[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 19, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2102-H2103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE AND INEFFICIENCY IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand how anybody 
could be in favor of big government when we see, day in and day out, so 
much waste, fraud, abuse and simple inefficiency in the Federal 
Government.
  I realize that the government keeps growing, despite the horrendous 
waste, because so many big businesses are making huge profits from 
Federal contracts, and so many bureaucrats are drawing salaries and 
benefits on average far higher than in the private sector. So while I 
have read and heard about so much waste and exorbitant spending by the 
Federal Government that it is hard to surprise me anymore, even I have 
been shocked and amazed by the spending of the new Transportation 
Security Administration.
  Apparently I am not the only one shocked by this new agency. Michelle 
Malkin, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote in a column carried in 
yesterday's Washington Times and papers across the country, ``The 
Transportation Security Administration is a fiscal black hole and 
fiscal conservatives ought to be enraged.'' She said the TSA ``is 
sucking down tax dollars like a bagless Dyson Cyclone vacuum gone 
berserk.''
  Ms. Malkin reports that ``already the 1-year-old agency has amassed a 
$3.3 billion budget deficit, and is demanding upward of $6 billion for 
the current fiscal year.''
  She wrote in this column, ``Never has a single government entity 
spent so much for so little in such a short time.''
  It is almost unbelievable to me, Mr. Speaker, that any Federal agency 
could lose $3.3 billion in its first year in operation. This has to be 
one for the record books.
  A few weeks ago I read in the Washington Post a report of testimony 
by Kenneth Mead, inspector general of the Transportation Department. He 
said the TSA had budgeted $107 million to hire airport screeners, but 
they ended up paying over $700 million to the contractor.
  The only contact I had with this contractor was when they ran an ad 
saying they would take applications at a mall in my district, and then 
no one from the company showed up. I received several calls from angry 
constituents who showed up at 7 a.m. as the ad had directed and had 
driven long distances to get there, only to find no one from the 
company there.
  If the TSA had budgeted $107 million, they should have told this 
company

[[Page H2103]]

that that was what they would get, instead of allowing a $600 million 
cost overrun. Hiring screeners may have been an administrative 
headache, but it is not rocket science. Thousands of companies around 
the country could have done a better job at much less cost to our 
taxpayers. Most Federal contracts are sweetheart insider deals in one 
way or the other, but this one is the most ridiculous I have ever heard 
of.
  Then they hired far too many people. One aviation official told me 
that TSA now stands for ``thousands standing around.'' I am sure that 
almost all of the people who have been hired are good, honest, 
patriotic people, but the TSA has simply hired many thousands more than 
they need.
  I know it is impossible to ever convince any government agency that 
they have hired even enough people, much less too many. Yet before 9/
11, we had about 28,000 or 29,000 screeners. We were told beforehand, 
before the legislation passed, that we would need to hire about 33,000.

                              {time}  1730

  Right after passage, they said they would need about 40,000. Then, a 
few months later, they went to the staff of an appropriations 
subcommittee requesting 72,000 employees. There was such an outcry they 
quickly backed off to 67,000, and then the Committee on Appropriations 
put a cap on them of 45,000 that they have arrogantly ignored by hiring 
thousands of temporary employees. So I am told they now have about 
66,000 screeners.
  I had a screener come to see me at Constituent Day in my district a 
few weeks ago, and he will have to remain unnamed because I do not want 
to get him in trouble; but he told me that they have so many screeners 
at the Knoxville Airport and so many radios that when I walk in the 
airport, they radio ahead and say Congressman Duncan is in the airport, 
stand up, look busy. It was on the front page of the Knoxville News 
Sentinel that they were going from about 70 screeners to about 160. I 
am told one major airport went from about 170 screeners to over 700.
  Then two members of the other body have uncovered the worst abuse of 
all. Apparently, 20 TSA recruiters spent nearly 2 months at a luxury 
resort in Colorado, a 7-week junket, that resulted in the hiring of 
just 50 screeners. Rates at this hotel run from a low in the high $200s 
to well over $300 a night for just an average room. The company that 
ripped the taxpayers off on the screeners' contract, NCS Pearson, has 
been replaced by the TSA after the obscene cost overrun, but according 
to Ms. Malkin, the firm still holds several lucrative Federal 
contracts.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to understand how anyone could be in 
favor of big government when we see, day in and day out, so much waste, 
fraud, abuse, and simple inefficiency in the Federal Government.
  I realize that the government keeps growing, despite the horrendous 
waste, because so many big businesses are making huge profits from 
federal contracts and so many bureaucrats are drawing salaries and 
benefits on average far higher than in the private sector.
  So while I have read and heard about so much waste and exorbitant 
spending by the Federal Government that it is hard to surprise me 
anymore, even I have been shocked and amazed by the spending of the new 
Transportation Security Administration.
  Apparently I am not the only one shocked by this new Agency. Michelle 
Malkin, a nationally-syndicated columnist, wrote in a column carried in 
yesterday's Washington Times, these words: ``The Transportation 
Security Administration is a fiscal black hole, and fiscal 
conservatives ought to be enraged. . . .''
  She said the TSA is ``sucking down tax dollars like a bagless Dyson 
Cyclone vacuum gone berserk.''
  Ms. Malkin reports that ``already, the one-year-old agency has 
amassed a $3.3 billion budget deficit and is demanding upward of $6 
billion for the current fiscal year.''
  She wrote in this column: ``Never has a single government entity 
spent so much for so little in such a short time.''
  It is almost unbelievable to me that any federal agency could lose 
three billion, three hundred million in its first year in operation.

  This has to be one for the record books.
  A few weeks ago, I read in the Washington Post a report of the 
testimony by Kenneth Mead, Inspector General of the Transportation 
Department.
  He said the TSA had budgeted $107 million to hire airport screeners, 
but they ended up paying over $700 million to the contractor.
  The only contact I had with this contractor was when they ran an ad 
saying that they would take applications at a mall in my District, and 
then no one from the company showed up.
  I received several calls from angry constituents who showed up at 7 
a.m., as the ad had directed, and had driven long distances to get 
there.
  If the TSA had budgeted $107 million, they should have told this 
company that was what they would get instead of allowing a $600 million 
cost overrun.
  Hiring screeners may have been an administrative headache, but it is 
not rocket science. Thousands of companies around the country could 
have done a better job at much less cost to our taxpayers.
  Most federal contracts are sweetheart, insider deals in one way or 
the other, but this one is about the most ridiculous I have ever heard 
of.
  Then they hired far too many people. One aviation official told me 
that TSA now stands for thousands standing around.
  I am sure that almost all the people who have been hired are good, 
honest, patriotic people. But the TSA has simply hired many thousands 
more than they need.
  I know it is impossible to ever convince any government agency that 
they have hired even though people much less too many.

  Yet, before 9/11 we had about 28,000 or 29,000 screeners. We were 
told beforehand we would need to have about 33,000. After passage, they 
said they would need about 40,000--then a couple of months later, they 
went to the staff of an appropriations subcommittee requesting 72,000.
  There was such an outcry, they quickly backed off to 67,000. Then the 
appropriations Committee put a cap on them of 45,000 that they have 
arrogantly ignored by hiring thousands of temporary employees, so I am 
told they now have about 65,000 screeners.
  I am told one major airport went from about 170 screeners to over 
700.
  Then two members of the other body have uncovered the worst abuse of 
all. Apparently twenty TSA recruiters spent nearly two months at a 
luxury resort in Colorado--a seven-week junket that resulted in the 
hiring of just 50 screeners. Rates at this hotel run from a low in the 
high $200s to well over $300 a night for just an average room.
  The company that ripped the taxpayers off on the screeners contract, 
NCS Pearson, has been replaced by TSA, after the obscene cost overrun, 
but according to Ms. Malkin, ``the firm still holds several lucrative 
federal contracts. These contracts total more than $500 million--
including a $140 million deal to manage and operate three national 
customer-service call centers for federal immigration services.''
  As Ms. Malkin said: ``Deeper into the homeland security money pit we 
go. Where the traditional watchdogs for limited government are, nobody 
knows.''

                          ____________________