Congressional
Record [Page: H7316]
[Sec. 739 of Title VII, Section D of
Public Law 110-161 placed certain restrictions on competitive sourcing in
domestic agencies of the federal government.
The following House floor debate relates to an amendment to strike Sec.
739 (Sec. 738 in the House bill debated below, it was subsequently redesignated as Sec. 739) in its entirety, thus allowing
competitive sourcing to proceed without these reforms. The amendment failed by registered vote
158-268. 232 Democrats and 36
Republicans voted against the amendment; 158 Republicans voted in favor.]
AMENDMENT NO. 15 OFFERED BY MR.
PRICE OF
Mr. PRICE of
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Price of
Strike section 738 (page 117, line 9, through page 124, line 13) and redesignate the succeeding provisions accordingly.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Mr. PRICE of
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot entertain the gentleman's request.
Mr. PRICE of
While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to public-sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend on their core mission when Congress takes the opportunity to save money through competition away from them.
In 2006, Federal agencies ``competed'' only 1.7 percent of their commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of the entire civil workforce. This very small use of competition for services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar spent on competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 billion.
But the particular language included in this bill is even worse. The underlying language goes further than past Democrat efforts to gut public/private competition by unnecessarily delaying and complicating how the most efficient delivery of commercial activities is determined. This newest attempt to stack the deck against competition for services that can easily be found in the Yellow Pages also creates uneven and duplicative protest rights and intrusive new data requirements, while ignoring the consideration of quality in determining the best source of commercial services for the taxpayer.
In short, Mr. Chairman, by allowing this language to remain in the underlying legislation, approximately $200 million in expected annual savings from planned competitions will be placed at risk.
Additionally, by removing quality from the list of factors in determining who wins a competition, this bill would double costs in many competitions. In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, Congress should be looking to use all of the tools it can to find taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are already being provided by thousands of hardworking private companies nationwide.
At this point I will insert into the Record a letter of support for this amendment from the Fair Competition Coalition. A portion of that letter reads, This provision will discourage many private-sector firms from participating in the competitive sourcing contracting process. Section 738 would penalize private-sector bidders that offer health insurance benefits to their employees. The Office of Management and Budget reports that the competition under the A-76 process creates an average savings of 15 to 20 percent for the American taxpayer.
THE FAIR COMPETITION COALITION,
DEAR
REPRESENTATIVE: As you continue consideration of the FY 2008 appropriations
bills, I would like to bring to your attention some anticompetitive language
that was included in Section 738 of the FY 2008 Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act. This provision will discourage many private
sector firms from participating in the competitive sourcing contracting
process, which is being held at most Federal agencies. The members of the Fair
Competition Coalition ask that you support an amendment offered by
Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) which would strike the Section 738 language
from the bill.
Section
738 would penalize private sector bidders that offer health insurance benefits
to their employees. In an unprecedented intrusion into the competitive process,
this provision singles out one benefit element, and ignores the reality of the
total compensation packages commonly offered in the private sector. These
compensation packages typically include a wide range of health, matching
retirement, bonus/incentive, professional and personal development, and other
benefits. It also undermines and ignores unique and innovative health benefits
plans, particularly those that are provided by the small business community.
Section
738 also would allow employees of the Federal government to protest the award
to the private sector. Congress and the Executive Branch have properly excluded
Federal employees from challenging agency management decisions in Federal
court. Beyond the constitutional questions of whether such action creates the
required ``case or controversy,'' the President has properly asserted his
responsibility to supervise the ``unitary'' executive branch and opposed
establishing ``interested party'' status for these decisions.
Already
many companies are not pursuing A-76 competitions, and the language in Section
738 will drive companies further away from the process. The
Office of Management and Budget reports that the competition under the current
A-76 process creates an average savings of 15% to 20% for the American
taxpayer. The proven benefits of competitive sourcing are too high to
place arbitrary restrictions on the program. We urge you to support
effectiveness and efficiency in Government by voting YES to the Sessions
amendment.
If
you have any questions, please contact our Coalition points of contact: Michele
Kaplan of the Professional Services Council or Kent Sholars
of the Contract Services Association.
Sincerely,
Aerospace
Industries Association, American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Airport
Consultants Council, American Council of Independent Laboratories, American
Council of Engineering Companies, American Electronics Association, American
Institute of Architects, Associated General Contractors of America, Business
Executives for National Security, Construction Management Association of
America, Contract Services Association of America, Design Professionals
Coalition, Electronic Industries Alliance, Information Technology Association
of America, Management Association for Private Photogrammetric
Surveyors, National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds, National Defense
Industrial Association, National Federation Of Independent Business,
Professional Services Council, Small Business Legislative Council, Textile
Rental Services Association of America, The National Auctioneers Association,
United States Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to follow the advice of that letter and support this commonsense taxpayer-first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public-sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the government.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this bill ensure that when Federal employees compete with private contractors, it will be done on a level playing field.
The administration's push to contract out Federal employees' jobs is part of a massive push towards private contracting by this administration. Federal contracts rose from 207 billion in 2000 to roughly 400 billion in 2006.
The New York Times reported in February that the increase in contracting is driven by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does. I may add that the day is not far off when they will try to outsource the Congress.
The administration claims that it wants a smaller government, yet it has promoted a hidden workforce of private-sector contractors and grantees who get rich off the government, but are not accountable. The number of contractors increased by 2.5 million since 2002, which is 98 percent higher than the slight increase in the Civil Service workforce.
Congress has raised serious questions regarding the cost-effectiveness in this level of contracting and of outsourcing many Federal employees' functions. In many cases we see government employees working side by side with contractors with the same responsibilities, yet their compensation, benefits, protections and accountability are much different. These are serious issues.
This amendment would strike the modest improvements in the competitive sourcing language that has been carried on appropriations bills for several years. These improvements would help protect the rights of Federal employees.
And let me just comment on the fact that this amendment not only takes out the language that was included in this bill, but, in fact, takes a full step backward and undoes that which we have done in past bills, even during the time that the Republicans were in control of the House.
What we do here is ensure that a contractor does not receive a cost advantage by not offering a health plan, or offering an inferior health plan or retirement plan to its employees, assuring appeals rights for Federal employees in cases of privatization decisions that adversely affect them just as contractors currently have appeal rights, and ensuring that OMB doesn't direct or request agencies to conduct competitions if they otherwise would choose not to.
This is really just an unnecessary amendment. It is directed at destroying the last bit of opportunity the Federal employees have for full protection. That has to be made clear. There is no need for this amendment other than to try to outsource everything and destroy the Federal workforce.
We all have great respect for our Federal employees. Throughout the history of this Congress and in recent years, we've worked in a bipartisan fashion to reduce spending here and there, but this just goes at the heart of this assault that this administration has on Federal employees. And for that reason, and so many others, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of
I, too, have respect, as well we all do, for all Federal employees. But this is serious business. Spending the taxpayers' money is serious business. And outsourcing does one thing, private contracting does one thing: It provides for an opportunity to save hard-earned taxpayer money.
The majority says that they oppose and fight adamantly as they oppose no-bid contracts. So how can be it be consistent to oppose a competitive contracting process that allows private firms the opportunity to have outsource contracts?
This is a commonsense amendment. I offer it on behalf of
the gentleman from
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, fiscally responsible amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to congratulate the gentleman for at least being willing to stay here and debate the amendment tonight. It's more than I can say for a whole lot of other people, and I respect him for that. Let me say, however, that I don't have quite as much high regard for his amendment.
Mr. PRICE of
Mr. OBEY. Well, whoever. I have minimum high regard for it, let me put it that way.
Mr. Chairman, I think we need to fully understand what is afoot with respect to contracting.
I want to cite some other facts, because there is an inexorable and stealthy effort to put much of the activities of government in the hands of contractors rather than in the hands of public servants. And more and more of that contracting is being provided in a noncompetitive manner. That also applies to many, many grants being provided by the executive branch.
For example, the Congressional Research Service documented an unusually large number of sole-source grants issued by the Employment and Training Administration within the Department of Labor, which resulted in 90 percent of discretionary funds for the High Growth Job Training Initiative being awarded on a noncompetitive basis over a 5-year period. It isn't just Halliburton and Blackwater who are getting lots of taxpayers' dollars in a noncompetitive fashion.
The administration's use of contracting has increased significantly in the past 5 years. For example, the Department of Health and Social Services' contract obligations have nearly doubled from $5 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $8.7 billion in fiscal year 2006. The number of contract employees at the Department of Health and Social Services exceeds 32,000, about half the number of Civil Service employees. A significant share of those contracts were awarded on a noncompetitive basis.
In fiscal year 2006 alone, Health awarded nearly 21,000 contracts worth more than $1.9 billion with less than full and open competition. That is four times the total amount of congressionally directed earmarks that are expected to eventually be included in the Labor, Health, Education appropriation bill.
I won't even bother to get into what has been happening at the Education Department where local school districts have virtually been blackmailed into accepting contracts with book publishers preferred by the administration or else they are frozen out of the program entirely.
So I would simply say I think the gentleman's amendment is ill-advised, and when the time comes late tomorrow evening, I would hope that we will have a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to
clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from