Mike Conaway: “I do oppose the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment on the grounds that it's really bad policy. Having spent several…”

“I do oppose the gentleman from Connecticut's amendment on the grounds that it's really bad policy. Having spent several years working with the acquisition system, that is relatively complicated throughout the Department of Defense, to add one more layer of considerations to that system is, in my view, wrongheaded. While the amendment allows this information to be provided, it provides for some punitive teeth in the amendment that should a contractor, either in good faith or bad faith, overstate the number of jobs created or retained, then that contractor would be debarred from being able to participate in the acquisitions process. At the end of the day, at the beginning of the day, whatever part of the day you want to talk about, acquisition by the Department of Defense should be about something this straightforward. It should be about buying the gear, the equipment, and the goods and services our warfighters need at the time they need it at a price that is appropriate for the taxpayer to pay. And while jobs get created under that circumstance, that should not be a consideration as to what the warfighter needs, how we get it, how it's acquired, and that process. My colleague has said this is simply a suggestion. That's how you get to mandatory. He already said, if it were up to him, it would be mandatory.…”