National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013
Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I yield myself 2 minutes. As the ranking member on Readiness, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman. The amendment flies in the face of the total force management…
Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
I yield myself 2 minutes.
As the ranking member on Readiness, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The amendment flies in the face of the total force management provisions adopted by Congress on a bipartisan basis in last year's defense bill and supported by the sponsor of this amendment. Defense Secretary Panetta has stated he is committed to promoting and facilitating improved total force management that is requirements-based and delivers the appropriate mix of civilian, military, and contracted support.
The amendment does not simply lift the A 76 moratorium, as the author suggests. I would note that our committee, on a bipartisan basis, rejected an amendment to lift the moratorium by a bipartisan 25 36 vote. This amendment simply guts how the Department of Defense manages its personnel and reduces oversight of many contracted functions. The amendment is contrary to the bipartisan consensus that this Congress has forged in how DOD should and can manage its personnel.
So I'm asking, do not vote on lifting the A 76 moratorium. Say ``no'' to this amendment. And I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
Mr. Chairman, I can speak from firsthand experience. The A 76 program was a pilot program in the territory of Guam a few years ago. I served as Lieutenant Governor at the time, and I will say this for the record that this program was a dismal failure, and that's what we experienced.
The Department of Defense has found in-sourcing to be very effective. It's an effective tool for the Department to rebalance the workforce, to realign inherently governmental and other critical work to government performance from contract support and, in many instances, to generate resource efficiencies.
So, again, we should vote ``no'' on this amendment. Lifting the A 76 moratorium would be a sad mistake on our part.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While I appreciate the gentleman's support for direct-solar energy, this provision helps a specific technology to gain greater business opportunities. Unfortunately, their technology--direct solar--does not generate electricity or energy. It simply dispenses sunlight from skylights. If this amendment were to pass, the Department of Defense could meet all of their renewable-energy goals simply by accounting for light through windows, and this is not wise.
By adopting this amendment, we head down a slippery slope whereby we begin to highlight specific technologies in statute. And given the evolving nature of these technologies, that is not wise. The Department of Energy is the lead Department for defining energy standards and definitions, and this amendment undermines that expertise. Again, this seemingly innocuous amendment has some significant unintended consequences.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Washington 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, by allowing direct solar to be used to meet the DOD goal of producing or procuring 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025 would also permit sunlight from windows to be counted toward meeting that goal.
Unlike a heat pump that converts the renewable geothermal source into electricity, direct solar does not convert the renewable solar source into electricity. It disperses light into a room similar to a skylight.
The underlying law that this amendment seeks to modify states that ``renewable energy source'' means energy generated from renewable sources. Direct solar does not generate energy, and the sponsor's Dear Colleague actually states that.
Direct solar is important to our efforts to reduce our dependence of fossil fuel as an energy-efficient technology, and we address this in our House report accompanying this bill. However, if deemed renewable, it would undermine congressional intent for how DOD will meet its goals for renewable sources that generate energy.
The Department of Defense opposes this amendment, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.