Contact: Josh Holly; 202.226.3988
Jessica Mancari; 202.225.6365
Forbes Opening Statement for Hearing on “Inherently Governmental: What Is the Proper Role of Government”
Washington D.C. – U.S. Rep. J. Randy Forbes (R-VA), the Ranking Republican on the Readiness Subcommittee, today released the following statement for the subcommittee’s hearing on “Inherently Governmental: What Is the Proper Role of the Government”:
“Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to have you here today so we can have what I hope will be a substantive dialogue about how the Department of Defense determines which jobs to ‘insource’ and which jobs to outsource. I say dialogue, because this hearing topic is slightly different than most we have at this time of year. The subject of inherently governmental functions is not linked directly to the fiscal year 2009 budget submission. Rather, it is an omnipresent question that gets to core of our military readiness. I hope that through a discussion with our panel of experts, the members can learn more about the existing authorities governing outsourcing, the long-term constraints facing the Department of Defense (DoD), and the balance of the force today.
“Private contractors have been paid to accompany and support U.S. military forces since the Revolutionary War. The use of such contractors in a peace and war-time environment is not new. However, over time, the size of the contracted workforce has grown significantly. Since the end of the Cold War, successive administrations and Congress itself have made calculated decisions to reduce the size of the military and civilian workforce. We have encouraged the practice of outsourcing, where possible, to save money, to gain expertise, and to more easily surge the workforce when needed, as we have done over the last five years. By now, we are all quite familiar with the use of private security contractors and contracted logistics support in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what has garnered slightly less media attention is the prevalent use of contractors back here in the United States for functions such as guarding military bases, repairing equipment, designing and contracting for weapons system development and providing other acquisition support services.
“In and of itself, the use of contracted labor to supplement the DoD civilian and military workforce is not problematic. Indeed, the men and women who serve as DoD contractors are dedicated, patriotic citizens doing an honorable job for the taxpayers. They are the backbone of the U.S. military and a significant part of what make our armed forces so capable. So the question is not whether these individuals are improperly motivated to do some of the jobs we have asked them to do. Instead, the question is whether or not it is fair to ask them to do some of the jobs we have asked them to do. Are we are making the best personnel decisions for the long term health of our military—rather than for short term benefit? We should want private U.S. companies to make a profit on honest labor. Therefore, we should think carefully before putting contractors in a position where they must choose between best value for the taxpayer and maximizing shareholder value. The reason we have government is to make those decisions for the collective good. It is in the strategic interests of this country not to delegate that responsibility.
“I think we can all agree with these sentiments. Therefore, the issue really comes down to identifying which functions are inherently governmental and ensuring that the Department has all the resources it needs to staff accordingly. I am aware that the term ‘inherently governmental’ is defined by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 92-1, and has subsequently been codified and incorporated in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. The question, then, is one of interpretation. For example, I note that in recent testimony to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Mr. Bell, you stated that security guards defending bases are not involved in offensive operations and thus are not performing inherently governmental functions. Yet, the regulatory definition does not specifically address offensive versus defensive operations. It does state that an inherently governmental function does involve ‘determin[ing], protect[ing], and advance[ing] [the United States’] economic, political … or other interests by military or diplomatic action … contract management or otherwise.’ One could argue that private security personnel are protecting or advancing US political interests. This is simply one example of the dilemma we face in deciding what is or is not inherently governmental. We also face these decisions on the acquisition front. Over the last several years, this committee has sought to curb the use of lead systems integrators for the procurement of military hardware. We now struggle with the use of such prime contractors on services contracts – what is the right way to obtain the expertise and efficiency DoD needs without compromising competition and fairness?
“These are difficult choices in the best of times. I recognize that there are budgetary pressures facing the Department and I also recognize how long it takes to recruit and train civilian and military personnel. Retention is equally as challenging. I look forward to understand more of the facets of these problems by the end of today’s hearing. I’d like to conclude by thanking our witnesses for their service to our nation and for being here with us today. In particular, I’d like to thank Mr. Walker. I understand that this is your last hearing as the Comptroller General. You have served this nation admirably and I wish you the very best in your future endeavors.”
###