Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, over the last few weeks, the House has voted three times in favor of striking problematic and anticompetitive A-76 language from H.R. 2017, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill; and from H.R. 2112, the Agriculture appropriations bill; and last week from H.R. 2219, the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

The same change and reversal of bad policy should be adopted in this legislation by striking section 102 from the bill. My amendment would strike section 102 of this legislation, which, as drafted, prohibits the use of any funds in the underlying bill to convert any functions performed by Federal Government employees to private competition pursuant to a study conducted under OMB Circular A-76 or high-performing organizations for the Army Corps of Engineers.

Currently, some 850,000 of the 2 million executive branch, non-postal, full-time, and permanent positions are jobs that are commercial in nature. The Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting Federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a public-private cost comparison generate on average a 30 percent cost savings regardless of which sector wins the competition.

According to Americans for Tax Reform, the average cost of each new Federal employee for salary, benefits and pension totals $4.27 million. Without competition, government-run monopolies of commercial activities duplicate and price out the private sector, resulting in inefficient expenditures of taxpayer money. The requirements outlined in section 102 are unnecessary. Rather than preventing market competition that would improve service and lower costs, we should be encouraging agencies to find the best way to deliver services to the citizens of this great Nation. The role of government should be to govern, not to operate businesses inside the government.

The Nation's current unemployment rate is 9.2 percent. Congress must allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair disadvantage and, might I also add, without an unfair disadvantage to the taxpayer. Removing section 102 will allow the private sector just this opportunity. If competition is deemed fair, it really doesn't matter who wins. As long as both sides are allowed equal opportunity, the taxpayer should be and, I believe, would be the ultimate winner.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-first amendment and to ensure cost-saving competition is available.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source