Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chair. Not only do we want to increase the number of people working on solving this problem, we want to increase the quality of their work. So this bill provides for education and training. It provides for diversification of our workforce. It provides for the use of the best and the brightest to get the job done. The final aspect of this bill is to induce and provide more competition in the provision of goods and services to our Department of Defense. You know, somewhere in America today, there are probably a couple of people who are scientists on a college campus or who are working in a tool and dye shop somewhere in the country who have a much better solution to some problem than a person working for an immense defense contractor. Now, if the immense defense contractor has the best solution, that's what we ought to buy. But if the three people in the college lab or the five people in the tool and dye shop have a better idea, we need to get them into the competition so they can have their idea heard, have their proposal heard, and if it's the best one for the servicemembers and for the taxpayers, that's the one that ought to be chosen. We refer to that as broadening and diversifying the industrial base. I'm especially gratified, Mr. Chairman, that, by my count, 43 Members of this body will have written a part of this legislation by the time it reaches final vote later this afternoon. That includes the seven members of the panel; it includes a number of members of the full committee who offered amendments in the committee voting process; and it will include a number of amendments that we will consider here today. So just as we're trying to get the best and the brightest to contribute to the process of buying a billion dollars a day worth of items, we try to get the very best ideas of the Members of this body, Democrat and Republican, on the committee and not on the committee. So I'd like to conclude by again thanking Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, and Congressman Conaway for their work in making this process work. I believe we have come up with a product that will do very well by our servicemembers and do very well by our taxpayers as well. I would urge careful consideration of the amendments as we go through the afternoon, and I would obviously urge a ``yes'' vote from both parties for final passage of the bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from Texas for offering this amendment. I think it makes a very significant contribution to this legislation. What it effectively says is that competition should always be the general rule. Only when there is a compelling reason for an exception should there be one. So, for example, if there is a national emergency or there truly is only one entity that could provide a good or service, then in those exceptional circumstances, but only in those exceptional circumstances, should there be no competition before rewarding of a contract. Again, I think the amendment is very much consistent with the purpose, spirit and letter of the bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we would urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time in opposition.

Mr. ANDREWS. We support Mr. Hall's amendment. He has been an advocate for government transparency since his first day in this institution. This amendment is a significant stride forward for transparency. Last year's major weapons system bill and this bill vests significant authority in the PARCA office, which is the review office or the auditing office of the Secretary of Defense. This office, under this bill, will compile annual reports judging the quality of the work by procurement organizations throughout the Department of Defense. Mr. Hall's amendment ensures that those reports become public documents so the taxpayer can understand with great specificity the quality or lack thereof by which their tax dollars are being spent. Mr. Hall is providing a valuable tool for oversight. Future Congresses will be able to understand those reports and act efficiently in terms of their oversight responsibilities. I think even more importantly what Mr. Hall has done is given the public an opportunity for that oversight. Some of the very best work on ferreting out wasteful government spending has come as a result of the First Amendment, from the press and from the public. So Mr. Hall's amendment will give the press and the public, as well as the Members of this body, an opportunity to understand the quality or lack thereof of procurement activities. I commend him for that, and urge support of his amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although we do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the time in opposition and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. We find it completely acceptable to yield to the minority if they have any comments. Otherwise, we support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), the gentlelady who built on the work Mr. Ellsworth just talked about to make sure that same standard applies to subcontractors.

Mr. ANDREWS. I have an amendment at the desk as the designee of the author, Mr. Hastings.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hastings makes a very valid amendment to this bill that acknowledges that when we want to build the best workforce and brightest workforce, we should reach for diversity of the workforce. Mr. Hastings' amendment acknowledges the fact that we are living in a global economy, and one of the principal assets of our country is the diversity of our population in understanding literally every corner of the world because our people come from every corner of the world. Mr. Hastings's amendment directs that the Department of Defense, in its efforts under Title II of this bill, to improve the quality of our workforce, take into account the diversity of life experiences and backgrounds of those who apply for those positions. It is a very worthy amendment, entirely consistent with the purposes of the bill. I urge its adoption.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to thank the Members for their cooperation and for your stewardship of this debate. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chair, this bill has the potential to save $135 billion over 5 years. I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, someone who has made a career-long commitment to fiscal discipline, the majority leader of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), who brought the expertise of a technical base in her district to the deliberations on this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. At this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new member of the committee who clearly understands the balance Mr. Hoyer just spoke of between a strong national defense and fiscal responsibility, my friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).

Mr. ANDREWS. I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank my friends from Florida, Mr. Grayson and Mr. Hastings, for offering this amendment. It makes eminently good sense. It says this: if a procurement officer decides to buy the product that isn't the least expensive, a couple of rules apply. First of all, price has to be at least equal to the greatest factor that's being used. It can't be any less than equal. And if it is less than equal, the procurement officer has to explain why. Now this makes pretty good sense. I think most people would agree that it's not always true that the least expensive item is the best. But if you think a more expensive item is the best, then you ought to explain why. I think most of us would want that in the way we manage our household budgets, our businesses, our towns, our local school districts. Mr. Grayson, based upon his years of experience in this field, has written an amendment that carries that idea forward. I think it's very worthy. Again, I think it strikes the right balance between flexibility for the procurement officer to make a decision that he or she thinks is the right one, but justification to the public as to why we're not spending the least amount of money on something that we're buying. I think most of our constituents would want us to presume that we should get the best price available; and only if it can be demonstrated that the best price available is not the best value available, should we make a different decision. So I think this amendment makes very, very good sense. I would urge its adoption. I would now like to yield such time as he may consume to my friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Quigley for offering this amendment, as well as Ms. Giffords and Mr. Bartlett for their joint authorship of this amendment. As I stated earlier, the basic mechanism in this bill is to provide performance criteria for the purchasing organizations within the Department of Defense. This amendment says that one criterion may be energy-efficiency standards in the purchasing. Now, what does this mean? It means that the procurement organization should get the very best deal from the point of view of the servicemember as well as of the taxpayer and that one of the factors that should be taken into account is energy efficiency. For example, if under this bill the procurement organization is purchasing landscaping services and if, all other things being equal for the quality of the landscaping services and the price, one of the organizations uses more energy-efficient lawnmowers or other gardening machines, that purchase would be favored under this mechanism to encourage but not to require energy efficiency. This goes to a much broader question in our country that obviously involves the fact that we are buying nearly $300 billion a year worth of imported oil from countries around the world which may or may not be friendly to us. The largest consumer of energy in the United States' economy is the Department of Defense. Commendably, the Department under Republican and Democratic administrations has adopted, as a matter of policy, a methodical increase in the amount of renewable energy the Department is using. One of the ways it can reduce consumption toward that goal is by implementing energy efficiency. The amendment the gentleman from Illinois is offering is entirely consistent with that purpose because what it does is integrates into the procurement decisionmaking process a set of ideas which says that the procurement organization will look at the energy-efficiency ideas of a given competitor for a given contract. We support this amendment because we believe it will save the taxpayers money, that it will add value to our efforts to protect the environment, and that it will provide inducements to the ability to promote renewable energy, so we would urge a ``yes'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to one of the coauthors of the amendment, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).