National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really very simple. We've had a recent election where the tide of the taxpayers has spoken where they want this House and they want Congress to start making decisions and the government to start making decisions to address this issue of our debt and the existential threat that we have to our country of out-of-control spending.

We have an issue where the Enterprise Logistics Directorate is being moved by the Air Force without any analysis as to what is good for the taxpayers. It is an arbitrary decision that appears to have been made somewhere in the bureaucracy but needs the accountability of the taxpayers. Congress has to have the effective oversight to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars are being spent effectively.

What's interesting about this is that the Air Force first said, We're not going to move anybody. Then they said, We're going to move everybody to Ohio. Then they said, We're going to move everybody to Alabama. Then they said, We're not going to move anybody. Now they're back to moving everybody to Alabama. And when you ask them, they don't have one analysis or one scrap of paper that says what's best for the taxpayers. This is based on personalities and arbitrary actions.

This is an important directorate. This directorate mission is to empower the warfighter to leverage information as an effective weapon anywhere, anytime. It develops fields, sustains and operates worldwide communications, computer systems and capabilities for the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the unified combatant commanders, services and specified Department of Defense agencies. It contracts with the procurement of information technology systems and services supporting DOD-wide customers.
This should not be a parochial issue. This should not be a parochial fight. This should be an issue of what is best for the taxpayers. There has been no analysis done.

My amendment does not step in place of the decision-making of the Air Force. In fact, what it says is let's do a cost-benefit analysis and then the Air Force gets to decide. But it requires that that cost-benefit analysis be done before anybody moves.

You know, again, remember the Air Force has said leave everybody in place; move them all to Ohio; move them all to Alabama; leave them in place; now move them to Alabama. This should not happen until we have a cost-benefit analysis where we can spend all this money, move all of these people, find out in fact that it costs more after the move. We could even have made a situation where we have to move everybody back.

We're just saying let's do a cost-benefit analysis. This is an amendment for the taxpayers. This amendment needs to pass.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chairman, I stand before you today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, very respectfully, from the gentleman from Ohio.

I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and his staff for agreeing to allow me and others the opportunity to debate this specific amendment.

The Air Force recently made a decision to combine two programs that fall under the Air Force Program Executive Office. EIS, currently located at Gunter Annex, Alabama, and ELS, located at Wright-Paterson Air Force Base, would be consolidated at Gunter.

Basically, the job of EIS is to design, acquire, install, and maintain operation support systems for the Air Force and the Department of Defense. And the job of the ELS is to empower the warfighter to leverage information as an effective weapon.

It makes good common sense for the management of these functions to be consolidated. Additionally, Air Force Materiel Command has approved this decision, and Congress should allow this decision to move forward.

My understanding is that no jobs from Wright-Paterson would be transferred, only the management of Air Force Logistics Systems would be removed from Wright-Paterson, where it has been for only 2 years.

This management role of acquiring and sustaining enterprise-wide logistics systems would return to Gunter, where it had been located for more than 20 years. However, the Turner amendment would require a cost-benefit analysis of the consolidation that would then need to be approved by the House Armed Services Committee, and this action would be costly and further bind the hands of our military commanders.

It is very important to note that the 2005 BRAC Commission Report showed that doing these operations at Gunter is more cost effective than at Wright-Paterson. Therefore, there is no need for another costly, drawn-out study.

It is important for us to allow our military commanders to make decisions that help the warfighter by increasing efficiencies when completing their mission. If we adopt this amendment, it will represent congressional interference in a decision that our commanders and the United States Air Force have already made.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, many times we talk about the taxpayers and saving the taxpayers money, but, unfortunately, sometimes when it comes down to parochial interests we get to the point where we say it doesn't really matter what's in the best interest of the taxpayers as long as it's coming my way or as long as it's my State.

All this amendment says is let's look at what's best for the taxpayers. That's all it requires is analysis of cost benefit. In fact, this issue was looked at by the 2005 BRAC process. The Air Force looked at merging these functions at Wright-Pat and Gunter, at Hanscom and then Wright-Pat and Gunter. In both cases, in both the 2005 and the 1995 BRAC process, this was rejected. This is going outside of BRAC.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. AUSTRIA. I want to thank Mr. Turner for yielding and offering this very important amendment.

You know, it's especially critical, as we continue our work in the House of cutting unnecessary spending and bringing transparency and accountability for taxpayer dollars, that we have an amendment like this in place. And this amendment, again, simply asks the Department of Defense and the Air Force to provide that same transparency.

The Air Force is merging, as we heard, two important areas of logistics with the Enterprise Logistics Systems, ELS, and the Enterprise Information Systems, EIS, into a new portfolio known as the Business Enterprise Systems Portfolio. Again, this amendment is simply saying, as you make this
merger, as you combine these two different portfolios, do a cost-benefit analysis.

EIS, which includes activities such as ECSS and others, has been shown to be cost efficient and much needed to modernize the Air Force's logistics and information technology systems and services. ELS currently manages some very large programs at Wright-Paterson Air Force Base and Gunter Annex. There are approximately 1,000 jobs, including military, civilians, and contractor employees within the Enterprise Logistic Directorate. Asking the Department of Defense to provide a cost-benefit analysis of their decision to combine these portfolios makes sense.

To respond to the comment of this being a costly study, this study will provide Congress the same transparency and accountability of taxpayer dollars that we here in Congress are being asked. And I support the Air Force's plan to become more efficient, but we need to make sure that there is a good business case and that these moves actually are efficient and are in the best interest of the taxpayers.

Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

First, I want to thank Chairman Turner for his hard work and dedication when it comes to the national defense and well-being of our warfighters. I am privileged to be able to serve on the House Armed Services with my friend.

With that said, I disagree with my friend on this amendment. I believe this amendment calls for an unnecessary report to Congress meant to delay the Air Force's decision to consolidate and move the Program Executive Office for Enterprise Information Systems. This consolidation is at no cost to the Air Force.

Adequate cost studies already exist as a part of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report. Those reports show that executing these operations at Gunter Annex in Montgomery, Alabama, is more cost effective than at either Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts, or Wright-Paterson Air Force Base in Ohio. The Air Force chain of command supports the decision to consolidate and relocate.

In short, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this amendment is an example of one of the ways that we can save money and make efficient choices when it comes to the Defense Department that doesn't come at the expense of the warfighter. At a time when our Nation is facing its dire fiscal situation, these are the types of small cost-saving decisions that add up over time.

I would also like to thank my colleague from Alabama, Mrs. Martha Roby, for her leadership on this issue. She is a strong advocate for our brave warfighters, and I would like to associate myself with her remarks.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio has 15 seconds remaining.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the 2005 BRAC Commission actually rejected this consolidation and it was proposed at that time for Massachusetts. In 1995, it was proposed. We should not keep moving these jobs around until we have a cost-benefit analysis. All we're asking for is just the cost-benefit analysis to determine where they should be. This decision was just made last week. It needs to be reviewed.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source