TBI Treatment Act

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the House now is a relatively simple one. We have, over the last 10 years, lost 42,000 factories in this country. We have lost 5 million jobs in manufacturing. And we've had a long discussion here in this Congress over the past 3 years as to what we can do to stimulate that engine of middle class job growth and security.

This amendment seeks to increase our defense industrial capacity without spending any additional money. What the amendment before us simply allows is for the Federal Government to be able to consider at their leisure the amount of jobs being created here in the United States by a particular bid for U.S. defense work.

Frankly, most of my constituents think this already happens. Most of my constituents think that there is an ability for the Federal Government today to factor in, when awarding a particular bid, which bid is going to create more jobs here in the United States versus overseas. This amendment is purely permissive. Frankly, if it were up to me, I would make it mandatory. But this amendment, which in bill form came out of the Government Oversight Committee last Congress unanimously, allows an individual contractor in their bid submission to state how many American jobs they are going to create, and then simply allows the contracting agency to factor that into their bid award, and then requires a report back to Congress as to how often that information, that job impact statement was used.

This seems like common sense to me. The reason to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are spent through the Defense Department on U.S. jobs is certainly economic in nature. At 9 percent unemployment, we should be better stewards of U.S. taxpayer dollars, on making sure that to the extent possible they are spent on U.S. jobs.

But it is also a very important strategic defense policy for this Nation. As our supply chain for DOD gets internationalized on a daily and weekly basis, we're putting this country at jeopardy. In my own district, I have one of the last--in fact, the last American company that makes copper-nickel tubing for the sub-fleet. Because there is one foreign manufacturer that is on the verge of putting them out of business, we are about to lose our only domestic capability for a critical component of that sub-fleet. It makes sense to give them some capacity to at least make the case to the U.S. contracting agencies that this work should stay here.

I think this is an important amendment for job creation but, frankly, just as important for U.S. strategic purposes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will make three quick points in response.

First, the amendment does not require that contractor to be debarred. It just simply allows for the possibility of debarment if they have significantly undersold or oversold, frankly, the amount of jobs that are going to be created. It is just an ability, frankly, that would exist under current law as to permissive debarment.

Second, I think my constituents are reflective of most people's constituents here. I think they expect that when they send their taxpayer dollars to Washington that there will be a preference for U.S. jobs. Most people I talk to are surprised that it's not a factor.

And third, we have to look at the holistic cost about sourcing to the Federal Government. It may be so that a particular part for a jet engine is 10 percent cheaper to buy it from a Chinese shop than an American shop. But when that American shop goes out of business, it costs the U.S. Government more money, not less, because we then have to pay unemployment compensation. We lose all of the tax revenue. We

likely have to pay other social safety net costs.

So we have to start being smart about how we use taxpayer dollars and recognize that when we buy something overseas, the contract price may be 10 percent less, but the overall cost to the U.S. Government is much more.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I think this is a very important debate to have to show who is really focusing on the best use of taxpayer dollars for the creation of U.S. jobs. I appreciate the opportunity to have this debate on the floor of the House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this amendment, and I want to thank the cosponsors: Representatives Hanabusa, Langevin, Loebsack, and Reyes.

This amendment is designed to preserve current law with respect to the service contracts and outsourcing activity of the Department of Defense.

Current law now has in place a requirement that before the Department of Defense can do more outsourcing, can do more privatization of service contracts, they have to do an inventory of the contracting activity that's already in place. And this makes perfect sense. This is really a good government proposition if you think about it. It's important enough that it was included in the 2010 Defense Authorization Act; so it is part of current law.

Unfortunately, the proposed bill, the new Defense Authorization Act, would remove this requirement. And if you remove that requirement, you're really undermining the public's stake in making sure that government is functioning in an efficient manner.

Now, the impetus for having this kind of requirement in place--and the amendment that we're putting forward here today would maintain the requirement that's currently in law--the impetus came from a lot of research that showed that in many instances the costs to the government and, therefore, to the taxpayer of outsourcing these various services of the Federal Government, particularly within the Department of Defense that this is directed

at, the costs did not justify the activity, and in many instances you didn't get better performance when you had this outsourcing. In fact, you got worse performance.

So when those studies were done and that research was done, there was a move to make sure that the Department of Defense would conduct an inventory. The current law says that no further contracting can occur until the Secretary has certified to Congress that a contractor inventory has been developed, reviewed, and integrated into the budget process. That makes a lot of sense. Our amendment would restore this provision and therefore keep current law in place with respect to this contracting activity and inventory.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Well, I couldn't agree with what my colleague said more. I mean, we do want to have a balanced approach. Nobody's arguing--certainly I'm not arguing that we should eliminate outsourcing or the privatization of certain services where that makes sense. In fact, what the amendment that we're proposing here would do is keep in law a process whereby the Department of Defense looks at its contracting activities through a commonsense lens and determines whether continued outsourcing in some instances makes sense, whether additional outsourcing makes sense.

Right now, there does not exist a comprehensive inventory of these contracting activities, so how are you going to make a commonsense judgment about where to allocate your resources going forward if you don't have that at your disposal? That's why the requirement was put in place. I think it's very bipartisan in that sense because it's saying let's get as much knowledge as we can so the government can run efficiently and make these decisions in an efficient way, which is very much in keeping with what the public wants to see these days.

So this is about good government. It's about having good information at your fingertips.

We think that the requirement to do this kind of inventory ought to stay in place. The underlying bill right now would remove that commonsense requirement, and this amendment would put it back. That is why we are putting forward the amendment today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, let me just say in support of this amendment that I am not on the House Armed Services Committee, but what I understand is the report that was approved last week by the committee criticized the Department of Defense for failing to inventory service contracts, which is what we are trying to accomplish here. That is why we are supporting this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. This is about local jobs for local companies.

Many of us have in our districts military facilities of large and small size. All too often those facilities and the work done on those facilities, performed by contractors, often national contractors, totally ignores and provides little or no opportunity for local subcontractors. This amendment would simply require that for prime contractors on military installations across this Nation they would be required to allow 40 percent of their contracts, by dollar value, to be available for local subcontractors.

Not a bad idea, it seems to me.

I know that, in my area of Travis Air Force Base in Solano County, there are constant--constant--complaints from local contractors that the big boys come in, hog all the work, and leave nothing behind except a few more burgers bought at McDonald's.

Not good enough.

This amendment deals with that issue by providing local contractors, often Republican contractors, the opportunity to have work in their communities, and ``local'' is defined as within 60 miles of the base. So I ask for an aye vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am shocked, absolutely shocked that my Republican friend isn't standing firm for small businesses in their communities. Would you like 61 or 60,000 miles? Whatever it is, we want the small contractors to have a shot at it. Be happy to amend to whatever mileage you would like.

I yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am delighted to hear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree there is a problem. I would suggest to them that we put this amendment into the bill so that we have the opportunity in the weeks ahead, as this bill matures in the two Houses and in the conference committee, that we deal with it.

There is nothing special about 60 or 61 miles, but there is certainly something special about providing local contractors with the opportunity. As I understand, Fort Hood is a very, very big facility. Perhaps you would like 63\1/4\ miles from the outside edge of the perimeter of the facility. Whatever. The problem remains.

I would really urge my colleagues to allow this amendment to go forward so that there is a basis for negotiations in this legislation. Otherwise, we are going to wait a year before we will be able to come back to deal with this. And in that period of time, thousands upon thousands of small businesses will be excluded. There is a problem. We know there is a problem. Move this amendment along, and then spend the next month, 2 months until this bill matures, and then we can work out the appropriate language. But let's all recognize there is a problem and we need to get to it. So let's move the bill.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I think the gentleman from Texas missed the point entirely. It is not about mileage. It is

about giving local contractors the opportunity. The offer I made to my colleagues on the right, my Republican colleagues, is put this amendment forward so that we have the opportunity in this legislation to work our way through this. We all understand there is a problem. We all want our local contractors, whatever that means, to have an opportunity at these jobs.

There is a problem. The large national contractors are taking it all. They are coming into our communities and walking away with all of it. That's a problem for all of us who represent any military facility in this Nation. So let's move forward with this, put this amendment in, and then we will work it out. Maybe mileage isn't the best way. Local, maybe that needs to be defined. Forty percent, 39 percent, we can pick a number, or maybe no number at all. But we do know there is a problem, and we ought to be addressing it in this legislation this year. I would ask for your support. If you care about small businesses, then don't wait another year to solve the problem.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman for his amendment, but, Mr. Chairman, most of all, I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee for doing what many people often think is impossible in this House, and that is bringing forth a bipartisan bill, 60-1. 60-1, in the committee, this bill passed with this provision in it.

One of the keys with bipartisanship is that the American people realize it's important when we come to national defense that we have both Republicans and Democrats supporting in the same direction. And the key to that oftentimes is the word ``balance,'' which is not always a sexy issue, but it is so important.

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, when it comes to the workforce, there are some people who don't like the word ``balance.'' They either want every single employee to be a government employee and hired by the government--some on this side, some on this side--but then, Mr. Chairman, there are other people who want everybody to be in the private sector. I think the beauty of this piece of legislation is it struck the right balance for the national defense of this country because it struck a balance. And it said what we realize is from every general, every admiral, everyone who testified: We can no longer do it with just all government employees; we can't do it with all military employees; we can't do it with all contract employees; but every single one of them will tell you we need that mix.

The wonderful thing about this piece of legislation that this amendment tries to take away is that it creates a comprehensive approach to workforce management and a total force management, which is what we need to do, the most important thing this legislation does, which is to defend and protect the people of the United States of America.

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will reject this amendment, that we will keep the bipartisan approach that came out of this committee's work, that we will keep the balance, we will not remove this tool from the arsenal that the Department of Defense needs, and we will reject the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I don't think the gentleman is on the Armed Services Committee so oftentimes might not have heard so many times the people who meet with us and tell us the importance they need for this overall comprehensive approach. And I'll just point out to the gentleman, as he mentioned the need for an inventory, it's in the bill.

The second thing I would tell you is the inventory alone doesn't do anything unless we go the next step, which is in this bill, which is to say that we're going to develop a policy from the inventory. We can have all the inventory, all the statistics in the world, but what's wonderful about this bill and what this bill does is it takes all of that information and it creates a total force management approach, which is exactly what we need for the national defense of this country.

Mr. Chairman, for the life of me, I don't know why we would want to try to skew that one way or the other and take away opportunities for the Department of Defense to get the right balance between military, civilian, and contractor personnel.

The bill that came out of the committee--again, 60-1, overwhelmingly supported by the people who have been at all the hearings, heard all the testimony--is a bipartisan approach, strikes the right balance. This amendment would skew that balance.

I hope we will reject the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman, he is right. That's why we have the inventory included in here. That's why we require the policy. All of that is included in here, it's just that the approach that the Armed Services Committee has done is a much more balanced approach. It's one that gives the Department of Defense the tools they need.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and hope we will defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chair, over the past four years, the Department of Defense has spent $1.55 billion for its 150 military bands and more than 5,000 full-time, professional military musicians. In FY 2013, from funds authorized in this bill, the Pentagon plans to spend another $388 million for military bands.

My amendment is very simple. It caps spending on military bands in this bill at $200 million.

I was raised in a military family, Mr. Chair, and I understand the important role that bands have in our nation's proud military tradition. That's why my amendment provides $200 million for the Pentagon to continue this tradition. But as families and communities across this country see critical services reduced or eliminated because of Republican budget cuts, I think it's time we ask the Pentagon to make a small sacrifice in its musical budget.

Just last week, 218 of my Republican colleagues voted to eliminate health coverage for at least 300,000 children by cutting the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Today, I urge my colleagues to cut funding for military bands with the same sense of urgency that they cut care for poor kids.

In passing H.R. 5652, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act of 2012, House Republicans voted to shield the Pentagon from the automatic spending cuts agreed to in the Budget Control Act. They did it by cutting

over $300 billion from domestic programs for our most vulnerable citizens.

In order to protect the Pentagon from sequestration--including military bands--and actually increase defense spending, the House voted to:

Cut nutrition assistance for low-income seniors, people with disabilities, and families.

Eliminate funding for Meals On Wheels for seniors.

Slash child care services for working parents, and protective services for abused children.

Deny school lunches to more than 200,000 children.

Repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which supports breast cancer screenings for women, immunizations for children, and community education efforts.

Repeal funding for state health insurance exchanges, which will make it easier for families to find affordable health insurance.

Those were cuts that will have a real, severe impact on families in Minnesota and throughout the United States.

For my 218 Republican colleagues who voted last week to replace the defense sequester cuts by slashing domestic programs, this should be an easy vote.

Surely, no one in this body can claim that funding for the Air Force Wild Blue Country Band, or the Navy Crescent Brass Quintet Band, or the Army String Band, or the Navy Show band, or the Air Force Singing Sergeants is more important than funding programs critical to our nation's children, seniors, and working families.

One of our primary duties as Members of Congress is to provide the resources and policy guidance necessary to protect our nation. We must make certain that every dollar in this bill contributes to our national defense.

In a fiscal crisis, $200 million must be enough for the Department of Defense to continue its time-honored musical tradition.

If House Republicans are asking low income families, seniors, and disabled Americans to go without the services they rely on, it's time the Pentagon makes do with $200 million for military bands.

It's time we ask the Army to do with fewer than 100 bands.

It's time we ask the Air Force to scale back its Country Western band.

It's time we ask the Pentagon to share some of the sacrifice that American families are being asked to bear.

And with $200 million, the military music will surely continue to grace our nation's parades and ceremonies, and provide comfort to our military families at funerals.

Mr. Chair, this exact amendment was adopted unanimously by voice vote and passed by the full House of Representatives in last year's National Defense Authorization bill, H.R. 1540. Why? Because in this time of fiscal crisis and deep cuts to discretionary spending, it makes no sense to borrow nearly $400 million from Communist China to pay for military bands.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment is nothing more than a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft Executive order, which would provide for increased disclosure of political contributions of government contractors.

The draft Executive order being developed by the Obama administration would require Federal contractors to disclose more information about their political contributions than they currently provide, particularly those contributions given to third-party entities.

Some have said that they oppose this effort because additional information could be used nefariously to create a ``Nixonian type enemies list.'' In other words, they argue that companies should not disclose more information because people in power could misuse the information to retaliate against them.

I have a fundamental problem with this premise. Under this logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad, not just the new ones. Government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. Contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors are also required to be disclosed. Should we eliminate those provisions, too? Of course not.

A second argument made by the opponents is that contracting officers might review political contributions in order to reward allies or to punish foes by awarding or withholding government contracts. Again, this could happen now under current disclosure rules, but Federal procurement law prohibits this.

The draft executive order also reiterates ``every stage of the contracting process'' must be ``free from the undue influence of factors extraneous to the underlying merits of the contracting decision-making, such as political activity or political favoritism.''

A third argument that the draft executive order violates the First Amendment is also grossly misplaced. Even in the recent Citizens United case, eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices agreed that campaign disclosure rules are consistent with the First Amendment because they do not prohibit contributions and ``do not prevent anyone from speaking.''

For all of these reasons, a broad coalition of dozens of open government organizations strongly supports the administration's draft executive order; and more than 30 groups, including nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations like Democracy 21, the Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, and many others have concluded that the draft executive order would enhance transparency and decrease-- decrease--corruption.

These are not the only groups that support the draft executive order. Two weeks ago, a coalition of institutional investors and investor coalitions, collectively managing $130 billion in assets, also wrote to express their support. In their letter, they explained, ``Corporate political activity presents significant risks to shareholder value,'' and ``transparency allows investors to put together a more complete picture of the various risks to our investments.''

As the Los Angeles Times said in a recent editorial, ``Disclosure is the solution, not the problem.''

I firmly believe that to be the case, and I urge Members to defeat the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what we're afraid of. What are we afraid of? This is about the American people knowing what these people are spending. That's what it's about. It's not about trying to make decisions on contracting.

I just said, Mr. Chairman, that the law is very clear that they cannot do that. It's about the American people knowing what's going on. I think we have to guard our democracy, and one of the best ways to guard it is through disclosure. If folks aren't doing anything, there's nothing to be afraid of. So why do we want to hide? We need a transparent democracy. That's what this is all about: transparency.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, in the current budget debate, I often hear from my Republican colleagues that everything should be on the table. By that they usually mean every domestic program that helps working families make ends meet should be on the table.

But if everything is really on the table, that has to include expensive weapons systems that have failed to contribute to our national security, like the V-22 Osprey aircraft. That's why I'm offering this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which will eliminate funding for the V-22 Osprey aircraft.

The Osprey's mishaps have become practically the stuff of legend. It's a poster child for the excesses and inefficiencies of the military industrial complex.

Its safety record is abysmal. Thirty Americans have been killed during V-22 training exercises. Most recently, Madam Chair, during a public demonstration in New York last spring, its prop rotors knocked down tree limbs and injured 10 civilian bystanders.

The Marine Corps itself has even concluded that leaving the engine idling could generate such high temperatures that the entire flight deck could melt in 10 minutes. In 2009, a GAO report gave the Osprey mediocre marks and questioned its ability to perform all of the functions of the helicopter it's supposed to replace. From its ability to operate in high-threat environments to carrying troops and transporting cargo, the Osprey underperformed across the board. I'm still trying to figure out what good it is to have a combat plane that doesn't operate well in high-threat environments. That's like having a coat that doesn't do well in the cold. If you had one, you'd stop wearing it; and you wouldn't spend more and more each year on the same flawed coat.

The V-22 Osprey is a boondoggle. One aspect of its maintenance even includes a special lightweight paint that costs $75,000 per aircraft-- and we thought $600 toilet seats at the Pentagon were a rip-off. At a time when Americans are being forced to tighten their belts, they don't want to pay $75,000 to paint a plane that has done little to keep the country safe.

It's the job of the Pentagon to protect the American people, not to make defense contractors rich by perpetuating systems and programs long beyond the point that they've failed. That's why the cochairs of the Fiscal Commission, Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson, recommended canceling the V-22. That's why the most hawkish of any U.S. Government official I can remember, a former Defense Secretary named Dick Cheney, wanted to terminate it at least 20 years ago.

The V-22 Osprey has been given more than enough time to prove its worth. It has been over a quarter of a century. It has cost taxpayers over $32 billion--money we could have been spending on programs the American people need. And for the sake of our national defense, and in the name of fiscal discipline, this V-22 must go. So I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I wouldn't blame the gentleman from Texas for supporting the V-22 when a great bit of it is built in his district and he needs to defend it.

But I'd like to just repeat so that people understand this. So far, the V-22 has cost over $32 billion. When it was initiated in 1986, it was estimated to cost $39 billion. Today, it's estimated to cost $53 billion. Terminating the V-22 would save $10 billion to $12 billion over the next 10 years. Actually, it would save $2\1/2\ billion in funding for procurement of the Navy and Air Force just this year alone.

With that, Madam Chair, I'd like to say if you're talking about everything on the table, look at this. It's had its turn, 20, 30 years to prove itself; and it's time that we end this relationship.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 270, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 45 Offered by Gohmert

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 271, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Coffman of Colorado

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 272, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Keating

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 273, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 274, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Carson of Indiana

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 275, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Cummings

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 276, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Sablan

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 277, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 278, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 279, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 280, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Rigell

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 281, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 42 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 282, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 283, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Coffman of Colorado

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 284, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 49 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 285, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 286, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Pearce

Mr. Chair, on rollcall 287, I was away from the Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Mr. McKeon