Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, my friend, Mr. Smith.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from Virginia for yielding. I am entirely sympathetic to my friend from California's view that it is probable, maybe even certain, the Defense Department could function with fewer civilian employees than it does right now. And I think the Secretary of Defense shares our conviction because he has frozen the number of civilian employees at FY 2010 levels. Now, here is my concern with the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment makes it the law of the land that the correct number of civilian employees in the Department of Defense 5 years from now should be 40,000 persons, more or less, fewer than we have right now. I don't know if that is the right or the wrong number. And I would suggest, frankly, that none of us here know if that is the right or the wrong number. The proper way to go about this, which the Secretary has in fact done, is to make an assessment of the needs of the Department and the functions that it serves and then to balance those needs against the three ways you can serve those needs. You can either have civilian employees perform the task, you can hire outside contractors to perform the task, or you can delegate the task to uniformed employees. By choosing an arbitrary number of 40,000 civilian employees fewer than what we have right now, it seems to me that we don't know if that fits the size of the job we have; and if it doesn't fit the size of the job that we have, it necessitates an increase of contracts or an increase of duties for uniformed personnel, the consequences of which none of us, frankly, have the ability to know. So I share the desire to properly fit the size of the civilian workforce to the job that has to be done. I just can't concluded with any degree of confidence that a workforce that is 40,000 persons fewer is the right fit. My concern is this would have the effect of shifting responsibilities to uniformed personnel when they have more urgent priorities to achieve. I would urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we support the authority of our President to relentlessly hunt down those who attacked us on 9/11 anywhere, at any time. But we do not support the right of this or any future President to wage war anywhere, at any time, and I believe that's what the underlying bill does. The underlying bill says that you can engage in the current armed conflict against a nation that has substantially supported al Qaeda. There is a record that suggests that Iran has substantially supported al Qaeda in Iraq. I don't think the Members of this body think that we have the power to attack Iran without further congressional action. There is evidence that Hezbollah has supported al Qaeda and similar organizations. I don't think the Members of this body think that we have the right to attack Lebanon and Hezbollah without further action of this Congress. We should never relent in going after those who attacked us on 9/11, but we should never ignore the constitutional prerogative of this House and the Senate to engage in the declaration of war.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for offering the amendment. We are inclined to oppose the amendment on the following grounds: in 2005, Congress enacted the Sunken Military Craft Act and the principal purpose of that law was to preserve U.S. sovereignty and Department of Defense sovereignty over sunken vessels and abandoned aircraft and the like for strategic and economic purposes, and also to protect the remains and property of those who may have perished on those sunken vessels. It's my understanding that this amendment draws a distinction between such vessels that were in noncommercial service versus commercial service. And although I think I understand the justification for that distinction, here is our concern with the consequence of that. It is our understanding there is pending litigation between the nation of Spain and a private venture over the disposition of rights to a sunken vessel that at least at one time--I suppose the time it was sunk--may have had some claim in the United States. I don't know if that is the case. Our concern is that by taking statutory action here, we may be in some way interfering with the outcome of that litigation or the process of that litigation. I would yield to my friend, the author of the amendment, to ask if that is his intention.

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman's distinction makes sense. We have spoken to the Navy about this, and the Navy's objection is predicated upon its concern that there could be an impact on the litigation that is pending that I made reference to and possibly claims of other sovereign nations in similar situations. So, reluctantly, we would be inclined to oppose the amendment, but obviously be willing to discuss with the gentleman as time goes forward ways that perhaps our concerns could be addressed. So for present purposes, we would be in opposition to the amendment for the reasons that I stated. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining on our side?

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

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I assume we universally share the view that we want those who have committed acts of terrorism against innocent people be brought to justice. And we have entrusted that responsibility to prosecutors in the military, the Justice Department, and to our intelligence community. This amendment lets those prosecutors do their job unimpeded by judgments that we are making without all the facts. If this amendment doesn't pass, the underlying bill says to those prosecutors, even if you think, as has been the case with over 400 other suspects convicted in Article 3 courts, that an Article 3 trial is the right thing to do, you may not do it. It says to those prosecutors, even if you think live testimony from a Guantanamo detainee in a criminal court in this country in someone else's trial will help you win a conviction, you may not do it. Even if you think that we could gain standing with allies by having such a person tried in another jurisdiction, it would achieve a better result for our country and for an alliance against terrorism, you may not make that choice. Congress should set broad policy for our country. We should not Monday morning quarterback or backseat drive. By limiting the options of our prosecutors, I believe that's what we're doing, and we are risking the undesired and ironic result that will make it more difficult for those with whom we've entrusted this task to achieve the goal of bringing these people to justice. Mr. Smith's amendment is well considered. It broadens the options of those prosecutors and, I think, hastens the day when those who deserve to be brought to justice will, in fact, be brought to justice. I urge a ``yes'' vote on Mr. Smith's amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. 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.

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

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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 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.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I share my friend from Texas' goal, but I don't share his way of meeting that goal. I certainly think that any uniformed person who reports something that they are reasonably suspicious of should be protected by the Whistleblower Act and should not have to worry about political correctness or any other standard, but I think that's already the law. The whistleblower law that already exists frankly says if you blow the whistle on someone for doing something wrong, you are protected. It is wrong to plan to shoot people on a military base or commit treason against the country, but it is not wrong to look a certain way or be a certain way or think a certain way. So I think that the whistleblower protection, as it exists, protects the situation that my friend from Texas wants to protect, and I believe we all want to protect. So while I would share his objective in this matter, I think that this amendment is not necessary because present law solves that problem and protects that whistleblower.

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding. I think there's universal agreement that we all want the finest quality education for all children and in this case for special needs children. I actually think that the effect of this amendment is to narrow educational opportunities for special needs children in the following way. The provision sets up a $7,500 subsidy each year that the parents can choose to use as they see fit. That, I think, narrows the choices already available under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. Presently, what happens if a servicemember family is located in a certain community and they have a special needs child, the school district in which that child resides is under a Federal legal obligation to provide the highest quality education, the least restrictive educational environment for that child. And if the parents disagree with the choice that is made by the school system, by the Child Study Team, they frankly have the right through Federal law to appeal it and change it. So I think what actually happens here is that by limiting the level of financial support for these families, we are limiting the educational opportunities for the child; whereas the IDEA puts the force of Federal law behind the best outcome for that child. So I think we all want to accomplish the same thing. I respectfully believe the present law accomplishes that better than the amendment would, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Donald G. Ley Sr. for his five decades of service with the Woodbury Heights Fire Department. Currently serving as Fire Marshal and Safety Officer for the borough of Woodbury Heights, Mr. Ley is an inspirational example of American courage and heroism. Some aspire to retire young from their profession, but not Mr. Ley. At seventy-nine, Mr. Ley is still a firefighter. You will find him at the Woodbury firehouse any time throughout the day. A graduate of Drexel University, Mr. Ley found his calling in serving his community and country. As an Army veteran of the Korean War, Mr. Ley returned to the United States a decorated veteran and continued his tireless public service. In the Woodbury Heights Fire Department, Mr. Ley fought for the donation of an ambulance to begin emergency life support service in the 1960s. He has held several positions within the company, including assistant chief, deputy chief, safety officer, fire marshal and secretary for relief associations. His public service record includes time as a disaster volunteer with the Red Cross and Mayor of Woodbury Heights. Over the years, Mr. Ley has been given several awards to recognize his consistent contributions to our community. The awards include the Jaycees Distinguished Service Award, the Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition and Distinguished Citizen Award, the Exceptional Duty Award in Gloucester County Fire Chiefs Association, the Unsung Hero Award--Russell Berrie Foundation and the Lifetime of Service Presidential Award. It takes tremendous valor to run into a burning building while everyone else is running out. As he begins his fifty-second year at Woodbury Heights Fire Department, let us take a moment to honor the dedication, professionalism and bravery Don demonstrates every day. The core values we aspire to teach our children are all exemplified by his courage and selflessness.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the majority and the minority for working together for a robust process that we had, but I am concerned about two deficiencies in the process, one the gentlelady from Guam will speak to momentarily. I think it's really a travesty that she is not able to present an idea this House has considered many times as part of this bill. And I hope that would be reconsidered. Secondly, we have all said forever that we agree that there is a problem that has to be fixed for people who served our country in uniform. And here is what happens. You have a person who is very seriously injured in the line of duty in the military, and they retire and they would get disability pay for their injury. Let's say they have been deafened by a bomb going off near them, and they are very, very ill or disabled, and they qualify for disability pay. They also qualify for a regular military pension. I think most of us on this floor would say, most people in the country would say they should get both. If you are injured in the line of duty and you are severely disabled as a result, you should get both your disability pay and your regular pension. And for years people on both sides have said they want to do this. The problem has been it does in fact cost money. And there are a couple of other variations here. The widows and widowers of these servicemembers have the same problem with respect to their benefits. And then there is another problem where people who serve in the Reserve get credit toward earlier retirement, but they have to make it fit around the Federal fiscal year or they don't get it. So we have people over in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been deprived of earlier retirement. They have been shot at the same as everybody else, but because they got shot at after October 1, it doesn't count. It's just a bizarre rule that ought to be fixed. Now, we had an amendment in the Rules Committee that fixed, to a great extent, these three problems. And it had a way to pay for it which is controversial. It would take some of the Internet gaming that's going on and say, A, it's legal, and B, that the money from it should go to help these service personnel who were injured in the line of duty. Some people like this idea, some people don't. But I think it should have been brought to this floor so we could have a debate about it. If you talk to any one of our Members, Mr. Speaker, I think he or she would tell you they are all for fixing this problem, but it has to be paid for. So we had a solution that fixed a large part of the problem and was paid for, would not result in an increase in the deficit, but it didn't find its way to the floor. I know the technicalities of it. But I really think the House should be given a chance to work its will on this question. It's as simple as this: The guy who lost his hearing because a mortar shell went off next to him, should he have to choose between his disability pay and his regular retirement instead of getting both? I think he should get both. And I think the House should be able to work its will on that question. I would urge us to consider during this debate process making that possible.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Does the gentleman favor permitting Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, the way the VA does, and save $25 billion a year?

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, we did not do so because we couldn't get two Republican Senators to support it on the other side. We would have done it over here. Second thing; does the gentleman support stopping the spending of $110 billion a year to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and instead spend that money here in the United States? Does the gentleman support that? I would ask him if he would like to answer that question.

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.