tiberi.house.gov
Tiberi
Contact:
In Case You Missed It...Democratic Slush Funds Exposed
Washington, Jun 13 -
Cleveland (OH) Plain Dealer: “Five months after Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team took control, that promise remains unfulfilled … Democrats promised to reduce the practice [of earmarking], in part, by shining light on it. But now Appropriations Chairman David Obey has decided that he will review all earmark requests and add them during conference committee deliberations to reconcile House and Senate spending bills. That's a secretive process, and its final product gets a yes-or-no vote in each chamber. This means earmarks will sail through before the press or even most members of Congress can examine or challenge them. There's nothing inherently wrong with Congress making minute spending decisions, but do it openly.” (Editorial, 6/10/07) Chicago Sun-Times: “Democrats in the House seem to be blowing their first opportunity to demonstrate they mean business … More openness is supposed to make lawmakers propose only those earmarks that are easy to defend, or force them to withdraw projects that don't stand up to public scrutiny. If the House Democratic plan does anything to reduce public scrutiny, then it represents a step backward in the battle against pork.” (Editorial, 6/8/07) Pensacola (FL) News Journal: “Democrats have not done themselves proud on earmarks. Despite their promises to smash open the pork barrel and stop hiding members' projects, the Democrats are bypassing their own House rules to let earmarks remain shrouded in the technical mists of the budget … [I]t sounds as if the pressure from members eager to feed at the trough is causing the reform to be sidetracked … But it would be nice to see members of Congress finding value in going back home to ‘deliver’ the news of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget. The Democrats promised much, but so far have delivered less.” (Editorial, 6/5/07) Lincoln (NE) Journal Star: “Those optimistic souls who trusted that ethics would make a dramatic appearance in Washington after the Democrats won control of Congress have had their faith tested in the past few weeks. One case in point was the performance of Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., who had a temper tantrum after a Republican member unearthed an earmark Murtha had inserted into the intelligence authorization act … That dust-up was emblematic of the way that reform has languished in the House since newly elected Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised to ‘drain the swamp’ and end ‘the culture of corruption’ in the adrenal rush of the Democratic takeover.” (Editorial, 6/4/07) Baltimore Sun: “Favor czar … a Democratic effort to bring these goodies out of the closet has run wildly awry. Overwhelmed by more than 30,000 requests from his 434 colleagues, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, David R. Obey, effectively has thrown up his hands and refused to even consider them until after House versions of the 13 separate spending bills are approved. At that point, he and his staff alone will sort the worthy from the unworthy, the election-year booty from the lobbyist payoff …” (Editorial, 6/11/07) St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “On taking control of Congress this year, Democrats pledged to end, or at least curb, earmarks … But, in a slick maneuver, House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat, will keep earmarks off bills now, but attach them at the last minute before passage this fall. That will keep them hidden from public scrutiny until it's too late for spoilsport good-government types to raise a stink.” (Editorial, 6/11/07) The Press of Atlantic City (NJ): “But they’ve done a shameful and shocking about-face. This year, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., to keep the earmarks out of spending bills entirely until the last moment — when bills come up for final action and cannot be amended, and when it will be too late to oppose specific projects as wasteful or questionable. Congressional watchdog groups are justifiably outraged … But we do know that without constant vigilance and pressure from voters, politicians will revert to their old ways. What's shocking in Washington is that it only took a few months.” (Editorial, 6/8/07) Wisconsin State Journal: “Obey is now dodging the very reforms he helped to generate … His solution was to wait until the end of the lawmaking process, where earmarks would be submitted in closed-door sessions of the committee that negotiates the differences between House and Senate versions of bills. With this maneuver, Obey would enhance his own power but prevent the public and most lawmakers from questioning earmarks until it is too late.” (Editorial, 6/7/07) Charleston (SC) Post and Courier: “Meanwhile, the Post reports that Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc., has decreed that earmarks won't be considered in budget bills until they reach conference committee. Rep. Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, insists that considering earmarks late in the process will give him and his staff more time to scrutinize them. Critics justifiably contend that the idea would sharply diminish the needed level of public review, particularly since conference committees are held behind closed doors … Former congressional aide Winslow Wheeler, now of the Center for Defense Information, put it more broadly in his comments to the newspaper: ‘The rhetoric has changed but not the behavior, and the behavior has gotten worse in the sense that while they are pretending to reform things, they are still groveling in the trough.’” (Editorial, 5/26/07) Las Vegas Review Journal: “Democratic earmark reforms lasted 100 days. When Democrats took control of Congress four months back, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., bragged it would take her party less than 100 hours to curb wasteful pork spending by requiring members to attach their names to their ‘earmarks,’ exposing such waste to the harsh light of public scrutiny. She failed to mention this "reform" would remain in effect for little more than 100 days … The ‘anti-earmark reforms" are just for show. Mere window dressing. Why, if we enjoyed the immunities of a colorful old Democratic congressman, we might even call them ‘total crap.’” (Editorial, 6/5/07) CNN’s Jack Cafferty: “Remember when the Democrats took control of the Congress back in January? On their very first day in power they approved rules to clearly identify so-called pet projects or ‘earmarks’ in spending bills. You know, part of their promise to bring openness and transparency to government. Well, guess what? The Associated Press reports Democrats are not including the spending requests and legislation as it's being written. Instead, they are following an order from the House Appropriations Committee Chairman, David Obey, to keep the bills free of these earmarks until the fall. Now by doing this, nobody will know what the earmarks are when the bills are first voted on in June. And when they're finally announced in the fall, well, then, it will be virtually too late to do anything about them. Clever, don’t you think?” (6/4/07)
CNN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER DREW GRIFFIN: “The new, open, Democratic Party-controlled Congress promised the earmark process would no longer be secret. All earmark requests are made public with plenty of time for debate. But Dave Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and one of those Democrats bragging about the changes, has decided that earmarks, those generous gifts of your money, will be inserted into bills only after the bill has cleared the House floor. In other words, earmarks will still be done in secret, no public debate. There was supposed to be some kind of change …. In the next few months, in what Congressman Obey says is the most open earmark process ever, the bills will be drafted, the earmarks added. But only then, just before those bills are passed, will the public learn where the treasure is buried.” (5/25/07)
Associated Press: “After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year. Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify ‘earmarks’—lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states—in documents that accompany spending bills.” (6/3/07) CNN’s GRIFFIN: “Thousands of pages of earmarks in a bill, time after time after time. And the Democrats promised reform. And, it's not happening.”(5/31/07)
Toledo (OH) Blade: “Backtracking on earmarks. HERE'S the outrage of the week (among many) from Washington: Democrats, who took control of Congress by pledging reform and whacking Republicans over the issue of special-interest ‘earmarks,’ already are perpetuating this odious waste of taxpayer money … Democrats promised to end such abuses … Now that they're in charge, they should live up to their rhetoric. (Editorial, 5/26/07)
Wall Street Journal: “Democrats led by campaign chairman Rahm Emanuel had great fun with the issue and promised they'd be different. Now poor Mr. Obey is stuck between the pork and those campaign promises." (Editorial, 6/13/07)
Mobile (AL) Press-Register: “Democrats work ATM … But now that they control the ATM, the Democrats are finding all sorts of excuses to keep the earmark dispenser open for business … Democrats are reneging on their vows of fiscal responsibility just a few months after they won their chance to load the ATM.” (Editorial, 6/8/07)
Tacoma (WA) News Tribune: “Pork reform? Some say Democrats doing the opposite …But the chairman of the committee, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., has said the earmarks will be added when House-Senate conference committees meet to hammer out the final versions of the bills. ‘I don’t want anyone to misunderstand,’ said Dicks, who as chairman of the House interior appropriations subcommittee, is in the thick of the debate. ‘There will be earmarks when we get to conference’ … Republicans say Obey is maneuvering to ensure earmarks added to the spending bills can’t be challenged. The final version of an appropriations bill can’t be amended when it comes to the House floor. In addition, Republicans say Obey isn’t going to disclose the names of those who requested the earmarks until the final version of the bill is written.” (Op-Ed by Les Blumenthal, 6/11/07)
St. Petersburg Times: “Pet projects pushed out of public eye. The new game that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey intends to play with budget earmarks this year is worse than the usual hide-and-seek. He is taking the whole thing underground, as though he is to be trusted as a one-man auditor for congressional pork. If this is to be the new ethic that Democrats promised, voters might want their ballots back. The result, then, is that the earmark projects will receive almost no public scrutiny and no congressional debate. This is precisely the kind of environment in which convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff thrived, the kind of place he fondly called the ‘favor factory.’” (Editorial, 6/5/07)
The Missoulian (MT): “Congressional pork too tasty to leave alone. Congress is ignoring election promises and feasting on pork projects. What's on the menu on Capitol Hill these days? Pork, of course. And just about everyone's in line for the buffet. Not that we're surprised, but we are scratching our heads, given the promises and pronouncements of the last election season. In their first half-year in office, the newly powerful House Democrats have seemingly lost their reformist zeal …” (Editorial, 5/31/07)
Reading (PA) Eagle: “Democratic vows remain unfulfilled … Democrats can talk the talk, but they seem to be having difficulty walking the walk. As the approval ratings of Republicans plummeted prior to last November’s general election, Democrats saw their chance to regain congressional control … Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was soon to become speaker of the House, said, ‘We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical and open Congress in history.’ That pledge was broken in March when Democrat leaders pushed through a $124 billion emergency-supplemental bill to fund the military in Iraq and Afghanistan that was laden with $21 billion in pork-barrel spending, known as earmarks. A House rule instituted by Democrats that prohibits swapping earmarks for votes also seems to have fallen by the wayside. (Editorial, 5/31/07)