[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 78 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3939-H3945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gohmert). Pursuant to House Resolution
287 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2017.
{time} 1426
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Gingrey of Georgia (Acting Chair) in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee)
had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 92, line
7.
Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Cole
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement any rule, regulation, or executive order
regarding the disclosure of political contributions that
takes effect on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, in April, a draft executive order was
circulated
[[Page H3940]]
that would force companies as a condition of applying for a Federal
contract to disclose all Federal campaign contributions. In my view, if
implemented, this executive order would lead to a significant
politicalization of the Federal procurement process. Instead of a
company being evaluated and judged on its merits, their past work
experience, their ability to complete the government contract in
question, this executive order would introduce the potential that they
would be evaluated politically as opposed to professionally.
It's never a good idea, Mr. Chairman, in my view, to mix politics
with contracting. My amendment would prevent the President from
implementing the proposed disclosure requirements.
Congress actually considered something similar to what the President
is proposing in the 111th Congress, the so-called DISCLOSE Act. It's
instructive to me that that Congress--the majority of which in both
Houses was controlled by our friends on the other side--decided not to
implement such a requirement. Frankly, I think doing so now by
executive order is effectively legislating through the executive
branch.
The executive order in question that's being considered would not in
fact lead to more objectivity in the bidding process, and it could
potentially chill the constitutionally protected right of people to
donate politically to whatever candidate, political party, or cause
that they chose to do so.
It's worth noting that nothing in this amendment would affect the
current Federal disclosures under the law. We're not trying to change
things; we're not trying to let people do something they can't do now.
We're simply trying to make sure that political contributions and
political activities never move into the contracting process. Pay-to-
play has no place in the Federal contracting process, and requiring the
disclosure of campaign contributions for government contracts does just
that.
{time} 1430
Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully urge that the amendment be
adopted.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the Cole amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The amendment before us is a legislative
attempt to circumvent a draft Executive order which would provide for
increased disclosure of the political contributions of government
contractors.
The draft Executive order being developed by the Obama administration
would require Federal contractors to disclose more information about
their political contributions than they currently provide.
Particularly, those contributions given to third-party entities.
Some have said they oppose this effort because additional information
could be used nefariously to create some kind of enemies list. In other
words, they argue that companies should not disclose more information
because people in power could misuse that information to retaliate
against them.
I just think there are fundamental problems with this premise. Under
this logic, all campaign disclosures would be bad, not just the new
ones. Government contractors already disclose contributions and
expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them.
Contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors
are also required to be disclosed. Should we eliminate those
provisions, too? Of course not. The information is required to be
provided already in law, and the Executive order that the amendment
would circumvent simply enhances the quality of that information.
More than 30 groups, including nonpartisan, nonprofit organizations
like Democracy 21, the Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen,
many others have concluded that the draft Executive order would enhance
transparency and decrease corruption. And these aren't the only groups
that support the Executive order.
Two weeks ago, a coalition of institutional investors and investor
coalitions collectively managing more than $130 billion in assets also
wrote to express their support. In their letter, they explained that
corporate political activity presents significant risks to shareholder
value. And transparency allows investors to put together in a more
complete picture the various risks to our investments.
So, Mr. Chairman, as the Los Angeles Times said in a recent
editorial, disclosure is the solution, not the problem. I believe that
is the case.
I urge Members to defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I rise in support of the Cole amendment, and the reason
why I do is twofold.
Number one, I do think there are some questions about what are the
motives. Why should you have to tell the Federal Government absolutely
everything in our society today when you're just bidding on a contract?
I see some good in it, and the gentleman mentioned the L.A. Times
article. I think it makes some good points. But I also see how there is
a double-edged sword, that there's too much information that's out
there.
But the other thing is this is a major change and a possible
encroachment on your constitutional right of First Amendment freedom of
speech as to whom you give.
So if we are going to make this the law of the land, public policy,
it really should go through the legislative process--hearings and
testimony--and let everybody have something to say about it instead of
just one more Executive order from the administration.
So I think we should adopt the Cole amendment.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I too am concerned about this amendment, especially when
these campaign contributions are given secretly. You know, our system
has been improved by having public disclosure of political
contributions. I think the more the public knows about where the money
is coming from, the better off the citizenry is.
So I just support the ranking member, Mr. Price, who gave a very
complete description of why we're against this amendment, and I urge
its defeat.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert
Mr. GOHMERT. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the new construction, purchase, or lease of any
building or space in the District of Columbia except where a
contract for the construction, purchase, or lease was entered
into before the date of the enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Under this amendment, no funds would be made available
by this act for the new construction, purchase, or lease of any
building or any space in the District of Columbia except where a
contract was entered into before the date of the enactment.
Now, in the District of Columbia right now, the Federal Government
had exactly 304 leases at the start of this year. These leases cover
more than 23.6 million square feet. This bureaucracy has grown beyond
the bounds of being reasonable.
The Federal Government, in addition to the 23.6 million square feet
that it leases, also owns 109 buildings in the District of Columbia,
and that doesn't even include all of the Department of
[[Page H3941]]
Defense buildings because those are administered by other than the GSA.
The 23.6 million square feet come at a cost of around a billion dollars
every year to the taxpayer.
Here we are in financially troubling times, and we need to send a
message back to America we know you're tightening your belts. We know
that States and municipalities are having to tighten their belts, and
we get it here, also.
The Appropriations Committee and the chair is to be applauded. They
have done a wonderful job on this bill. There is an amount zeroed out
for new building space in a specific area of this bill. It takes that
good step and goes one step further and says no funds made available in
this act can be used in any way for construction, for lease or building
out any space in the District of Columbia.
It also should be noted that every cubicle, every desk we add in the
District of Columbia ends up requiring States and municipalities to add
space there. They have to put somebody in that space, because every
time we add a desk with a bureaucrat behind it in the District of
Columbia, they have to justify their existence. They have to create
requirements for people back in the States or in the municipalities to
respond so that they can justify their existence in the District of
Columbia.
The Federal funds that might be used for new construction or new
leases to add to the 23.6 million square feet of space already under
lease and the 109 buildings, not even including the Department of
Defense buildings, that money could be better spent reducing the
Federal deficit or protecting our homeland in other ways.
{time} 1440
Let's let America rebound. Let's let America build back before we
build or lease one more square foot in Washington, DC.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would
prohibit any funds in this bill to be used for new construction,
purchase, or lease of a new building or space in Washington, D.C., in
fiscal year 2012, the life of this bill. If adopted, this amendment, as
I read it, would or could do several things.
First of all, it would not allow DHS to renew leases in the
Washington, D.C., area, which means the leases would lapse, leaving DHS
employees without offices to work in, and subjecting the Federal
Government to lawsuits because the lessors would have no choice but to
begin litigation for damages, to include costs to evict and lost rent.
The amendment might require DHS to break current construction
contracts due to a lack of funds if a new purchase or lease is
required. It would not permit the GSA to condemn facilities that the
DHS occupies if that were necessary. Therefore, it would force DHS to
maintain occupancy until follow-on leases might be executed in 2013, or
further down the road, or alternative space could be identified and
prepared for use.
The amendment, as I read it, might not permit DHS even to reconfigure
its current facility space to provide seats for the new staff being
hired, particularly for some of these new functions that are going to
require reconfiguring, such as cybersecurity and intelligence missions.
And then we need to ask, Mr. Chairman, what happens if a DHS facility
in D.C. has a fire or a flood and we can't use it? This amendment would
prevent, as I read it, rebuilding if a new construction contract was
required as part of that rebuilding, as of course it might well be.
So the questions just go on and on. This is not a well-advised or
wise amendment. It's far-reaching. It has negative implications. I urge
its rejection.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. If I could ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the
sponsor of the amendment, a question.
Why just the District of Columbia? You know, there are Federal
buildings in Virginia and Maryland, surrounding the whole area. Why
just the District of Columbia?
Mr. GOHMERT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Well, the intent is that since this is where so much
construction and leasing has been done, that that's where it needs to
stop, that the bureaucracy here in Washington has expanded to the point
that this was a good place to draw the line. If the gentleman is
wishing to extend that across the country, you know----
Mr. DICKS. I am not interested in that. I just want to make that
clear. But I was interested why just the District of Columbia when this
whole area here has many different government buildings, both in
Maryland and in Virginia, which are proximate to the District of
Columbia?
Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman would like to add those to this
amendment, I would be glad to accept that.
Mr. DICKS. Let me also ask the gentleman on the point that Mr. Price
made about leases: Do you see that a situation would occur that if a
lease is expired once this amendment was enacted and signed into law--I
doubt that it will be--but that an agency couldn't redo a lease? And
what would you do in that situation if you couldn't build office space
or you couldn't lease office space? You would have to leave the
District of Columbia.
Mr. GOHMERT. If the leases were appropriately drafted, then normally
they would have an option for additional time. That under this
amendment would mean that that was a contract entered into prior to the
enactment of this bill. So that wouldn't be a problem. If it is a major
lease expiring, then heaven forbid but they would actually have to come
back to Congress, and it would be a form of sunset, for them to justify
why they need to have a new lease. I think it's a great way of having
oversight over groups that don't have their own building. We've leased
a massive 23.6 million square feet of space. Let's sunset some of that
or otherwise justify why you need another lease.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I feel that Mr. Price has the better
argument here, and I urge defeat of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Issa
Mr. ISSA. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to promulgate regulations that will result in private
sector job losses to United States companies.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ISSA. This is a critical amendment. If not now, then when? If not
on this bill, then when are we going to get to looking at American job
creators in a positive way? There is no question if this amendment is
held to a point of order that it will be seen again and again by those
of us who care about jobs in America.
The Web site that my committee launched, AmericanJobCreators.com, has
already seen countless examples, in the thousands now, of different
ways in which regulatory excesses have in fact cost jobs. Moreover,
what we're seeing is a pattern of no cost-benefit analysis being done
in any way, shape, or form on new regulations.
Promulgating regulations if they don't cost jobs, if they are a net
benefit to the economy, wouldn't be a problem,
[[Page H3942]]
at least not overall. But in fact, we have had the EPA administrator,
the former Minerals Management Service, now Ocean Energy, the Assistant
Secretary of the Interior, and countless more before our committee,
each of whom seems to be muddled about cost-benefit on the regulations
they create. They often say, of course we do cost-benefit. Then if you
say, well, what do the cost-benefits show on a particular regulation,
they are never familiar with it.
It is in fact very clear that we know that we're costing jobs. The
estimate by the Small Business Administration, I repeat the estimate by
the U.S. Small Business Administration is that regulations cost $1.75
trillion, or about $8,000 per employee, perhaps as much as $10,000 per
employee.
Not every regulation that costs money needs to in fact not happen.
But it certainly should be a decision of the Congress, and not an
unelected individual somewhere in a well-windowed office with beautiful
carpeting deciding on their own to have guidance or rulemaking that
costs American jobs.
The Department of Homeland Security is in fact one of the most
insular organizations. They have proven not to know or care what
America needs, only that they must do what they choose to do. This is
an agency that is so, so, so excessive that they even found that
sending FOIA requests to political appointees who redacted or simply
didn't send them out was okay. That's the kind of thing that we need to
deal with here in appropriations, and if not in appropriations, in
broader legislation.
My amendment simply seeks to force back to Congress the
responsibility for regulations that cost jobs. If a study is done and
it doesn't cost jobs, it would go forward. The fact is that most of our
laws require some cost-benefit analysis. But since they're able to do
it without ever formalizing it, or waive it because they say they don't
believe it would happen, we don't have that kind of fact. An amendment
like this simply says if you're going to cost American jobs, come back
to Congress.
With that, I urge passage of this amendment. I strongly believe that
with 9 percent unemployment, and in California 11 percent, and more in
other areas, it's time for us to say don't pass a new regulation that
costs jobs unless you're willing to bring it back to Congress.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1450
Point of Order
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rules state, in pertinent part: An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes an existing law.
The amendment requires a new determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. ISSA. I do.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I believe that, in fact, you will rule, if
allowed to, on this point of order. It is unfortunate that our rules
allow appropriators to legislate when they want to but don't allow us
to bring sensible reform when we believe it is necessary. I am not
legislating; I am limiting.
But I recognize that the ruling is inevitably going to go against us.
I will endeavor to bring this to the attention of the body at every
opportunity and will be drafting a bill that would change the whole
regulatory format.
I would hope those who say on a technical basis they cannot support
us today, even though they know that regulations are costing American
jobs every day, will support legislation that would change this across
government.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Fortenberry) to talk about an important immigration enforcement
program.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to ensure that appropriate funds are provided
for the 287(g) program in this bill. The Federal Government must have
well-equipped partners to address interior enforcement concerns.
However, the bill does not state specifically all funds for the
287(g) program, which would allow for robust law enforcement capacity.
I want to ensure the record reflects that the administration's
request is $68,321,000 and that this bill supports the President's
request.
Citizens nationwide are rightfully demanding secure U.S. borders and
enforcement of our immigration laws. The desire, Mr. Chairman, in many
places across the country to strengthen interior enforcement points to
an overwhelming perception throughout the Nation that the Federal
Government is not as effectively as possible addressing serious
security concerns such as the pernicious criminal activity related to
illegal immigration in the border region.
We need to better empower States and local law enforcement, and the
287(g) is a very important program.
In 1996, Congress enacted section 287(g) as an amendment to the
Immigration and Nationality Act to provide necessary immigration
enforcement assistance to State and local law enforcement entities. It
authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements
with State and local law enforcement, equipping them through thorough
training to perform important immigration enforcement functions.
Local law enforcement agencies are often closest to the problem. To
date, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has trained more than 1,240
State and local officers nationwide pursuant to section 287(g)
programs. Since 2006, the 287(g) program, according to ICE, has
resulted in the identification of more than 200,300 ``potentially
removable aliens--mostly at local jails.'' Sixty-nine separate local
law enforcement agencies participate in the program in 24 States,
including Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia;
and ICE, it appears, has worked very diligently since 2009 to fix
concerns with the program by strengthening public safety and improving
consistency.
In my home State of Nebraska, there is interest at the local level.
The City of Fremont, in particular, has voiced enthusiasm for this
program and could directly be impacted by an increase of funds
available to help secure their community.
Ensuring full funding for the 287(g) programs preserves a high spirit
of federalism in empowering States to work together with the Federal
Government on a critical homeland security matter.
Mr. Chairman, America has been, for a long, long time, a just and
generous Nation in regards to immigration policy, opening her arms to
persons, particularly those facing social, economic or even political
persecution, who wish to come here and make a new contribution in a new
community to the well-being of their own lives. This should remain the
hallmark and spirit of sound immigration policy, but uncontrolled
borders are a serious threat to the United States' national security;
and with lax interior enforcement authority, we risk our ability to
remain a just and generous Nation in regards to immigration policy. So
section 287(g) plays a critical role in this process and should be
funded at the administration's request.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Nebraska raises
some excellent points, and I strongly support robust enforcement of our
Nation's immigration laws. That includes partnership with the States
and local law enforcement through the 287(g) program.
As the gentleman from Nebraska noted, 287(g) is an important tool
among many and gives ICE a force multiplier for immigration
enforcement.
[[Page H3943]]
I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his attention to this
important program, and I will continue to work with him as we move this
bill forward.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, at this point I was planning to offer to the
House and to the committee for its consideration, as we consider one of
the most important appropriations measures that the House will
consider, and that's for our homeland security, I was prepared to offer
an amendment here at this juncture to limit some of the funds that are
made available to the Transportation Security Administration.
My intent is, I think, well founded in having had the opportunity to
review TSA's operations, actually one of the individuals responsible
for creating TSA back after the events of 9/11, when we had to put in
place a transportation security measure and operation for the Nation
which we didn't have prior to that.
When we set up TSA, and particularly where we provided for a new way
of aviation passenger screening, we actually created two models: one, a
private sector model, which is the Federal setting of guidelines and
all of the rules for conducting screening and then Federal operation of
the screening; but also a second model, which was Federal Government
setting the rules and the protocols for operation but using private
screeners.
We set up five models of different-sized category airports to test
this and see how it would work, testing the all-Federal model against
the Federal model with private operators. I can tell you that after
testing this several years, after operational testing not by me but by
the Government Accountability Office, they found, in fact, that the
private screeners performed statistically significantly better than the
other screeners.
TSA wasn't happy with these findings, and it captured a great deal of
the market and activity, so they did everything they could to distort
some of the findings and change the way the airports were tested.
{time} 1500
Even so, about 16 airports now operate with private screeners under
Federal supervision. Tomorrow our committee, and this is the
Transportation Committee, our Investigations and Oversight Committee
will reveal the most comprehensive report of looking at these
operations, and we are comparing apples and apples to see which one
runs better and more cost effectively for the taxpayer.
Without a doubt, this report will show the substantial savings. In
fact, within 5 years, if we converted 38 of the top airports to Federal
operations, again, Federal oversight with private screening, we could
save $1 billion.
And I was prepared to try to transfer earlier in the bill double the
amount of money. There's $144 million in here for private screening
operations under Federal supervision that we currently have, and double
that amount of money which could have gotten us much more passenger
screening and do it much more cost effectively for the taxpayers. And
actually most of our initiatives, positive initiatives, have come from
these private screening models. In any event, that was my intent.
At this point in the bill, I can only take money from the overall
screening activity or limit it. It's my understanding that after I
strike the last word, I'll have an opportunity to offer an amendment
that will, in fact, limit the amount of money for the all-Federal
screening model--not taking it out of TSA, but giving discretion to the
administrator and hopefully applying it. Once again, we restart the
private screening under Federal supervision. Actually, as I speak, all
16 airports continue, but we restart opening it to other airports.
I want to make certain that we have the funds available to accomplish
that goal. And that's the purpose of my amendment. So I'm not taking
away from the overall money to TSA. I'm limiting the amount of money
that can be used. And now we have a Federal screening force, I'm told,
of some 41,000, give or take 500, screeners. This bill authorizes up to
46,000 I'm told. So we stay within the caps.-
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica
Mr. MICA. I have an amendment at the desk.-
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
Sec. __. Of the amount made available for screening
operations under the heading: ``Transportation Security
Administration--Aviation Security'', not more than
$2,760,503,458 may be used for screener personnel,
compensation, and benefits.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has not been recognized on his
amendment yet. The Chair will recognize an opponent following that
debate.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, maybe
the gentleman can clarify, but my understanding was that the 5-minute
address we had just heard was addressing the amendment.
The CHAIR. No, the gentleman rose to strike the last word. After
yielding back, he then offered his amendment. So the gentleman from
Florida will be recognized now on his amendment. He had not offered it
before.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of
his amendment.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I do want to apologize to the members of the
committee because we want to make certain that if we offer the
amendment that it was in the proper form as originally drafted. It was
on a previous page. And I understand from the Parliamentarian that we
could only do a limitation at this particular stage. So that's why I
had the time to explain and striking the last word, my position and
some of the history of my involvement with this. It's not that I'm just
a Johnny-come-lately on the floor to do some mischief with TSA. It's
that I helped to actually create the agency. I want it to be effective.
I want taxpayer money to be properly expended.
But when I see the results--and I've seen the way the TSA operates.
They started with 16,500 screeners on 9/11. And what failed on 9/11 was
not the private screeners. It was the Federal Government, because the
Federal Government failed to put in place the rules, the protocols, the
standards and the levels of operation. They were stalling for years, I
found out, and never put them in place. And that's something we had to
do.
But what we did is, again, we set up two models. And airports have
had the right to opt out from the very beginning and go to private
screening under Federal supervision. Now, we've been there. We've seen
how it works. We have entire States that have said that they want the
opportunity to have the second model, which has proven to be most cost
effective, not just from dollars and cents, but also from efficiency
and effectiveness in operation.
This is all about the performance of TSA, and the models that have
been independently tested will show you that private screeners, under
Federal supervision, again, proper oversight, setting the rules, they
perform better.
So the purpose of this is to set aside some of that money. TSA came
in, and I think that the administrator, while well intended, was kept
in the dark and fed a lot of mushrooms on what happens with these
programs.
And in order to justify 3,700 positions, administrative positions in
Washington, D.C., just in Washington, D.C., 3,700 positions making on
average $105,000 a person--imagine that, what we've created--and
another 8,000-plus administrators out in the field, but to justify
those positions, what they did was they fudged--and GAO has also
confirmed this--the facts on the cost of the private operation, again,
under Federal supervision of passenger screening.
So all this does--it doesn't take any money out of TSA--is it gives
the administrator the discretion to have that money, and he can use it
for screening. And we believe that with the pending applications, which
this bill and your
[[Page H3944]]
bill helps open up, we want to make certain that there are adequate
funds available to do it in the most cost-effective manner. And that's
what my amendment provides for.
So, again, the whole point of this is doing the best possible job for
security. And stop and think about this: this bill provides $3 billion-
plus just for screening, 3 billion. I think the total of this bill is,
what, $8 billion, staff? The entire bill is 46.
But just for TSA is how much? 7.8, close to $8 billion for TSA's
operation. And I wouldn't begrudge them a penny if it, in fact, were
used properly for the security of our Nation to make certain that
people are safe in the skies.
But I'm saying that this amendment does make certain that for a very
cost-effective means of providing passenger screening, we can do a
better job. We'll have the money available, and we won't rely on just
the all-Federal model.
So I urge support for this amendment and your consideration.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chair, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIR. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I've been listening
carefully to the gentleman as he described his intentions in offering
this amendment, and all I can do, I think all any of us can do, is
react to the amendment before us, not to hypothetical future amendments
or future administrative actions. And on the face of it, I oppose this
amendment.
The bill provides $3.03 billion for screeners. This amendment would
cut funding by $270 million.
{time} 1510
If this amendment is accepted, TSA would need to lay off 5,000
screeners. That's 10 percent of the current screener workforce. It
would also eliminate nearly all of the new screeners hired over the
past 12 months. These are screeners that are needed to support, to
operate new security equipment.
Mr. Chairman, there's no way around it: this would decrease security.
It would lead to longer wait lines just at a time when passenger growth
is rebounding at our country's airports. We continue to hear from the
intelligence community about aviation threats. These threats are
becoming more and more ominous, more diversified. Why on earth would we
want to cut back our screener force at this point?
Now, the gentleman has talked about giving the Secretary discretion
to somehow make up for this cut in the private screener force. But
there is really nothing in this amendment that grants such discretion.
There is not any augmenting in this amendment of the private screener
account, nor is there any assurance that even if that account were to
be augmented, that the people that could be hired would replace, one
for one, the 5,000 we are talking about laying off.
So just taking this amendment on the face of it, I think it is an
amendment that would lessen aviation security and, particularly, undo a
lot of the additional protections that have been put in place in the
last year or so. So I think it is a most unwise amendment, and I urge
rejection.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Again, this amendment comes to us late. The gentleman from
Florida happens to be the chairman of the Transportation Committee. He
could write a bill to change this. All of these things that he has
bemoaned here on the floor, he could fix. He could bring the bill to
the floor, and we could have a debate and a discussion. But instead, he
comes here with a meat ax approach, 10 percent reduction in screeners.
Also, I think the gentleman's figure of 3,700 people, I think, are
not screeners here in the Nation's capital.
So again, I just wish the gentleman would use his jurisdiction and
his committee, hold the hearings, bring TSA up here and do the job that
the chairman of the Transportation Committee should do and get this
thing fixed. If it's so good, why don't you fix it?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
Let me just try to clarify the record. The information I have on the
number of screeners from our investigative staff director is 49,553
screeners. That is the figure given to us by TSA. The number of
screeners is 49,553.
The other point, too, when I said 3,700 administrative personnel, I'm
talking about TSA bureaucrats here. I'm not talking about screening
force. Not one screener am I including in that. I'm just talking about
TSA headquarters or TSA administrative personnel making, on average,
$105,000 a year. Now I'm not talking about the screeners. These poor
screeners, some of the screeners are starting at the lowest wage. The
money isn't going for professional screeners, although this bill, I
understand the average pay is about, if you calculate $3 billion
divided by 49,000, you come close to $60,000, and there are costs for
benefits and all that, I grant you. But let me just try to make the
record clear, again: We have 3,700 administrative TSA people in the
headquarters or associated here in the Washington area, not screeners.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I understand that the gentleman from Florida's amendment
wouldn't do anything about those managers because it is aimed at the
screeners themselves. And, also, the bill already reduces screeners to
46,000.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. MICA. Well, again, the justification of most of the 3,700 who fed
the administrator mushrooms and kept him in the dark was in fact you
had someone to supervise all of these people. We have another 8,000
supervisors out in the field.
When you go through the airport line sometime, I challenge you to ask
some of these people what they are doing standing around, the thousands
standing around. The whole point of this is there is another model, and
we created that in 2001. We have 16 airports, five initially. The
biggest one is in the minority leader's district, Ms. Pelosi. It set
the standards, the example for the rest of us. And tomorrow, we will
show a report, and we have examined position by position with San
Francisco airport against LAX because we want to compare apples to
apples. You will see the incredible savings. You'll see the efficiency,
which is like twice as much with private screeners.
So I am taking the money and the positions out of the all Federal and
making them available to the discretion of the administrator to use
them hopefully for this SBP program, which is private screeners under
Federal supervision, which worked so well.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Again, the gentleman is the chairman of the Transportation
Committee. You are the one who helped create this bureaucracy. Why
don't you fix it and bring a bill to the floor so we can have a chance
to vote on it? If it is so good, why do you come here at the last
moment and cut screeners?
Mr. ADERHOLT. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. MICA. Again, I would love nothing more than to have the
jurisdiction. I do not have the jurisdiction. I do have jurisdiction
for some oversight, which we have assumed.
Mr. DICKS. Oh, Homeland Security does. I get that.
Mr. MICA. Yes, they do. So I will be here when Homeland Security cows
come marching through the pasture here and try to make the changes that
are necessary. We have discussed with your staff the changes that we
believe are necessary. But I don't have that jurisdiction; I wish I
did. But I am doing all I can to work with the Appropriations
Committee. Your professionals
[[Page H3945]]
are doing all they can within the limitations of your jurisdiction. I
am doing my little oversight bit, and then we have the Homeland
Security Committee that will march forward with their authorization.
And I will be here for that parade.
Mr. ADERHOLT. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Mica) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, Chair of the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2017) making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________