Politics

Our government works better and costs less when under the critical eye of constructive oversight. As Chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations, I held 65 hearings on a range of domestic and national security issues and commissioned over 30 investigations and reports that exposed millions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars.

From revealing contractors in Afghanistan paying off the Taliban with taxpayer dollars, to uncovering issues related to prescription drug pricing and shameless scams targeting the nation’s veterans, I am well aware that vigilant oversight is needed during wartime situations overseas and close to home as well.

The importance of such oversight was most recently highlighted by the news that in 2010, the General Services Administration (GSA) spent $800,000 on a conference for just 300 attendees. Sadly, as we are now learning, this culture of waste at GSA dates back at least to 2006. This incident comes on the heels of an inspector general report initiated by myself and others finding that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used money confiscated from fishermen to buy a $300,000 luxury boat, intended for undercover operations, but used by its agents as a "party boat."

It is virtually impossible to find anyone in Washington who does not think the now-notorious GSA Western Regions Conference was an inexcusable waste of money. As described by the GSA Inspector General in his lengthy report, the shenanigans surrounding the actions and conduct of some of the managers and planners of the event were nothing short of outrageous.

While I share the outrage over the excessive spending and nature of that particular conference and I have supported bipartisan action in the House to increase transparency and place limits on future federal conferences, I also believe we must not allow this scandal to taint our dedicated federal workforce or the important missions of GSA and other federal agencies.

Read more...

As a long time member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (Chairman from 1997-2002) no one is more familiar with the true extent to which this town can envelop itself in fervent devotion to scandal. In the wake of this past week's first round of Government Services Administration (GSA) scandal hearings, the lines have been drawn, and with the precise choreography of Kabuki theater we can see individuals throughout the District devouring every salacious detail and associated vagary, entrenching themselves in their respective positions on the matter. As we all engage in this time-honored and well-rehearsed Capitol tradition, we must not become so enthralled with the cult of scandal that we lose sight of what the actions of the Government Services Administration says about the culture of big government, this Administration, and most importantly, the current state of this country.

Read more...

The House of Representatives has dubbed this week “Cyber Week.” Today and tomorrow, they will vote on a handful of cybersecurity bills. Unfortunately, none of the proposals that will be considered include important provisions on a key aspect of any effective cyber bill: information sharing.

The battle over information sharing legislation harkens the ghosts of SOPA. That bill, which resulted in a groundswell of internet-driven backlash, showed how volatile internet privacy and censorship issues can become on Capitol Hill. In a matter of days, companies such as Google, Wikipedia, and Facebook killed legislation that previously looked to be on an easy road to passage.

Many believe that the same actors who joined forces last winter to freeze SOPA may join together this spring to drown a critical piece of national security legislation.

The revelation that the General Services Administration (GSA) spent more than $800,000 on a conference in Las Vegas is extremely troubling. We cannot afford $44 breakfasts or catered private parties in resort suites. While the price tag of this scandal is insulting, even worse is the GSA’s brazen exploitation of the public’s trust.

Being a policy maker from Illinois, where four governors have spent time behind bars – as have two of my predecessors – I quickly learned that it is impossible to lead or make tough decisions without the public’s trust. The American people have to be able to trust the government to spend their tax dollars wisely.

The GSA’s frivolous spending on commemorative coins and conference yearbooks is a slap in the face to taxpayers everywhere. Considering actions like these, it comes as no surprise that trust in government is at an all time low. A CNN/ORC poll from September 2011 revealed that only 15 percent of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right, down from 25 percent in September 2010. The pre-Watergate era, during which a majority of Americans said they trusted government, feels like ancient history.
Read more...

Office of Management and Budget Spokesman Kenneth Baer recently acknowledged a long and disturbing trend when he said, “Wasteful duplication of programs and overlap of effort has been around for a long time, as programs keep getting added without realizing what is already there.”

Mr. Baer is right. But just because wasteful duplication has been around a long time, doesn’t mean it has to last forever. We’ve introduced a bipartisan, commonsense solution to this longstanding problem.  The country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Congress can no longer afford to be ignorant of existing federal programs while proposing new duplicative programs that will be paid for with the billions of dollars borrowed from China.

Much has been made of my recent response to a question from a constituent and assertion regarding so-called “communists” in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. I am pleased it has inspired so much passionate debate, for that was precisely the point.

As the Supreme Court sits down this week to hear oral arguments in Arizona v. United States, legal analysts will dissect the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070 from every possible angle. They will wrestle with questions of preemption and which party bears the burden of proof. 

They will attempt to reconcile SB 1070’s controversial language and harsh penalties with long-standing jurisprudence regarding reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and due process. But the court and the legal pundits are missing something if their focus rests solely on who should be burdened with enforcing our outdated immigration laws. The real story on SB 1070 is the growing national consensus that the law, and the “self-deportation” approach upon which it relies, is a failed and disastrous approach to immigration — one that has rapidly fallen out of favor in states across the country. 

At heart, SB 1070 and laws like it aim for what’s known in anti-immigrant circles as “attrition through enforcement.” The theory is that if you can make the daily life of an undocumented immigrant unbearable enough, he or she will pack up the family (often including their US citizen children) and hit the road. Thus, the laws deputize local police officers as immigration enforcement agents and turn even routine traffic stops into immigration checkpoints. 

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for and against Arizona’s SB 1070, the strict immigration law enacted in 2010 that has served as the basis for similar proposals across the southern states.

As the Court hears arguments at the legal level, I’d like to share my thoughts from the perspective of a small business owner. I may not be an expert on constitutional law, but I know a thing or two about small businesses and local economies. And I can say this: laws like Arizona’s SB 1070 are bad for small businesses, bad for our local economies, and bad for the country.

Read more...

Gregg: Why don't the president and Congress go home and leave Washington to the pundits and lobbyists?