Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama and I want to thank the minority party. It is 12:10 by the clock of the House, and I know this is a long process. We have more to do tomorrow. I appreciate all parties allowing the House to work its will.

I rise to offer an amendment tonight on behalf of the Republican Study Committee and myself to reduce the overall funding levels contained in the Homeland Security bill by 10 percent, with the exception of funds for ensuring the security of our Nation's borders. This would save, Mr. Chairman, $2.5 billion.

Our country is on the brink of a fiscal crisis. As the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated repeatedly, our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. Not citizens going through our airports, not what appears to be three wars now we have involved ourselves in; our debt is the greatest threat to our national security.

We need to ensure that our tax dollars are spent wisely and efficiently, especially when it comes to protecting our Nation. Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security is not an exception when it comes to examples of government waste. The Department of Homeland Security must focus its resources more effectively. In their short history they have become inherently wasteful, creating programs that do not make our Nation any more secure. And they're not unlike any bureaucracy that's come before it.

A recent audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency found 32 contracts collectively worth $34.3 billion that have been plagued by waste, abuse, or mismanagement from 2001 through 2006. If we pass this amendment and force an across the board cut, DHS will be forced to analyze its programs more effectively and become a more efficient agency as a result.

Mr. Chairman, I don't speak tonight out of mere opinion. I speak tonight out of experience. You see, I used to run a bureaucracy. I used to run a bureaucracy that ran on 1987 dollars, unadjusted for inflation. And we had good results. In my former securities division alone, because of great people, we got 300 years of jail time awarded and over $52 million of restitution.

The government can do more with less on all levels, and that includes the Department of Homeland Security. DHS funding needs to be reconfigured, focusing on protecting targets that are legitimate terrorist threats, rather than disbursing funds on a per capita basis. That's a wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective way to do things. Secondly, DHS must redefine its mission and focus on what its original purpose was: protecting the homeland from terrorist attacks.

As we approach its 10th anniversary, no longer does DHS focus solely on homeland security. They focus on mass casualty events, totally unrelated to terrorism, like natural disasters. Firefighter and cops funding, once funded locally on the State and local level, is funded through grants by the Federal Government. And while no Member of this body will contend they are not vital to our communities, these programs that Federal tax dollars are paying for are not Federal responsibility under our Constitution, and for a very good reason.

We need to start making tough decisions, Mr. Chairman. This amendment builds upon the work of the Appropriations Committee in reducing spending, but I believe it can go further.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to offer an amendment that would safeguard America's air travel by restricting funding in this bill for any collective bargaining by the Transportation Security Administration.

Recently, President Obama's administration announced a decision to allow the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, the unions, to enter into collective bargaining agreements. This would restrict our ability to meet ever-changing dangers and will add to Federal spending, which in our time of Federal deficits would be irresponsible.

Since the creation of TSA 10 years ago, its unions have been prohibited from collective bargaining and for good reason. This ban comes from former TSA Administrator Loy determining that collective bargaining agreements would hamper the critical nature of TSA agents' national security responsibilities.

TSA agents are no different than FBI, CIA and Secret Service agents. We do not negotiate collective bargaining agreements with security personnel, and TSA clearly falls, Mr. Chairman, within that category. We witnessed the necessary flexibility of the TSA.

In 2006 after a British airliner bombing plot was discovered, TSA was able to overhaul its policies within 12 hours. If unionization occurs, TSA will be less flexible and less efficient in doing their business to protect America.

Contracts and demands of collective bargaining are complex and they are cumbersome. They are less flexible than is needed in national security situations. The union demands will unquestionably make our transportation security more costly and less efficient, and certainly let's not ignore the fact that the recourse that citizens have when they are mistreated, illegally groped or otherwise not served will be reduced if it has not been made nonexistent with a union.

I will work to ensure that collective bargaining does not impact the safety of any American travelers or needlessly subjects our rights or personal space to a union or its leaders.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source