Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Bobby Jindal on Homeland Security

Republican Governor; previously Representative (LA-1)


Ill-advised to scale back missile defense

The Obama administration wants to focus on disarmament. Like those who argue that guns can cause crime, Pres. Obama's team seems to believe that simple reducing the number of military weapons--including the weapons we ourselves possess--will reduce conflict. But weapons, whether hunting rifles or tanks, are inanimate objects. I'm not worried about the objects themselves, but about who controls them and where they're being pointed. If Canada announces it is building a new missile, I wouldn't be too concerned. But when Iran or North Korea do it, I'm a lot less sanguine. We can abolish as many of our missiles as we want, but that's just not going to convince international miscreants to do the same. That's why Pres. Obama's decision to drastically scale back our missile defense program was ill-advised. The real cause of war and international conflict is not the existence of weapons, but authoritarian leaders trying to expand their power.
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.246 , Nov 15, 2010

Don't give Miranda rights to terrorists

I don't see any reason to continue giving Miranda rights to foreign terrorists, as we did to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be bomber of Flight 253. As Senators Collins and Lieberman wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder, the decision to treat Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal "almost certainly prevented the military and the intelligence community from obtaining information that would have been critical to learning more about how our enemy operates and to preventing future attacks." This is just common sense; intelligence is our first line of defense in war. That's why I voted in Congress to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) so the president and the attorney general could authorize electronic surveillance of foreign agents without a court order. Extending full legal protections to foreign terrorists will simply mean more dead Americans.
Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.250 , Nov 15, 2010

Make no apologies when we must use our military strength

We live in a dangerous world, and America needs to be strong. We must remain not just strong, but the strongest power in the world, and we should make no apologies when we must use our military strength from time to time. But this is not where our true strength lies. Military might is a means to an end, not an end in itself. A strong military in the hands of a corrupt, wicked, or oppressive regime does not make that regime great.

Having military superiority is great--but it has to be tethered to a culture that promotes goodness, freedom, and justice. Without that, we would be no better than the old Soviet Union.

Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.271-272 , Nov 15, 2010

Claim of "poverty causes terrorism" justifies globalism

Islamic terrorists often hail from the richest Middle Eastern nations--fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia--while dirt poor Muslim countries like Mali, Bangladesh, and Niger produce few if any terrorists. Many suicide bombers ha graduate degrees and well-paying jobs before they chose to murder innocent civilians in suicidal attacks. Nevertheless, the Obama administration continues to cling to the "poverty causes terrorism" theory because it supports the social work approach to national security that it favors.

As we engage and defeat our enemies on the battlefield, we also need to win the battle of ideas by projecting confidence in our values, history, and our way of life. Our president has made a bad habit of apologizing t foreign audiences for America's supposed transgressions. The American president must proudly represent the world's greatest democracy to the world. It is naive to think these apologies gain us respect--they simply convey a dangerous lack of confidence.

Source: Leadership and Crisis, by Bobby Jindal, p.257-258 , Nov 15, 2010

Now is no time to cut funding for our troops

We must remember for all our troubles at home, dangerous enemies still seek our destruction. Now is no time to dismantle the defenses that have protected this country for hundreds of years, or make deep cuts in funding for our troops. America's fighting men and women can do anything. If we give them the resources they need, they will stay on the offensive, defeat our enemies, and protect us from harm.
Source: GOP response to the 2009 State of the Union address , Feb 24, 2009

Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts.

  1. Improving the Quality of Contracts--to restrict the contract period of noncompetitive contracts to the minimum period necessary to meet urgent requirements; and not more than one year unless the the government would be seriously injured.
  2. Increasing Contract Oversight--to make publicly available (on websites) justification documents for using noncompetitive contract procedures.
  3. Promoting Integrity in Contracting--to prohibit former federal officials from accepting compensation from contractors as lawyers or lobbyists.

Proponents support voting YES because:

In Iraq, we were told we needed Halliburton to get a contract without any competition because they were the only ones who know how to put out oil well fires. So they got a contract on a cost-plus basis even though they had a history of overcharging the taxpayers. And then later we found out that they didn't do anything about putting out oil well fires in the first Gulf war; it was Bechtel, not Halliburton. Contractors were given special treatment by not having healthy competition.

In dealing with Hurricane Katrina, and we have seen the same mistakes again: No-competition contracts; cost-plus contracts. We have seen what the result has been: Wasted taxpayer dollars. This bill requires that if there is an emergency to give a contract, give it. But then have bidding within a year.

Opponents support voting NO because:

We support transparency and accountability in decision-making, but this bill asks for audit reports that are only advisory. To provide those to Congress not only gives you too much information, a lot of it can be misleading and can increase the number of contract disputes.

When you are fighting a war, you need to move quickly. You don't give a 6-month appeal to the folks that lose the competition. You don't give small business set-asides because there is one thing you don't have, you don't have time.

Reference: Accountability in Contracting Act; Bill H R 1362 ; vote number 2007-156 on Mar 15, 2007

Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.

Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to allow the President & Attorney General to authorize electronic surveillance without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information, after certifying that the surveillance is directed at the acquisition of communications of foreign agents.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terrorism. That means we have to have intelligence agencies and capabilities that are agile, that are responsive to changes in technology, and that also protect the civil liberties of Americans. Let me make an analogy. With modernization, we replaced Route 66 with Interstate 40. We no longer have the stoplights and the intersections. We created on ramps and off ramps and concrete barriers to protect the citizens where traffic was moving very quickly. That is like what we are trying to do here--FISA needs modernization.

Opponents support voting NO because:

We are legislating in the dark. We do not even know what the President is doing now because he will not tell us. The New York Times exposed that the administration had authorized secret surveillance of domestic conversations. When exposed, the President claimed he was operating under inherent powers, but court decisions have found that the President cannot simply declare administration actions constitutional and lawful, whether or not they are.

Yet rather than finding out what is going on, this legislation retroactively legalizes whatever has been going on. The President already has broad latitude to conduct domestic surveillance, including surveillance of American citizens, so long as it is overseen by the FISA court.

This bill does not enhance security, but it does allow surveillance without the traditional checks and balances that have served our Nation well.

Reference: Update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978; Bill H.R.5825 ; vote number 2006-502 on Sep 28, 2006

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.

A resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities. Voting YES indicates support of the current methods for intelligence-gathering used by the CIA and other agencies. The resolution's opponents say:
Reference: Intelligence Authorization Act; Bill HR 5020 resolution H RES 774 ; vote number 2006-108 on Apr 26, 2006

Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists.

REAL ID Act of 2005: To establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5]; Bill H.R.418 ; vote number 2005-031 on Feb 10, 2005

Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses.

Expresses the continued support of Congress for, and encourages the executive branch to continue challenging any judicial decision against, specified provisions of Federal law prohibiting making certain Federal contracts with or grants to institutions of higher education that prevent military recruiters from having access to their campuses and to certain information about their students.
Reference: Resolution sponsored by Rep Mike Rogers [R, AL-3]; Bill H.CON.RES.36 ; vote number 2005-016 on Feb 2, 2005

2012 Governor, House and Senate candidates on Homeland Security: Bobby Jindal on other issues:

LA Senatorial:
David Vitter
Mary Landrieu

Retiring to run for other office:

Running for Mayor:
CA-51:Bob Filner(D)

Running for Governor:
IN-6:Mike Pence(R)
WA-1:Jay Inslee(D)

Running for Senate:
AZ-6:Jeff Flake(R)
CT-5:Chris Murphy(R)
FL-14:Connie Mack(R)
HI-2:Mazie Hirono(D)
IN-2:Joe Donnelly(D)
MO-2:Todd Akin(R)
MT-0:Dennis Rehberg(R)
ND-0:Rick Berg(D)
NM-1:Martin Heinrich(D)
NV-1:Shelley Berkley(D)
WI-2:Tammy Baldwin(D)
2011-2012 Special Elections:
AZ-8:Gabby Giffords(D)
CA-36:Jane Harman(D)
CA-36:Janice Hahn(D)
NV-2:Dean Heller(R)
NV-2:Mark Amodei(R)
NY-9:Anthony Weiner(D)
NY-9:Bob Turner(R)
NY-26:Chris Lee(R)
NY-26:Kathleen Hochul(D)
OR-1:David Wu(D)
OR-1:Suzanne Bonamici(D)

Retiring 2012:
AR-4:Mike Ross(D)
AZ-8:Gabby Giffords(D)
CA-2:Wally Herger(R)
CA-6:Lynn Woolsey(D)
CA-18:Elton Gallegly(R)
CA-24:Dennis Cardoza(D)
CA-41:Jerry Lewis(R)
IL-12:Jerry Costello(D)
IN-5:Dan Burton(R)
KY-4:Geoff Davis(R)
MA-1:John Olver(D)
MA-4:Barney Frank(D)
MI-5:Dale Kildee(D)
NC-11:Heath Shuler(D)
NC-13:Brad Miller(D)
NY-22:Maurice Hinchey(D)
OH-7:Steve Austria(R)
OK-2:Dan Boren(D)
PA-19:Todd Platts(R)
TX-14:Ron Paul(R)
TX-20:Charles Gonzalez(D)
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families/Children
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Infrastructure/Technology
Jobs
Principles/Values
Social Security
Tax Reform
War/Iraq/Mideast
Welfare/Poverty

Main Page
Profile
LA politicians

Contact info:
Email Contact Form
Fax number:
225-342-7015

Page last updated: Mar 14, 2012