Prepared Floor Statement of Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee
Grassley Amendment #3348
to H.R. 1 the Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Appropriations Act
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Mr./Madam President, I want to say a few words in support of Grassley Amendment #3348. I understand the Majority filled the amendment tree so we cannot make amendments pending at this time, but I want to inform members about the importance of my amendment and why it should be included.
My amendment is about smart government. It’s about ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, while at the same time guaranteeing that federal law enforcement agencies that face challenges following Hurricane Sandy have the resources they need to get the job done.
On December 7, the White House Office of Management and Budget transmitted a legislative proposal to Congress seeking supplemental appropriations for disaster mitigation related to Hurricane Sandy. By all accounts, this action was normal response to a federal disaster and one that nearly all members have supported for various disasters that have occurred in our home states.
However, this request was unusual in a number of respects. For example, a large portion of the funds included in the President’s request are unrelated or extremely remote to the damage caused by the storm. This includes funding for fisheries in Alaska, funding to increase AMTRAK capacity, and funding to be spent years into the future. Further, the funding request sent up by the President does not include any recommendation for offsetting the spending. So, long story short, this request means more deficit spending.
There is one part of the request that causes me particular concern because it relates to my work as the Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary. In the President’s request, there are specific line items for repairing and replacing federal vehicles damaged by Hurricane Sandy.
Specifically, the Justice Department requested $4 million for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, $1 million for the Drug Enforcement Administration, $230,000 for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and $20,000 for vehicles for the Department of Justice Inspector General. Among other things, these funds are largely to repair and replace federal vehicles damaged by water from the storm.
The Department of Homeland Security requested $300,000 for the U.S. Secret Service, $855,000 for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Again, this funding is largely for repairing or replacing damaged vehicles.
The President requested this funding in an effort to replace these damaged vehicles. He cited operational use of these vehicles by law enforcement agencies as the reason they need to be replaced.
I understand that vehicles are an important part of the work that these federal law enforcement agencies undertake and are critical to ongoing operations in the field.
However, I am concerned about simply providing funding for replacement vehicles in the field. Because of the way the government operates, this funding will not reach the agencies immediately. Even when it does, it will take time for replacement vehicles to be located, purchased, and prepared for use.
But given that this is an emergency spending bill, we can assume that these agencies need vehicles for immediate, operational use.
As such, my amendment seeks to place these vehicles into the hands of the agents in the field as fast as possible.
Instead of simply providing funding, my amendment requires that within 7 days, the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security identify and relocate vehicles based at the Washington D.C. headquarters of DOJ and DHS that are used for non-operational purposes.
The vehicles identified will then be used to replace those damaged by Hurricane Sandy that are used by the FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE, and Secret Service.
The amendment limits the funding provided for these vehicle purchases until a report is produced to Congress identifying the vehicle relocations.
This is a good government amendment and one that actually achieves the goal of replacing operational vehicles used by federal law enforcement faster than the underlying bill.
Since we are told this funding is absolutely necessary for these agencies—so necessary as to warrant emergency funding that is not offset with spending reductions—this amendment actually improves the bill by getting vehicles to law enforcement almost immediately.
Now, the agencies who will likely oppose this will argue this is unnecessary and that we should just write them a check for new cars. That is ridiculous.
If this is an emergency, as we’ve been told, these agencies can spare some of the hundreds of vehicles they have sitting at their headquarters that they currently have for non-operational purposes.
These vehicles are given to employees in offices such as legislative affairs, budget, facility managers, and Chief Information Officers, and Chief Financial Officers that get cars to drive to and from work. Many may even sit unused for periods of time.
Those are not operational needs.
Just last year, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Free Ride Ends for Marshalls” which addressed how 100 headquarters employees of the U.S. Marshals Service returned government-owned vehicles to the motor pool instead of using them to commute to and from work.
The article described how in recent years the proliferation of take home vehicles for headquarters employees had exploded. While the article focused on reducing take home cars at the Marshal’s Service, it’s clear that the same argument can be made for reducing take home cars at other agencies.
In the case of this supplemental, if this is actually an emergency worthy of millions of taxpayer dollars, these agencies can inconvenience non-operational personnel at headquarters who get these vehicles as a fringe benefit.
In fact, according to inventory numbers provided to the Appropriations Committee, the Justice Department has 3,225 cars at the Washington D.C. headquarters of their agencies alone.
Surely, the Justice Department can find a handful of vehicles out of these 3,225 vehicles that could be sent to the field to replace these damaged vehicles.
On top of that, my amendment would allow the funds to replace these non-operational vehicles after they are relocated. So, my amendment would at most create a very small inconvenience for these non-operational staff for a short time.
This amendment makes sense by modifying a request that, quite honestly, doesn’t make a lot of sense.
If this is an emergency, as we’re told, the agencies should have no problem doing what my amendment asks.
We owe it to the American taxpayers to spend their tax dollars wisely. This amendment doesn’t go as far as we could, which would be to strike the funding outright. Instead, it gives the Administration the benefit of the doubt that this is a true emergency and that these cars are needed.
However, it forces the agencies to make a decision and temporarily inconvenience a few bureaucrats in Washington D.C. while ensuring the operational law enforcement elements in the field have the equipment they need.
I urge my colleagues to support my common sense, good government amendment.
I ask that it be considered at the appropriate time and included in the final legislation.
I yield the floor.