SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (19914)5/18/2007 6:15:40 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 71588
 
House Intel Bill Larded With Pork and Global-Warming Mandates
by Amanda B. Carpenter (More by this author)

Posted: 05/18/2007
Despite strong opposition from conservative Republicans, the just-passed House version of next year’s intelligence spending bill includes at least $100 million worth of pork and a mandate that the intelligence community produce reports on global warming.

Thanks to new disclosure laws passed by the House, this is the first bill in which earmarks were listed in an appropriations bill next to the lawmaker who secured them.

But the new rules didn’t discourage a handful of members from securing pork for their districts.



The most contentious earmark in the bill was an unclassified $23-million allotment to fund the National Drug Intelligence Center located Johnstown, Pa., in senior appropriator John Murtha’s (D.) home district. Last year, the House Government Reform Committee said the center should be shut down, and in his proposed budget, President Bush designated $16 million to close it.

In a written statement, Rep. John Campbell (R.-Calif.) said: “The center’s remote location and the fact that there are 19 other operations just like it have caused these oversight panels to publicly oppose its continued operation. Even drug enforcement officials have been quoted as saying the center is basically ‘a jobs program that Mr. Murtha wanted for his district.’”

Murtha’s $23-million earmark was one of 16 unclassified earmarks sought by 11 different representatives, two of whom were Republicans.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R.-Mich.) attempted to attach an amendment to the bill requiring the Justice Department’s inspector general to audit the center in Murtha’s district, but his amendment was turned away by the Rules Committee.

There were also classified earmarks Republicans wanted to contest but were unable to because of the secrecy surrounding funding of intelligence projects. Three times Republicans attempted to put the House into secret session so that they could debate classified earmarks, but each time their efforts were rebuffed largely on party lines.

Rep. Bud Cramer (D.-Ala.), who is the only member of Congress to serve on all three intelligence panels, secured five separate unclassified earmarks that totaled $14 million. Cramer is a senior member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and the Select Intelligence Oversight panel.

The bill also contains a provision to require the intelligence community to produce future National Intelligence Estimates on the potential impact of climate change. Rep. Ed Markey (D.-Mass.) and Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R.-Md.) were responsible for putting the mandate into the bill. The ranking Republican member of the Intelligence Committee, Pete Hoekstra (R.-Mich.), offered an amendment to strike this provision from the bill, but it was defeated 185 to 230, mostly along party lines.

The Democrats were bolstered by a May 9 letter that President Bush’s Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell wrote to Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D.-Calif.), also a member of the House Intelligence Committee, saying that it was “appropriate for the National Intelligence Council to prepare on assessment on the geopolitical and security implication of climate change.”

McConnell also asked that Congress direct other organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences, the national laboratories and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, to present scientific data about climate change to the NIC in future legislation. He said that this would “enable the NIC to use the work of the analysts better able to assess and predict physical consequences in specific countries and regions.”
The House bill was passed with 26 unclassified earmarks and the global-warming provision at 1:30 am on May 11. Below is a listing of the earmarks included in the bill and excerpts from the letter McConnell sent to Congress.

Earmarks Contained in the House Intelligence Spending Bill:

Requesting MemberSubjectDollar Amount (in thousands)

Rep. Bud Cramer (D.-Ala.) -- National Intelligence Program-Rapid Missile All-Source Analysis $5,000

Rep. Bud Cramer (D.-Ala.) -- Military Intelligence Program-Tactical SIGINT and Geo-location Cognitive Analysis $1,000

Rep. Bud Cramer (D.-Ala.) -- National Intelligence Program Laboratory Program- Missile and Space Intelligence Center Simulation Project $4,000

Rep. Bud Cramer (D.-Ala.) -- National Intelligence Program-Laboratory for High-Performance Computational Systems $2,000

Rep. Bud Cramer (D.-Ala.) -- Military Intelligence Program-Battle Lab Collection Management Tool Synchronization $2,000

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D.-Calif.) -- National Intelligence Program-Geo-Location Software Development $2,750

Rep. Terry Everett (R.-Ala.) -- National Intelligence Program-Global Geospatial Data Project $6,000

Rep. Terry Everett (R.-Ala.) -- National Intelligence Program-Missile and Space Intelligence Center Simulation Project $4,000

Rep. Terry Everett (R.-Ala.) -- National Intelligence Program-Rapid Missile All-Source Analysis $6,000

Rep. Ralph Hall (D.-Tex.) -- National Intelligence Program-RC-135S Sensor Upgrade $3,200

Rep. Ralph Hall (D.-Tex.) -- Military Intelligence Program-RC-135 Modification $3,000

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) -- Military Intelligence Program-Western Hemisphere Security Analysis Center $2,000

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) -- National Intelligence Program Community Management Account-Centers of Academic Excellence $2,000

Rep. Mike Honda (D.-Calif.) -- Information Systems Security Protection-Cryptographic Modernization Program $2,600

Rep. Michael McCaul (R.-Tex.) -- Military Intelligence Program-Next Generation Signal Intelligence Sensor $1,000

Rep. John Murtha (D.-Pa.) -- National Intelligence Program-Mobile Missile-Monitoring and Detection Program $1,000

Rep. John Murtha (D.-Pa.) -- National Intelligence Program-Joint Intelligence Training and Education $1,000

Rep. John Murtha (D.-Pa.) -- National Intelligence Program Community Management Account-National Drug Intelligence Center $23,000

Rep. Ed Pastor (D.-Ariz.) -- National Intelligence Program-Behavior Pattern Recognition Training Program $500

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D.-Md.) -- Military Intelligence Program-Radio Frequency Signal Collection Program $2,000

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D.-Md.) -- Intelligence Systems Security Protection-Computer Chip Hardening and Production $2,500

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D.-Md.) -- Military Intelligence Program-National Tactical Gateway $10,000

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D.-Md.) -- National Intelligence Program-Computer-Proliferation System Prototype $3,000

Rep. John Tierney (D.-Mass.) -- National Intelligence Program-Advanced Mirror Development $3,000

Rep. John Tierney (D.-Mass.) -- National Intelligence Program-Seismic Research $2,000

Rep. John Tierney (D.-Mass.) -- Military Intelligence Program-Sensor Visualization and Data Fusion $1,500

Source: House Intelligence Committee Report on FY 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act, pages 50-51.

Excerpts From Bush’s DNI McConnell’s May 9 Letter:

“I believe it is entirely appropriate for the National Intelligence Council [NIC] to prepare an assessment on the geopolitical and security implications of global climate change. But precisely because the issues associated with global climate change are so important, we believe it would be a mistake to predicate these evaluations on work undertaken by analysts who are ill-equipped to provide credible and comprehensive characterizations of how, where and what the physical effects of global climate change will be.”

“Therefore, we believe strongly that the task of examining the implications of global climate change should be approached in a way that will enable the NIC to use the work of analysts better able to assess and predict physical consequences in specific countries and regions. We therefore request that the legislation also direct that other appropriate organizations, perhaps the National Academy of Sciences, the national laboratories and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration work with the NIC so that the task of evaluating and extrapolating the various scenarios that the IN and others have presented -- as well as the feasibility and costs of mitigation -- can engage those best able to evaluate the available scientific data, scenarios and mitigation strategies.”

Source: A May 9, 2007, unclassified letter from Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell to Rep. Anna Eshoo (D.-Calif.), chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management and member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss Carpenter is congressional correspondent & assistant editor for HUMAN EVENTS. She is the author of "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Rodham Clinton," published by Regnery (a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).

humanevents.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (19914)6/25/2007 4:21:36 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Pork Project
An earmark lesson for Washington from the states: shame.

BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, June 22, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

It was about a week ago that House Democrats ran up the white flag on earmarks and begrudgingly agreed to live by their campaign pledges to make pork requests public. It was also about a week ago that Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed a sweeping new state transparency law, which will give his taxpayers detailed information about every state expenditure, grant and contract. Mark the difference.

Even as Washington has fiddled on earmarks--delaying, obfuscating and basically doing all it can to avoid enacting real reform--a transparency movement has been sweeping the nation. Angry over Alaskan Bridges to Nowhere, and frustrated by the lack of willpower in the nation's capital, small-government activists have turned their attention to the states. If ever Washington lagged behind a movement, this is it.

In April, Kansas became the first state in 2007 to sign into law comprehensive legislation mandating a public Web site to show its citizens where all their money was flowing. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty quickly followed suit, signing his own state's reform the following month. Mr. Perry was next, and Oklahoma and Hawaii have bills awaiting their own governors' signatures. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels issued an executive order to disclose state contracts all the way back in 2005. In total, some 19 states have passed, or are now working on, legislative or administrative reforms that would hand the public tools to examine government spending.

"Transparency is the next big thing," says Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. His organization, along with other national anti-waste groups, has turned this issue into a top agenda item, and they've been joined by local grassroots organizations such as Texans for Fiscal Responsibility and Washington state's Evergreen Freedom Foundation. These groups are aiming for more than just feel-good "open government." They're making a bet that transparency will succeed in limiting spending in ways that their other campaigns have not.

That hope is rooted in the idea that the best way to get Americans actively engaged in the debate over the size and efficiency of government is by giving them examples of government gone wrong. Reformers point to the current furor over Washington earmarks as proof. Tell Americans that the size of the federal government increased to a whopping $3 trillion, and their eyes glaze over. Tell them that the Alaska delegation was trying to appropriate some $300 million of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to build a bridge for 50 people, and they go berserk. Much as they went berserk decades ago at the news the Pentagon had spent $640 on a toilet seat.

Texas shows how big the transparency debate has become at the local level, and is even offering some signs that the reformers might be on the right track. Having seen national Republicans bounced from power--in part because of the earmark issue--Gov. Perry got out ahead on the transparency issue, running on greater disclosure in his re-election campaign last year and proposing in January that all state agencies publish their expenditures online.

He received a boost from Republican State Comptroller Susan Combs, who got elected in part by promising more disclosure--a message that resonated with voters angry over Washington shenanigans. Within days of taking office in January, she'd listed her department's spending "down to the pencil category" and by May was offering information for dozens of other state agencies. Her Web site runs the gamut, from the state's commission on environmental quality to its employees' retirement system, and includes data on everything from salaries to travel bills. The legislature, meanwhile, also rushed to get some good-government kudos from voters, and the bill Gov. Perry signed last week requires spending information from all state agencies, as well as state contracts and grants.

The media, government groups and blogs have been combing through the details, with some lively results. Among the first to have to answer for spending actions was none other than Ms. Combs. Within a few weeks of posting the comptroller office's outlays, a local newspaper was asking why telephone costs had nearly doubled going into fiscal 2007. Her office also had to explain why cable costs had soared (more executive staff members had wanted it in their office); she noted that this expansion in services had now been cut back and would cost less.

Which is exactly the sort of debate the reformers had aimed to inspire. Mr. Norquist argues that the very existence of transparency laws "gets rid of half the problem," since politicians are on uncomfortable notice that their spending habits are being watched. If a politician knows that Joe Public can find out that he helped award a huge grant or government contract to a big campaign donor, he might think twice about pushing the grant in the first place.

At the state level, transparency has been an easy political sell. Voters have made clear they are willing to turn spending abuse into a top issue in local elections. And while big-government politicians may not fear arguing against budget caps or spending limitations, few are stupid enough to argue against better information. If anything, state Republicans and Democrats are racing to sponsor transparency bills. The question is if any of this translates back to Washington. National politicians understand the anger, which is why Democrats ran on greater earmark transparency last year, and why we had last year's successful legislation from Sens. Tom Coburn and Barack Obama to set up a public Web site detailing all federal contracts and grants.

Yet for all the sweet talk, most of Congress is still hoping voters will forget all this hubbub about pork amid more pressing issues like the Iraq war. The uproar over Democrats' decision to hide the details of 32,000 earmark requests suggests those hopes are as yet misplaced.

Even with greater transparency, will the humiliation factor work? Amid all House Appropriations Chairman David Obey's unconvincing reasons for keeping the public in the dark, he did make the fair point that even when embarrassing earmarks have been disclosed, Congress rallies around its porksters and approves the money. It's hard to shame people who have no shame.

And that's the next stage of the earmark debate. Forcing national politicians to admit to their bad spending habits is clearly difficult. Forcing them to stop, or pay the price at the polls, is the real test of "earmark reform."

Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, based in Washington. Her column appears Fridays.

opinionjournal.com