House Votes To Delay DHS Ammo Buy

[dc dalton]

The House late Wednesday voted to stop the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from entering into new contracts to buy millions of rounds of ammunition until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports to Congress on the need for the ammo, and its cost.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...delay-bulk-ammo-purchase-by-dhs#ixzz2VRaPcnfO

 

[PapaGrune]

House votes to delay bulk ammunition purchase by DHS.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/303803-house-votes-to-delay-bulk-ammo-purchase-by-dhs

The House late Wednesday voted to stop the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from entering into new contracts to buy millions of rounds of ammunition until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports to Congress on the need for the ammo, and its cost.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) proposed an amendment to the DHS spending bill for 2014 that would require the report to Congress before it can pursue plans to buy 1.1 billion rounds of ammunition. Meadows said the speed bump is a necessary reaction to news of the huge purchase, which alarmed many Americans and prompted conservative groups to suspect that the government was stocking up on the rounds to fight citizens.

Sounds like someone is looking like a RINO

Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said the amendment was unnecessary based on his talks with DHS officials. Carter said the department has since admitted that its ammunition needs are not as great as first reported, and said the department is pursuing a bulk purchase to keep the costs down.

 

[Destructo6]

Ridiculous.

 

[Sam1911]

Maybe they'll explain to Congress what the term "IDIQ" means.

 

[Yo Mama]

Just spoke with Rep. Carter's TX office, and the quote is a bit innaccurate. The Rep is requiring a report from the DHS. This means they must account for every round ordered, and ensuring it's being used and not stockpiled.

While he's not asking for an ammendment the DHS is now under scrutiny due to the new reporting requirement.

 

[AethelstanAegen]

This has truly gotten ridiculous. Pretty darn frustrating when Congress keeps getting derailed debating and voting on non-issues like this, instead of tackling real problems. Maybe I should rethink my investments and buy some stock in a tin foil company.

 

[12many]

Anything that can be done to reduce spending is a good thing. As a reminder, we as a country are flat broke, in debt and over drawn. I want to know there is a need for every item purchased by every gov. department before they spend the money. If the gov. has a surplus, buying bullets is a great way to spend it, but when we are broke, we have to cut back. We have lots of problems with the government and lots of problems to fix. Over spending is one of them. Take time to research the budget for Dept. of Transporation and NASA and Dept. of Education, then compare that to how much the US spends on interest payments every year.

We (US) won the cold war because Russia went banko.

 

[bigdogpete]

Anything that can be done to reduce spending is a good thing. As a reminder, we as a country are flat broke, in debt and over drawn. I want to know there is a need for every item purchased by every gov. department before they spend the money. If the gov. has a surplus, buying bullets is a great way to spend it, but when we are broke, we have to cut back. We have lots of problems with the government and lots of problems to fix. Over spending is one of them. Take time to research the budget for Dept. of Transporation and NASA and Dept. of Education, then compare that to how much the US spends on interest payments every year.

We (US) won the cold war because Russia went banko.

Yet, the government keeps on spending.

 

[danez71]

Ive heard DHS wants a 5 yr stock pile and their is some consensus amongst house members that it should be no more than 2.

 

[OptimusPrime]

I don't have a 2 year stockpile, why do they get one?

 

[jim243]

I think a 5 year stock pile is reasonable, you never know when some anti-gun liberal Democrat will get elected to the office of president again. (LOLOLOL)

I have a 10 year pile just in case.

Jim

 

[AethelstanAegen]

I don't have a 2 year stockpile, why do they get one?

Funny story, they don't get one either. If I had a dime for every time someone "heard" something and passed it on via the internet, I'd be able to pay off the national debt myself. You've always got to consider the source, guys. There's something like 4 or 5 threads where it's already been clearly spelled out how much a non-issue this story is. I'm just disappointed to see Congress wasting government money talking about it instead of doing something useful.

 

[CarolinaChuck]

This is only a guess:

There is this little cared about document in America know as the U.S. Constitution. In it is the little know concept of separation of powers. DHS is under the administrative branch, which is at odds mostly with the legislative branch. One branch can only let the other branch get away with pure lunacy only for so long, before they need to quietly be reined in; otherwise the whole grand illusion will be exposed like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz movie.

1.6 billon rounds divided by 70,000 armed federal agents = 22,857 rounds per agent. That's a lot of training... The remainder would leave 227 million+ rounds left over.

The Marine Corps is 200,000 strong, and that would equal 8,000 rounds per solider; what in the world would a cook do with 8,000 rounds? Pure lunacy is being kind.

Remember the remainder I spoke of with the 70,000 armed federal agents; that would give the U.S. Marine Corp, the entire Corp, 1,136 rounds per solider... And that is just the remainder from the DHS order after training 70K agents with 22K+ rounds each.

CC

 

[AethelstanAegen]

1.6 billon rounds divided by 70,000 armed federal agents = 22,857 rounds per agent.

Except it's not 1.6 billion rounds (and even it was it is spaced out over many years). Please guys seriously, read the other threads.

Maybe they'll explain to Congress what the term "IDIQ" means.

At least look up what Sam1911 was talking about and how that applies here.

 

[ngnrd]

I understand the IDIQ concept. I also understand that the government is operating on borrowed funds, and with no actual budget. Thus, I don't see any problems with asking for a justification and an expense report before authorizing departmental spending.

Now, if we could just get the same type of scrutiny for the other departments/agencies, maybe we could get our deficit spending in check.

Cases in point:

• Of the EPA's $8.15 Billion 2014 budget, $1B is slated for taking action on climate change.
• The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 included over $7B to build a nationwide broadband network for first responders.
• Of the State Department's $47.8 Billion in discretionary funds, $909 million is slated for promoting clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
• AmeriCorps has a budget of right at $1 Billion.
• The Department of the Interior's proposed 2015 budget calls for $900 million annually (from their $11.7B budget) to conserve lands in or near national parks, refuges, forests.
• and on, and on, and on...

There's a lot of waste and unnecessary spending in our government. A little scrutiny, especially in lean times, can only be a good thing... even scrutiny of DHS ammo contracts.

 

[PapaGrune]

I guess all we can hope for is one thing at a time, then move on to the next. The voters need to keep congresses feet to the fire

 

[Robert]

We have covered this topic many many times. Couple that with the off topic talk about gov't spending and we are done here.