military custody anybody captured on detained within the u.s. or its territory, within areas the u.s. controls. ny person perked up in that situation will go through the normal due process article 3 court process. we know this works. it's worked well over 400 times. in fact, since 9/11, only two people, captured in the u.s., have been subject to indefinite detention. both of them were subject for a couple of years and then eventually tried in our civilian courts anyway, and that, the most recent one, washes way back in 2002. so for over nine years we've been able to keep this country say, try, convict and interrogate information out of terrorists from the underwear bomber, to many times square gommer and on and on and on, our constitutional due process process has worked. it has worked without having to give the president this enormous amount of power over individuals. so i am suggesting we don't need to give that power. leaving it on the books is a

dangerous threat to civil liberties. my amendment will strip that and take it away. importantly, the other thing i want to point out, we had a huge discussion last year about making sure that this doesn't apply to u.s. citizens. well, my amendment applies to everybody, because the constitution applies to everybody. the constitutional rights that are in the constitution, nowhere in the constitution or in the bill of rights, when you see the words u.s. citizen. it says, any person -- any person deserves that same protection. so i will have that debate on the floor next week and vote on the amendment. i think it's very important. i appreciate your indulgence of allowing me to explain it and we'll have that debate next week. with that i'll withdraw the amendment. >> gentleman withdraws the amendment. are there any other amendments? >> ms. baird has an amendment. would the clerk please distribute the amendment? without objection, reading of

the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from california to offer and explain her amendment. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i will offer this amendment and withdraw it as well, but i do think it's worth two minutes of our time to talk about service contractors which is the largest area of cost growth for the department of defense. the american society of military controllers found that contracts for services have increased 137%, while the cost for civilians have only increased 8% during the period 20071 tom 2010. reducing these costs having better date-to-to assess the real costs of contractors this amendment requires the department to collect more information on labor hours and costs. improving costs assessments are already showing significant potential for savings. the army has found that collecting and using this data

resulted in savings of 16% to 30%. improved cost analysis help the army discover that outsourcing operations, research an legitimates positions increase costs by 30%. with the contract receiving an annual salary of $50,000 more than an employee that would have been employed by the department of defense as a civilian. so we really need to do a better job here. the wartime contracting commission also found that for high school level -- contracting ability rates to be nearly 30% higher than a cost of the c.o.d. sequel. the answer, collect the information that helps the pentagon, makes these decisions, and i hope that we will take this issue seriously as we move forward. with that i withdrawal the amendment. >> gentle lady with draus her

amendment. we have another amendment at the desk. mr. kaufman. will the clerk, please, pass out the amendment, without objection, reading the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. kaufman, for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> two minutes. >> over the last ten years the department of defense has seen historic rates of growth in the number of civilian employee. s on its payprom since 2002, the number of bureaucrats inside the department of defense has grown 20% while the number of uniformed military members has increased less than 1%. while the current administration is slashing the numbers of uniformed military personnel, over the next five years it's shown little indication it plans to take commencery cuts to the federal workforce hired to support the universaled men and women. >> now that the department is making tough decisions about a

defense platforms, by retiring ships and combat aircraft and putting off the purchases of some new weapon systems it is sometime we take action to cure this imbalance. in the summer of 2010, then defense secretary robert gates announced a series of cost-saving initiatives to create efficiencies in the face of mounting budget pressures. eliminated a number of civilian jobs at 778,000, and recommended further cuts. two years later civilian employment within the department of it defense had ridden by nearly 23,000 personnel. defeat recommendations by the defense business board, the maeth been unable or unwilling to reduce the number of civilian employees inside the department of defense. this is why it is fellows implement guidance to the department that will force them to change. the uniformed service members and civilian contractors are feeling the pressures of an vrp-increase kgb pressures and

can be easily terminated and forced from service. on the other hand, federal civil servants have protection and irrespective of job requirements. while the fighting force of the department is being reduced, the bureaucratic overhead continues to grow. this amendment will bring the level of civilians inside the department of defense down to -- down to near the -- 20-year average, while still allowing for the increases that have been required to better serve our military and improve the contracting services. in 1929 -- i mean in 2003, the civilian workforce was 39s% of all uniformed military personnel, reserve and guard. now it's 34%. my amendment will take it down to 30%. and it will do that through attrition.

to only those positions that are deemed nongovernmental or competitively done in the private sector. with that, mr. chairman, i would ask for the adoption of my amendment. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes mr. forbes from virginia for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and, mr. chairman, like all the members on this committee, i know the jal's amendment is well intended and something that we need to debate and discuss, but i just want to caution the committee as to what we'll be doing here. one of the things that wep have been criticizing the department of defense on so many times is to make decisions without doing analysis, and in this particular situation, one of the things we put in our markup, do a study and see what the proper mix should which you believely be before we make this decision. if we move down this path we just need to realize we're talking about 118,000 jobs that

we would be cutting. so i hope that the committee, while -- the gentleman has an excellent point. we need to study it analyze it and look at it. i hope before we take that action we'll wait and get that study back and make sure that we are mooshing forward from an analysis so we're not paking a mistake that would be very difficult to come dakucome back. a lot of jobs at stake, and with that mr. chairman i yield to the gentleman if he has a comment. >> let me tell you there's also a lot of jobs in the private sector, becausite now there's an in-sourcing effort going on where contracts are being terminated and bought in to be done by federal civil service personnel. so i know in my community there are private contractors that are losing their employees for government employee, and there is no timeline in this for government to accomplish getting down to that 30%. again, it's through attrition. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back.

the chair now recognizes the gentleman from -- texas. mr. president reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me associate myself with the comments of mr. forbes, because you know, i don't know why we attacked federal employees. if we learned anything from the iraq experience it was that contracting out is very expensive. and part of what these kinds of efforts do is demoralize the federal workforce. we've got to people that continuously are deployed out of the pentagon to all parts of the world. i know that from my experience on the intelligence committee, and not doing an assessment, not doing a study that actually would give us the reason to

think to do this kind of a -- of a cutback on 118,000 federal employees. i think it's nome not well thought out, but conceivably could do irreparable harm to our ability. now, we talk, and my good friend russell bartlett is not here but we talk about car industrial base. that also goes to our federal employees that have work add lifetime in a career defending our country, and i think it that serve better. so i would oppose this amendment. and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes gentleman from indiana, mr. young, for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. last thing we need is another study in this area in nigh mind. i have great respect for my colleagues from virginia and texas, but we know competition works. it works in all sectors of the economy. right now we especially need competition. congress is cutting $487 billion from our defense budget over the

next ten years. meanwhile, we are preventing the pentagon from getting more bang for their buck, as result of competitive forces. you know, this is somethinging that we're looking at across the federal government. we need to outsource more of, bids and services, to private vendors that already offer these goods and services that are being offered internal to varieties parts of government. i and several of my colleagues formed a yellow pages caucus for this very purpose in recent months. let's unleash these same market forces within the pentagon. i say, if the activity is available from a private company, then let the pentagon contract out that good or service to the private company. or, instead, let's cause those within the pentagon that offer that service to compete with the private vendor. i don't think that lp demoralize our federal work force. i think that will actually, you

know, increase their esteem, increase their morale. they will understand that they are standing on their own two feet and actually providing high-quality services at low costs. soless so let's unshackle the pentagon. empower those within the pentagon to get the most bang to their bum and this will be the best thing for our entire federal government, for fiskfis stability and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. schilling for two minutes. >> thank you, chairman. one of the things that i like to point out is we definitely need to proeceed with caution with this. the largest concentration of swirls is in the, in the army material command and the biggers concentration is found in the arsenals and depots, which is our organic base.

these workers keep our war fighters safer and the civilians tend to be often less expensive than the contractors. during this time of fiscal constraint, we must choose the best value route for organic base that fits the bill. the arsenal is in my district, rock out on arsenal, a great example of a value. this amendment would lily be detrimental to it and one of the things i use use as an example, back when our war fighters went out and had the soft skin humvees. the arsenal up armored those in a very quickly time and actually saved several lives. so it's proceed with caution, but we've got to be really careful especially with the skill sets on our arsenals and deep oes. with that i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield? gentleman yield? >> yes, sir i. just want to point out to the gentleman, too, as i'm sure he knows from this. the discussion earlier was, if we could do this in the private

sector, this doesn't even ask the question whether we can do it in the private sector. it just fixes this arbitrary amount before a study and analysis to see if that could be a possibility for us to look at. >> will the gentleman yield? >> sure. it's not my time, but i'd be happy to yield. >> oh. the fact is that it -- the fact that it doesn't give a timeline, that it states the conditions for what would occur. in other words, only jobs that would be competitively done by the private sector, as there, attrition, then that -- those jobs would go down to bring you at that 30% level. and so i don't think it's about arbitrary -- >> gentleman's time expired. the other gentleman's time's expired. chair now recognizes mr. andrews from new jersey for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the gentleman from colorado 's couple of andment make good points and i particularly want want to find a

way to work with him to encourage more purchase of goods and services in a way that wom maximize value for the taxpayer. i think he's on the right track. however, i do agree with those who have spoken against the amendment on the grounds of its sort of arbitrary numbers that are in it, and i think that we ought to have a process. i think the a-76 process fundamentally is right, although it needs tweaking that has a fair competition where we can make this decision often a case-by-case basis. the one comment i also want to met, i'm sure not meant with any disrespect. i'm certain it wasn't. one of the comments earlier was that federal employees need the chance to sort of stand on their own two feet and get more self-esteem. i think that -- characterization really is way out of whack. and i do find it kind of ironic to hear it at 1:20 in the morning surrounded by federal

employees. many of whom have not gone to bed the last 48 hours who made this entire markup possible. i know this is not pointed at those individuals, but i think a lot of people who get their paycheck from the government work very harnd and don't need to be encouraged to get on their feet. they're already on their feet and the ones that helped us tonight are especially special. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? hearing none, the question's on adoption, the amendment offered by colorado. so many in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the chair says the nos have it. amendment is not agreed to. are there other amendments? we have another amendment from mr. kaufman. will the clerk, please, distribute the amendment? without objection reading of the amendment will be dispersonsed with.

the nair now recognizes and 60erring his amendment. >> thanks, chairman. this amendment will strike the law that forces the pentagon to identify current contracts for conversion to non-competitive federal civil service positions. replaces those restrictions with a freedom to leverage free market solutions. top optimize cost control. according to omb, gao and the center for naval analysis, savings of 30% are achieved when implementing competitive sourcing public-private cost comparisons to commercial activities currently performed by the government. if comp tipgs is ay plied to all 4753,000 d.o.d. fairac positions the an you're exceeds $s 13 billion. it does not -- does not adjust the definition of inherently governmentmental functions or seek to outsource those functions if any-of-inn any way.

my amendment only addresses those none inherently governm t governmental and for the department of defense of providing commercial products and services. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes mr. franks from arizona for two minutes. >> mr. chairman, i just wanted to encourage my colleagues to support the kaufman amendment. i they mr. kaufman's exactly on the right track here. it gives the pentagon and the defense democrat more latitude, and the fact is all of us know the examples of allowing government and the private sector to compare prices with each other and allow the pentagon to seek out private sector advantages is something that's good for both our national security and our economic well-being and i just want to encourage everyone to support mr. kaufman's amendment, and i yield back.

>> the chair recognizes ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this for many of the yeez reasons i'm opposing the previous one. goes in the balance of obstructing what is competed, contracted out and i fear from the complains these last two amendments, the impreshgs the federal government no longer outcontracts work. quite certainly does and there has been a long, long history of the laws developed to govern how that is done. to come in and take a swipe at this one a you balancened and i urge the committee to oppose. >> gentleman from texas, mr. conaway is recognized for two minutes. >> appreciate it. i wish my colleague was here. seems to fit in with wham he's penned six months. trying to get small access to

get access to government contracts and work. this does talk about private products and services as opposed to inapparently government employees. so i would encourage our colleagues to vote for the amendment and yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> the chair recognizes congressman johnson from georgia for two minutes. national security and the defense of this nation should not be reduced down to a cheap way out, the cheapest way out. some things the government can do better than private industry can. and some things should not be left to this, whoever can do it

for the lowest price. analysis. i think that that's kind of simplistic way of looking at the needs for security of the nation. private profit, foreign-based corporation. you're seeking to drive into the private sector.

and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. rays for two minutes. >> i understand and i commend my colleague for the thought behind this. but what i fear is that we might get into a situation where currently gsa vets, these contracts, make sure that the qualities make sure that there's a good comparison between the price and the quality. if it's just about price, then we'll lose every contract to china. and i don't think we want products that aren't up to

standard for the government and especially for the department of defense. i would ask members to oppose this amendment. and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> take a look at the language. if something is missing here, there are three reasons why this ought to be done. and they're seen on the second page, a, b and c. neither a, b or c speak to the issue of cost or savings. where is the cost savings here. it's not in this particular piece of legislation.

if you're going to do this, you should look at saving money. that's not one of the three criteria, in fact, it's absent from the criteria and therefore it's simply an outsourcing. >> there's an assumption in current law that it cannot be done in the public sector to make a decision to go to the private sector. this merely reverses that. >> the way you've written this,

it does not speak to cost savings at all, i've been looking at this. i don't understand it myself. i wonder if the gentleman would be willing to let us draw this and work a little bit more with staff and have it better defined for the floor. >> yes. i will withdraw the amendment and work on it further with staff. >> i appreciate that. we'll work on that and see if we

can come up with a more refined product for the manager's amendment. >> mr. chairman, if i could, in looking at the subsequent amendment, if i could roll those two together, because they're very similar and work with staff as well on the subsequent amendment. it's -- it probably should have been combined in the same amendment in the first place. >> i think that's a great idea. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i withdraw the second amendment, too. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> i thank the chairman. we've had, i think, really an informative discussion and to a degree a debate this evening

about how do we best address the profound fiscal challenges facing our country. and within that, the department of defense, specifically as it relates to the efficacy of using federal employees versus the private sector. and coming from a strong private sector background but also having a deep appreciation for the federal work force, i am introducing an amendment that would allow the department can of defense really what i think is an eensshl tool that they need to meet their fiscal goals, to drive efficiency. and that would be to move forward with the public private competition that presently under some circumstances is not available to the department of defense. and i would like to point out, and i do reference the office of management and budget that reported that regardless of

whether the federal government or the private contractor win the competition, the act of competition alone generates cost savings between 10% and 40% on average. this amendment does not require the use of public/private competition. it simply unlocks a powerful tool that the doormt of defense may use to drive cost, effectiveness and efficiency. so what that, i could go on. but i'll yield back in case there's additional discussion. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the lady from guam for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. the department had not resolved long standing problems with the process. particularly failure to keep track of costs and savings.

the certifications regarding the inventory of contractor services required in the fy-10 ndaa as a condition for lifting the mor r moratorium have not been submitted by the department of defense, nor has the department integrated the data from the inventory into its budget justification materials. until the congress can fully understand the extent and the scope, the department's dependents on contracted services as a component of the total force, further conversion of federal civilian employee functions to contract performance is not in the department's best interest. d.o.d. has acknowledged that the a-76 circular has not been changed to ensure that actual costs of carrying out an a-76 studies don't exceed estimated savings, that federal employees are not put at a competitive disadvantage through the imp situation of excessive overhead charges and that it is consistent with the law that