcing this federal contract. The Court of
Federal claims ruled on May 15th that contractors lack any standing or
jurisdiction to question the government's decision to in source
contracts. Shortly thereafter, Hallmark filed an Appeal of the Court of
Federal claims decision. They are currently awaiting the outcome of the
appeal.
We must take a closer look at the impact changes in the new
Department of Defense out sourcing and in-sourcing policies are having
on small minority, veteran and women owned businesses. The Department
of Defense must review their policies to fairly balance the need to
return inherently federal operations from those that can be done by
civilian contractors.
Frankly, we can all agree that painting the side of a building is not
an inherently government function. These service type contracts are
mainly conducted by small business who will be at a distinct
disadvantage if their contracts are suspended.
Small businesses represent more than the American dream--they
represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent
of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and
provide three out of four new jobs in this country.
Small business growth means economic growth for the nation. But to
keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to
loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their
businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The
Small Business Administration (SBA), a federal organization that aids
small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key provider
of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts
for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America.
I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize
their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development
programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's
Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a
variety of critical areas, including business plan development,
finance, and marketing. My amendment would require the Department of
Defense to utilize a similar outreach program prior to outsourcing. The
Department of Defense should investigate what impact changes
[[Page H3625]]
to current outsourcing guidelines will have on minority and women owned
small businesses. Outreach is key to developing healthy and diverse
small businesses.
There are 5.8 million minority owned businesses in the United States,
representing a significant aspect of our economy. In 2007, minority
owned businesses employed nearly 6 million Americans and generated $1
trillion dollars in economic output.
Women owned businesses have increased 20% since 2002, and currently
total close to 8 million. These organizations make up more than half of
all businesses in health care and social assistance.
My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women
owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned
businesses.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, there has been an
average of between 15,000 and 20,000 private contractors working in
Iraq providing a variety of services for the military. These private
contractors are hired for everything, from supplying translators, and
maintaining surveillance systems to preparing meals and washing
uniforms.
The Department of Defense (DOD) estimates that during the Vietnam
War, the ratio of contractors to soldiers was 1 in 10. This rate
increases to about 1 contractor for every soldier during Operation
Iraqi Freedom. These contracts generate billions of dollars in revenue
for the companies to which they are awarded.
Women owned businesses were awarded 3.4% of DOD prime contracts in
Fiscal Year 2009. Small Disadvantaged Businesses were awarded 7.2%,
while Historically Underutilized Businesses got 3.3%.
According to a 2009 report published by the Economic Policy
Institute, ``Starting in 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
set goals for small business participation in federal contracts.
It encouraged agencies to award contracts to companies owned by
women, veterans, and minorities or those located in economically
challenged areas and gave them benchmarks to work toward. The targets
are specific: 23% of contracts to small business, 5% to woman-owned
small businesses, and 3% to disabled veteran-owned and HUBZone small
businesses.''
Women and minority owned businesses generate billions of dollars and
employ millions of people. They are certainly qualified to receive
these contracts. A mandatory DOD outreach program would make women and
minority owned businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities
available to them.
I offered two additional amendments that were not made in order that
would have required the Department of Defense to conduct an assessment
on the impact changes in their outsource guidelines would have on small
minority owned business. The Department of Defense must consider the
potential negative impact proposed outsourcing changes would have on
small and minority owned businesses.
We need to help small businesses keep up with their big business
competition. Right now, the federal marketplace favors big businesses
and corporations. Small businesses have lost an estimated $13.8 billion
in business opportunity because they could not fairly compete for
federal contracts because larger companies are allowed to bundle
contracts--the practice of accepting ``mega-contracts'' for large jobs
that only they have the resources to handle on the condition that they
receive smaller contracts that could have been given out to small
businesses. For every 100 bundled contracts, 106 individual contracts
are no longer available to small businesses. For every $100 awarded on
a ``bundled'' contract, there is a $33 decrease to small businesses.
Small businesses deserve a fair shot at federal contracts. They have
a chance to compete for overseas contracts with the Department of
Defense as well as access to international contracts with the United
States Agency for International Development. In addition, I believe
that work needs to be done to modernize key contracting developmental
programs designed to increase opportunities for women, minorities and
low-income individuals. Programs like the Outreach Program that I
support through my amendment. These actions will reduce the current
barriers and ensure small businesses have access to perform federal
contracts. This can save taxpayer dollars, because the increased
competition for government contracts will lead to better prices and
better quality.
Currently companies that ship jobs to other countries receive federal
tax breaks to give them an edge against foreign competition. This means
that the current tax code encourages companies to move their production
centers out of the U.S. to save money. It also gives them an unfair
advantage in competing against small businesses that employ American
workers and make their goods here.
I am committed to providing the technical assistance and necessary
tools small businesses need to break into new markets and sell their
products abroad. By pursuing fair trade strategies that open markets we
will ensure a level playing field for American workers and businesses,
and strengthen critical domestic industries, such as our manufacturing,
intellectual property, and technology sectors. We want fair trade
policies that keep jobs here and provide opportunities for American
small businesses and their employees.
The vibrancy of our economic prosperity depends on the ability of our
nation's small business community to adapt to opportunities at home and
abroad. The skill required to navigate the many regulations imposed by
the Federal government is essential to maximize any business plan.
Alliances made between the private sector and government allows small
business owners to be empowered by the Federal regulatory process and
not the victim of it. The hearing today will allow for the constructive
dialogue needed to ensure that all Americans continue to prosper in the
age of low unemployment and Federal budget surpluses.
Out Reach programs that are properly designed and implemented,
strengthen the national community, promote its economic well being, and
maximize the benefits of our great diversity. The Department of Defense
should be required to reach out to small minority and women owned
business to hear their concern and to recognize the important role they
play in revitalizing our economy.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. I appreciate the gentlelady from Texas offering this
amendment, and I want to restate what it attempts to do.
It will prohibit outsourcing of DOD functions until the Secretary of
Defense conducts an outreach program to benefit women- and minority-
owned small businesses. Well, in fact, it is a duplication of what is
already in the law. It duplicates section 891 of the fiscal year 2011
National Defense Authorization Act which requires the establishment of
an outreach program to firms near DOD installations. This act simply
delays allowing for outsourcing to come back in and be part of the
benefits that it provides to this Nation, reducing cost, streamlining
the process.
So again, this is already in law. As I said, this is nothing more
than a delay tactic to stop outsourcing. We need to use outsourcing
where it makes sense, to utilize the benefits of reducing cost, which
has the potential to help our small businesses, which I think we all
support. Whether they are women-owned or minority-owned businesses,
small businesses are important, and I think outsourcing does that.
In fact, in my district, Letterkenny Army Depot has public-private
partnerships today through outsourcing with small businesses and large
alike. The Heritage Foundation did a study commending what is going on
at Letterkenny Army Depot utilizing DOD civilians as well as the
private sector, coming together where it makes sense, where we can have
a tremendously positive impact on the work that goes there. So there is
a model out there, and outsourcing is important.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment because
again, it already is established in last year's defense authorization
bill exactly what the gentlelady from Texas wants to be established.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1
minute to the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment. I think it is a very reasonable request. I think making sure
that minority-and women-owned businesses are protected is an important
part of building a strong economy and a strong country, and it is
reflected in many different aspects of Federal law, to try and make
sure that opportunities are made available for women- and minority-
owned businesses.
I will also add that this amendment does not presume that outsourcing
is harmful to women and minority-owned businesses; it simply wants to
gauge the effect. It is quite possible the effect is positive, and it
is going to create an opportunity for them that would not
[[Page H3626]]
otherwise be created. But in making those decisions, the impact on
women- and minority-owned businesses is an important part of that
decision, and I believe should be reflected.
So this amendment is not meant in any way to restrict outsourcing.
There are a lot of different decisions that have to be made in doing
that. It just says that when you do that, keep this important
consideration in mind.
I urge support for the amendment. I thank the gentlelady from Texas
for bringing it to the committee's attention.
Mr. SHUSTER. I agree with the distinguished ranking member, and I
believe that he supported last year in the National Defense
Authorization Act section 891, which in fact does what the gentlelady
from Texas wants to do.
So again, this is a delay tactic to put outsourcing back on the
table, back in play, back in part of our toolbox.
Again, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope my good friend from
Pennsylvania listens to both the distinguished ranking member and
myself. This is not an amendment that opposes outsourcing. In fact, it
is an amendment that affirms that outsourcing occurs, and to ask that
that playing field be even more even by attention being given to our
small, minority- and women-owned businesses.
It has been documented that small businesses have lost an estimated
$13.8 billion in business opportunity because they cannot fairly
compete for Federal contracts because larger companies are allowed to
bundle the contracts, the practice of accepting mega-contracts for
large jobs that only they have the resources to handle--under the
condition that they receive smaller contracts that could have been
given out to small businesses.
{time} 1730
I want our small businesses and minority-owned businesses and women-
owned businesses to be in the mix, have an outreach program. There's
nothing wrong with added leverage of outreach for all our small
businesses.
And let me say something else, Mr. Chairman. It is also to say that
if a small business has a contract and it's hauled back in, it's pulled
back in, let us assess how that is impacting the loss of jobs. Forty
jobs, a constituent that came to our attention, Hallmark, lost by
bringing in the business.
So by no means is this an opportunity to block outsourcing, and I
call it contracting out. It is the business of supporting our small
businesses.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this very evenhanded,
very vigorous amendment to support the hardworking Americans--small,
women-owned, and minority-owned businesses. I ask my colleagues to
support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Andrews
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32
printed in House Report 112-88.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 417, after line 7, insert the following (and conform
the table of contents accordingly):
SEC. 941. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF IMPLEMENTATION AND
ENFORCEMENT OF WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT AND
SOURCING POLICES PURSUANT TO ``EFFICIENCY
INITIATIVE''.
(a) Temporary Suspension.--During the period beginning on
the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date that
is 60 days after the first date on which the Secretary of
Defense has submitted to the congressional defense committees
both the report required in subsection (b) and the
certification required under subsection (c), no workforce
management and sourcing policies, directives, guidance, or
memoranda issued pursuant to the Department of Defense's
``Efficiency Initiative'' may be announced, carried out,
continued, implemented, or enforced.
(b) Report Required.--The Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness, shall undertake a comprehensive review of the
workforce management and sourcing policies announced by the
Department of Defense pursuant to the ``Efficiency
Initiative'' and submit to the congressional defense
committees a report that describes alternative policies
that--
(1) ensure performance decisions are based on law, risk,
policy, and cost;
(2) reflect a total force policy that takes into account
the strengths and capacities of active and reserve
components, civil servants, contractors, and retired military
personnel in achieving national security objectives and
missions; and
(3) are consistent with the statutory framework for
workforce management and sourcing, including sections 129 and
129a of title 10, United States Code.
(c) Certification Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
publish in the Federal Register and submit to the
congressional defense committees a certification that--
(1) the Secretary of Defense has completed and submitted to
the congressional defense committees a complete inventory of
contracts for services for or on behalf of the Department in
compliance with the requirements of subsection (c) of section
2330a of title 10, United States Code; and
(2) the Secretary of each military department and the head
of each Defense Agency responsible for activities in the
inventory has initiated the review and planning activities of
subsection (e) of such section.
(d) Comptroller General Review.--Not later than 30 days
after the first date on which both the report required under
subsection (b) and the certification required under
subsection (c) have been submitted to the congressional
defense committees, the Comptroller General shall conduct an
assessment of the report required under subsection (b),
determine whether the Department of Defense is compliant with
the certification requirement in subsection (c), and submit
to the congressional defense committees a report on the
findings resulting from those activities.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. One of the questions, Mr. Chairman, that this body and
the administration often face is whether a certain task is best
performed by employees of the Department of Defense or whether that
task is best performed by those working for contractors competing for
the right to do that business.
There are two things I know about this issue. The first is that it is
one we always debate because it's a very difficult one to resolve. And
the second is that I don't think either answer is always the right one.
I think any strategy that presupposes that having employees do a job
isn't right and a strategy that presupposes having contractors do a job
isn't right.
I think we've built a bipartisan consensus around the proposition
that, on a case-by-case basis over time, we should collect evidence and
decide whether or not a certain function is best performed by employees
of the Department of Defense or whether it is best performed on a
competitive contracted-out basis.
The purpose of my amendment is to address what I believe is an
imbalance in this evidence-gathering process that goes under the name
of an efficiency initiative.
I don't think there's a Member on this floor who would oppose an
efficiency initiative. But efficiency is not something that presupposes
that one answer is always better than the others. And I think the
record shows that we're presently living under an initiative that
presupposes that contracting out is better than having Federal
employees perform that function.
Here's the evidence:
Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2010, Department of Defense
services performed by contracting agencies--that is to say companies--
increased from $73 billion in fiscal 2001 to $181 billion in fiscal
2010. This is an increase of 147 percent, or about 15 percent per year.
During the same period of time, the cost of compensating Department of
Defense civilian employees
[[Page H3627]]
grew from $41 billion in fiscal 2001 to $69 billion in fiscal 2010, a
68 percent increase, or just under 7 percent per year.
Now, I am not prejudging as to whether the decisions that make up
those aggregate numbers were all right or all wrong. That would be
certainly beyond anyone's capability to do. But I think that kind of
imbalance shows that we're not conducting the kind of careful, fact-
driven, merit-driven evidentiary process that we ought to be following.
So here's what my amendment does. It says that when our bill is
signed by the President, that there will be a 60-day period where there
will just be a timeout, where we will stop the contracting-out process.
We'll ask the Department of Defense, we'll direct the Department of
Defense to do two things: to answer the question of whether the
decisions it has been taking are truly based on the merits and cost
benefit or whether there are other factors involved. It will then ask
the Department of Defense to certify that the laws and procedures that
we set up in the past to make such decisions have, in fact, been
followed. At the conclusion of that 60-day period, reports will be
given to the Armed Services Committee and the other defense committees
of the Congress, and we will collectively review those reports and make
a decision, in time for next year's bill, what to do.
So this is an amendment that does not favor contracting out or
keeping work in the hands of Federal employees. This is an amendment
that says that we should reflect on the fact that we've had a 147
percent increase in contracted-out services at the time we've had a 68
percent increase in the compensation of civilian employees. We should
pause for 60 days after the bill is enacted, reflect the accuracy of
that record, and then collectively make a decision for the future as to
what's best for the country.
I think this is a reasonable approach to this issue. I would urge a
``yes'' vote from both Republicans and Democrats.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the gentleman's
amendment and I appreciate his work on the Armed Services Committee.
He's always very thoughtful and always committed to the national
defense of our country.
As I listened to him over and over again, I was agreeing with many of
the things that he said. I think oftentimes the decisions that the
Department of Defense has made under the guise of efficiencies have not
been efficiencies at all. They could have actually cost us more. I
think, secondly, they have been made without being well thought out. I
think sometimes they have backfilled their analyses after they made
those decisions.
But as I read the gentleman's amendment, basically it would suspend
all the sourcing and workforce management policies based on all of
DOD's efficiency initiatives, which is a wide gamut. Mr. Chairman, I
think that, even though, as I mentioned before, I think oftentimes the
Department of Defense has been wrong in some of its efficiencies, that
doesn't mean they've been wrong in every situation. And one of the
things that I think is a vital flaw in the gentleman's amendment is
that there's no offset for the amendment to cover the reverse on the
planned savings. In fact, according to the information I have been
given, the cost of not implementing these efficiencies could be as much
as $3 billion. That is off of the top line of the Defense budget. And I
know the gentleman would agree with me that, at this particular point
in time, such a huge hit to the Department of Defense would not be in
the best interest of the national defense of the country.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will oppose the amendment. I
hope that I can work with the gentleman and other members of the
committee so we can make sure DOD gets this right as they move down the
road. But certainly we don't want to put this kind of impact on our men
and women in uniform at this time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Lee
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33
printed in House Report 112-88.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle A of title X of division A, add the
following new section:
SEC. 10__. LIMITATION IN FUNDING LEVEL TO FISCAL YEAR 2008
FUNDING LEVEL.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds are authorized to be made available under this
division for any account of the Department of Defense (other
than accounts listed in subsection (b)) in excess of the
amount made available for such account for fiscal year 2008.
(b) Exempted Accounts.--The accounts exempted pursuant to
this subsection are the following accounts:
(1) Military personnel, reserve personnel, and National
Guard personnel accounts of the Department of Defense.
(2) The Defense Health Program account.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I do intend to withdraw this amendment, but
I'd like to just say why I offered it and why I think this debate is so
important.
We're talking about now trying to address a deficit, which we all
want to address. We do not want to leave this debt to our children and
our grandchildren. That's a given. The big issue I think for many of us
is how do we get there and what do we do? And how do we ensure that we
have a budget that reflects, yes, our national security priorities, but
also a budget that protects the most vulnerable in our country and a
budget that ensures that we have priorities to create jobs and to turn
this economy around?
And so I believe that we have to talk about not only discretionary
spending and entitlement cuts, which the other side is talking about
and making such an issue of. We have not really talked about the
Pentagon budget. We have not talked about looking at what it would mean
if we cut the defense budget back to 2008 as the Republicans want to do
with regard to our domestic discretionary spending.
And so what this amendment basically does is just say that if we are
going to do this, we need to engage in a debate that is honest and we
need to put everything on the table, and that includes the Pentagon.
And in fact, we need to begin to look at how we cut back to 2008
levels.
We all know that there is waste, fraud and abuse in the Pentagon. We
still haven't been able to come up with a way to audit the Pentagon
funds, and so we need to do that. I think we should actually put a
freeze on defense spending until we know where our tax dollars are
going and until we know that our tax dollars are being spent in a
prudent way. We don't even know that because we can't even get an audit
of the Pentagon.
We also need to recognize that there are weapons systems that do not
need to be built because they have nothing to do with our national
security interests now. I mean, we are out of the Cold War. We are
looking at asymmetrical warfare. We need to have a research and
development program and a defense budget that reflects this new world
that we're in, rather than going back to the Cold War and developing
these Cold War-era weapons systems. So there are billions of dollars in
those accounts.
And so it is just prudent, I think, upon us to really begin to look
at why, if we're going to start cutting food stamps and Community
Development Block Grants and housing, and if we start cutting workforce
training and
[[Page H3628]]
Head Start and health care and all of the areas which the majority of
the American people rely on as taxpayers, then we need to really look
at where a huge portion of our budget falls, and that's within the
Pentagon's budget.
Also, we again want to talk about reducing the deficit, cutting the
deficit. There is no way we will even touch this unless we begin to
look at the defense budget and the Pentagon's budget.
And so basically, once again, this amendment, what it does is it
forces us to pause; it forces us to look at what type of savings there
would be if we go back to 2008 as we want to do with domestic
discretionary spending.
Again, I hope that we can discuss this amendment, have this debate. I
know there are not enough votes to get this passed, but I do know that
we need to begin this process of looking at and examining the defense
budget so that the American people can know where their tax dollars are
going and to recognize that there are billions of dollars in waste,
fraud and abuse that we need to look at in the Pentagon budget.
And we need to put all of this on hold and go back to 2008 levels, be
honest with the American people, and begin to have some real debate
about deficit reduction, job creation, and the reduction of spending.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my amendment. Thank you for
the time, and let's hope that we can have a debate on the Pentagon
budget at some point, a real debate.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California begs leave to
withdraw her amendment.
Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Richmond
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37
printed in House Report 112-88.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 438, after the matter after line 2, insert the
following:
SEC. 1022. PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF FUNDS RELATED TO CLOSURE
OF CERTAIN SHIPYARD FACILITY.
The Secretary of Defense may not make any payments pursuant
to section 2325 of title 10, United States Code, to a
contractor related to the restructuring or closure of the
shipyard manufacturing complex located in Avondale,
Louisiana.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. RICHMOND. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my colleagues to support an amendment and
restore fiscal common sense back to government.
This amendment would save the U.S. taxpayers up to $310 million,
which would be paid to a private company in Avondale, Louisiana for
what? For closing. And before we get too far into policy and other
things, I want to actually read the language of the amendment so that
the American people can understand exactly what we're doing, Mr.
Chairman.
The amendment simply says that the Secretary of Defense may not make
any payments pursuant to section 2325 of title 10, United States Code,
to a contractor related to the restructuring or closure of a shipyard
manufacturing complex located in Avondale, Louisiana.
Now, many people may say, well, what am I attempting to stop? Let me
just take a minute and say what's going on here. We have a business in
Avondale, Louisiana that employs almost 5,000 shipbuilders. They were
spun off this year. Northrop Grumman received $1.4 billion for this
company. By the way, Northrop Grumman made $530 million this quarter.
So the new company, Huntington Ingalls, is closing the shipyard. And
because they're closing the shipyard, the U.S. Government--the
taxpayers of this country--will pay them up to $310 million for
closing.
That's insanity, Mr. Chairman. And as I met with those employees last
week, they said, Congressman, we don't know if you can stop it, but the
offensive part, the part that makes this very hard for us, is the fact
that our tax dollars are being used to pay our employer who is giving
us all pink slips.
So I would just implore my colleagues to save the Federal Government
$310 million in a time when we're cutting Medicare, in a time when
we're cutting our children's future, cutting their education, and we're
not feeding the hungry. So this is an attempt to save $310 million.
And I would also add to all of my colleagues who have great ideas and
are looking for a pay-for, I am volunteering $310 million out of my
district so that we can put back into the Federal Government so that we
can pay down the debt and do other things. But we do not need this $310
million going to a private company who made $45 million just this
quarter for closing.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AKIN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, the question involves the Avondale shipyard--
which used to be Northrop Grumman, it is now a part of Huntington--and
there are essentially three possibilities of what might happen to the
shipyard. One possibility is that we leave the shipyard there to build
ships for the Navy. The trouble is that we don't have enough demand or
we don't have enough money to buy the ships that we would need to keep
that shipyard busy, which then means that we are trying to build ships
at a lot of locations where we don't have enough ships to get any
economic benefits.
The result of that is it is going to cost the taxpayer and the Navy a
whole lot more money to keep a shipyard open when we don't really have
work for the shipyard. So that's one possibility. You could force it to
stay open; it's going to cost the most to the taxpayer.
Another possibility is that the shipyard, because of the many people
that work there, could be retooled and redesigned to use it for
building other kinds of things other than Navy ships. That would
preserve the jobs. And the Navy is willing to invest some money--as
long as it is less than what it would cost to keep the thing open.
They're willing to invest some money to help with that transition so
those people won't be unemployed.
The other thing that could be done is you could just close the
shipyard down. Now, what this amendment does is it says, well, we're
not going to allow the Navy to invest in retooling. So it's sort of
like a dare because it's really begging to have the whole shipyard
close down and not used for anything else. So it's kind of a gamble to
try to say, well, we're going to save $310 million and gamble that that
shipyard is going to stay open. Because the possibility is if you say
the Navy is not going to invest the money, they may just say, well,
close it down. Then you would lose all those jobs. So this amendment
may do the exact opposite of what you are trying to do.
I would now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wittman).
{time} 1750
Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to also rise in
opposition to this amendment.
Passage of this amendment may result in the government being liable
for the costs of maintaining these idle facilities. If we're looking at
the total picture here, we want to make sure we are making the most
efficient decision in right-sizing this industry. And after a thorough
review and endorsement by the Department of Defense, the contractor's
plans to wind down ship construction were approved back in 2010.
This amendment seeks to prohibit payments under existing Federal law
for restructuring costs associated with the transition of the Avondale
shipyard. And I want to emphasize ``transition'' is the key word here
because as the law is currently written, it allows the facility in
Louisiana to potentially be reconfigured to an alternate use in the
future.
So if we want to transition, make sure we are using that yard, using
the employees there, if we don't have the capacity needed to build
ships, we want to make sure we can transition.
[[Page H3629]]
If this amendment were to become law, there is no chance of
transitioning the Avondale facility to something other than
shipbuilding, and the government may be held liable for the costs of
maintaining an idle shipyard. We don't want that. We want to make sure
that capacity is used in a productive way.
So simply put, this amendment will not prevent the closure of
Avondale. And I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. AKIN. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. AKIN. The basic point is that the fact that this is going to save
$310 million is not true. What this in fact is going to do is to force
a solution that will be more expensive for the government and not very
good for the employees down at Avondale either.
So I have to say along with the Navy and the leadership on the
committee that we cannot really support this amendment. I think that
the gentleman had very good intentions of what he's trying to
accomplish, but I don't believe it's going to work the way he thinks
it's going to. It's going to probably force a closure and a whole lot
of layoffs that unnecessarily would not have to happen if we don't pass
this amendment. So I'm going to oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to clear up some things.
I don't want this shipyard to close, but I want to be crystal clear
about this. The Huntington Eagles just christened a ship a couple of
weeks ago; and while they christened the ship with all of their
employees there, they took the time to announce to their employees that
we are closing. The 3,000 employees that are here, you will no longer
be here. We are shutting down. We're closing. It's not personal. It's
business.
As much as I don't like it, this is a private business that has
decided that they are going to close. What I don't want to do is take
those taxpayer dollars and reward them for closing in the process.
So when you talk about they can retool or do something in the future,
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to pretend or mislead the American people.
They have yet to bid on a shipbuilding contract since they have
acquired the yard. They have no intentions to build ships there in the
future.
As we talk about what they could do with the yard and this may force
a closure, they have decided that they are going to close. They made
$45 million in the first quarter of this year. They announced that
they're not going to bid on ships, they're not going to do anything.
They're not going to stay open. Why would we give them $310 million of
taxpayer dollars and then pretend that we're fiscally responsible? It's
not fiscally responsible.
The good thing for me is I don't have to go back to my district,
whether it's Virginia or Missouri, and explain to my constituents why
I'm fighting to give a company in Louisiana $310 million while I'm
cutting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all of these other
things.
I just wanted to clear up the fact that it's not an assumption that
they're going to close. They already have informed their employees that
we're closing. Hey, it's been a good ride. Thirty-five hundred
employees. See you later. Six thousand indirect jobs. We wish we could
stay, but we've made another decision.
It is a private company's right to decide when they want to close.
And I disagree with their decision, but I respect that this is America
and they have a right to do that. But I have a right to be upset and to
try to block Federal dollars going to them, and that's $310 million
going to a company for quitting. That's not the American way, Mr.
Chairman.
And I would just ask my colleagues to support the amendment and not
give $310 million to a company who just made $45 million in 3 months
that's quitting on the American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Mica
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38
printed in House Report 112-88.
Mr. MICA. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following new
section:
SEC. 1085. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES DEPLOYED IN DESIGNATED HOSTILE FIRE
AREAS.
The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the rules of
engagement applicable to members of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty in any hostile fire area designated for purposes of
section 310 or 351(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code--
(1) fully protect the members' right to bear arms; and
(2) authorize the members to fully defend themselves from
hostile actions.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First I want to thank the members of the committee for allowing me to
bring forth this amendment, also the Rules Committee for allowing me to
have it considered by the House.
This is a simple amendment, and this is an amendment that I almost
think I'm offering not on behalf of myself but on behalf of our troops.
I usually don't get involved in armed services matters, but I did have
the opportunity to visit our troops in Afghanistan in March of some
weeks past. And I was out in some of the forward operating positions in
Afghanistan, and I asked the troops a question--you know, sometimes you
get a few minutes of quiet time with our troops that are serving us out
there in those dangerous areas out there. And I said, When I return to
Congress, what could I do to help you do a better job? What would
assist you?
And every one of them said to me, Mr. Mica, could you change the
rules of engagement?
So I'm offering this amendment on their behalf and on behalf of all
the servicemen and -women who should be able to defend themselves in
hostile areas. I'm not trying to micromanage the military, but I have
just a basic provision that says--and let me read it: ``The Secretary
of Defense shall ensure that the rules of engagement applicable to
members of the armed services assigned to duty in any hostile fire
area''--and we have a definition for that--``shall,'' and then ``one,
fully protect the members' rights to bear arms; and, two, to authorize
the members to fully defend themselves from hostile actions.'' The
Secretary would set those parameters.
This is my amendment. I believe that implementing a successful
calendar insurgency strategy should not come at the cost of needlessly
increasing American or coalition military casualties.
If we ask members of our Armed Forces to risk their lives to protect
the home front, we must do all we can to help them with the material
and the options and the ability to preserve their lives to fight on our
behalf in hostile areas.
Please help me in arming our Armed Forces and also providing them
with what I believe is the opportunity to adequately defend themselves
in hostile theaters.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I will begin by yielding 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
[[Page H3630]]
My objection, respectfully, to this amendment is it supplants the
decision of the commander in the field with the judgment of the
Congress. I frankly agree that there are very, very few circumstances I
could imagine where we would not want our troops in the field to be
fully armed to their complete comfort and satisfaction level. And so
it's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where that's not the case.
But it's easy for me to understand a circumstance where the person in
the field who is charged with the responsibility of achieving the
mission and achieving maximum protection of his or her troops should
have the authority to make that decision.
So my objection to this is not the intent. I think we share it. My
objection is the fact that the amendment supplants the judgment of that
commander in the field and replaces it with the judgment we are making
here thousands of miles away based on facts that we could not possibly
foresee.
So although I share the gentleman's intent, for that reason I would
respectfully encourage the Members to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
{time} 1800
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MICA. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition for a very simple reason.
As the gentleman said in his opening remarks in favor of the
amendment, he does not wish to micromanage what goes on in the field. I
think there can be no more blatant micromanaging than this. Having
Congress insert itself into the debate about what the rules of
engagement should be in the field of operations for the military is
micromanaging in the absolute worst way. We should trust our commanders
in the field to make those decisions, and those decisions are and
always will be controversial, both ways, in terms of what the rules of
engagement should be.
I will simply make the very clear statement that I want our trained
commanders in the field to make the decision on what the rules of
engagement should be in any given environment, not the United States
Congress. This is not a debate that we should insert ourselves into,
and I believe that we should defeat this amendment and leave the
authority with the commanders, where it belongs.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Let me say that the United States Congress does set the
policy for engaging in war and hostile actions. The Secretary of
Defense has clearly given the authority here to provide, again,
applicable provisions for how this would apply.
In closing, our troops, our servicemen and -women, should not be used
at target practice in any hostile theater. They should be given the
basic right to bear arms and defend themselves.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah) assumed the chair.
____________________