DTB's "do nothing" congress continues to do things...

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
Senate approves greater disclosure of pet projects, fundraising

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/02/congress.ethics.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted Thursday to make lawmakers disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a move some called the biggest advance in congressional ethics in decades.

The ethics bill requires lawmakers to disclose their earmarks 48 hours before voting for them.

The 83 to 14 vote, which sends the bill to President Bush, prompted Democrats to claim fulfillment of their 2006 campaign promise to crack down on lobbying abuses that sent some lawmakers and a prominent lobbyist to prison.

The bill would require lawmakers to disclose those lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more for them within a six-month period by "bundling" donations from many people. Lawmakers seeking targeted spending projects, or "earmarks," would have to publicize their plans in advance, although critics said the requirements are hardly airtight.

The Democratic-crafted bill would bar lawmakers from taking gifts from lobbyists or their clients. Former senators would have to wait two years before lobbying Congress; ex-House members would have to wait one year.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, called it "the most sweeping reform bill since Watergate."

But several Republicans said it fell short of requiring full disclosure of earmarks, which have soared in number -- and controversy -- in recent years. Some earmarks fund popular civic projects that boost a lawmaker's re-election prospects. Others help large contractors or other companies that hire lobbyists and donate to campaigns.

The bill "has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we overwhelmingly passed in January," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona He broke with several former allies on ethics matters, including Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

"By any measure," Feingold said in the debate, the bill "must be considered landmark legislation."

Lawmakers seeking earmarks would have to publicize their plans 48 hours before a Senate vote. They would have to certify they have no direct financial interest in the items.

McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said it was ludicrous to suggest someone in his position would "cheat and lie" to hide earmarks.

All 14 senators who voted against the bill were Republicans.

Among those voting for it was GOP Sen. Ted Stevens, whose Alaska home was searched this week by federal agents probing alleged influence-peddling involving earmarks.

Self-styled watchdog groups acknowledged that the bill was less stringent in several respects than were versions embraced by the House and Senate in January. But they hailed it as a major leap by an institution generally loath to police itself.

Public Citizen said it amounts to "far-reaching lobbying and ethics reforms."

Fred Wertheimer of Democracy21 called it "a great victory for the American people and a major accomplishment for Congress and its leaders." He said it will give the public "comprehensive information about the multiple ways in which lobbyists provide campaign funds and other financial support" to lawmakers they seek to influence.

The 107-page bill would require senators, and candidates for the Senate or White House, to pay full charter rates for trips on private planes. House members and candidates would be barred from accepting trips on private planes.

Senators' secret "holds" on legislation would be banned. Lawmakers convicted of bribery and other serious crimes would lose their congressional pensions.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, gave the measure a lukewarm endorsement.

"This bill isn't nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it," McConnell said. "But weighing the good and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law."

The White House did not immediately say whether Bush will sign the bill.

The legislation marks Congress' most far-reaching reaction to scandals involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-California. Both are now in prison on corruption charges that in some cases involved congressional earmarks.

Reform advocates said the bill's main achievement involves greater disclosure of lobbyists who bundle campaign donations to lawmakers and political parties by soliciting checks from numerous people. Under current disclosure laws, their efforts often go undetected, but the recipients are well aware of the help they received.

Earlier versions of the bill would have required lobbyist-bundlers, rather than the recipients, to disclose such contributions. They also had set the reporting threshold at $5,000 over six months, rather than $15,000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCDunkDogs

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, gave the measure a lukewarm endorsement.

"This bill isn't nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it," McConnell said.

I'm guessing he was not referring to the 14 Republicans who voted against the reform bill...

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

Think Georgie will have the nads to veto THIS one?
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
Yes, I'm sure Republicans would written a much tougher bill. They were just getting around to it before being rudely voted out of being the majority by ungrateful constituents. 12 years was just not quite enough time to write up something good. ...or even anything at all.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
I'm guessing he was not referring to the 14 Republicans who voted against the reform bill...

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

Think Georgie will have the nads to veto THIS one?

He probably will veto it under the guise of what the liar McConnell said. I almosted choked on my salad when i read that comment from the liar from Kentucky. Now i see why the Kentuckians are so confused on this site. I guess they believe what this liar has to say like it is gospel.:mj07:
 

auspice2

Registered User
Forum Member
Apr 17, 2007
86
5
0
Senate approves greater disclosure of pet projects, fundraising

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/02/congress.ethics.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted Thursday to make lawmakers disclose more about their efforts to fund pet projects and raise money from lobbyists, a move some called the biggest advance in congressional ethics in decades.

The ethics bill requires lawmakers to disclose their earmarks 48 hours before voting for them.

The 83 to 14 vote, which sends the bill to President Bush, prompted Democrats to claim fulfillment of their 2006 campaign promise to crack down on lobbying abuses that sent some lawmakers and a prominent lobbyist to prison.

The bill would require lawmakers to disclose those lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more for them within a six-month period by "bundling" donations from many people. Lawmakers seeking targeted spending projects, or "earmarks," would have to publicize their plans in advance, although critics said the requirements are hardly airtight.

The Democratic-crafted bill would bar lawmakers from taking gifts from lobbyists or their clients. Former senators would have to wait two years before lobbying Congress; ex-House members would have to wait one year.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, called it "the most sweeping reform bill since Watergate."

But several Republicans said it fell short of requiring full disclosure of earmarks, which have soared in number -- and controversy -- in recent years. Some earmarks fund popular civic projects that boost a lawmaker's re-election prospects. Others help large contractors or other companies that hire lobbyists and donate to campaigns.

The bill "has completely gutted the earmark reform provisions we overwhelmingly passed in January," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona He broke with several former allies on ethics matters, including Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin.

"By any measure," Feingold said in the debate, the bill "must be considered landmark legislation."

Lawmakers seeking earmarks would have to publicize their plans 48 hours before a Senate vote. They would have to certify they have no direct financial interest in the items.

McCain and others, however, said senators could circumvent the requirements by stating that prompt disclosure was not technically feasible, or by having the majority leader declare a bill earmark-free.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said it was ludicrous to suggest someone in his position would "cheat and lie" to hide earmarks.

All 14 senators who voted against the bill were Republicans.

Among those voting for it was GOP Sen. Ted Stevens, whose Alaska home was searched this week by federal agents probing alleged influence-peddling involving earmarks.

Self-styled watchdog groups acknowledged that the bill was less stringent in several respects than were versions embraced by the House and Senate in January. But they hailed it as a major leap by an institution generally loath to police itself.

Public Citizen said it amounts to "far-reaching lobbying and ethics reforms."

Fred Wertheimer of Democracy21 called it "a great victory for the American people and a major accomplishment for Congress and its leaders." He said it will give the public "comprehensive information about the multiple ways in which lobbyists provide campaign funds and other financial support" to lawmakers they seek to influence.

The 107-page bill would require senators, and candidates for the Senate or White House, to pay full charter rates for trips on private planes. House members and candidates would be barred from accepting trips on private planes.

Senators' secret "holds" on legislation would be banned. Lawmakers convicted of bribery and other serious crimes would lose their congressional pensions.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, gave the measure a lukewarm endorsement.

"This bill isn't nearly as tough as it would have been on earmarks if Republicans had been involved in writing it," McConnell said. "But weighing the good and the bad, many provisions are stronger than current law."

The White House did not immediately say whether Bush will sign the bill.

The legislation marks Congress' most far-reaching reaction to scandals involving former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-California. Both are now in prison on corruption charges that in some cases involved congressional earmarks.

Reform advocates said the bill's main achievement involves greater disclosure of lobbyists who bundle campaign donations to lawmakers and political parties by soliciting checks from numerous people. Under current disclosure laws, their efforts often go undetected, but the recipients are well aware of the help they received.

Earlier versions of the bill would have required lobbyist-bundlers, rather than the recipients, to disclose such contributions. They also had set the reporting threshold at $5,000 over six months, rather than $15,000.

Utterly amazing they can say anything after 10 years of doing nothing but taking money from lobbyists. These guys have no shame. I do agree it doesn't do enough, but it can be revisited and modified at a later date. It's a thousand times better then getting in bed with every lobbyist possible like the Republicans (and Democrats) have been doing for the past ten plus years, and then dismissing legislation because it doesn't do enough. Some of these guys really do need tarred and feathered.
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,407
121
63
Bowling Green Ky
Was a good move Smurph--I understand the 14 that voted against it wanted stricter standards--however the overwhelming majority of gop voted for it--wow that doesn't quite have the same ring as --all 14 that voted against it were GOP--;)

Now if we can just get them to drain --their half of the swamp--You think Pelosi trying to put cold cash jeffereson on head of commitees is indication of her intent? :)
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
Dogs, what are you talking about? Jefferson hasn't been on any special committee in over a year. And once the legal process takes place, he'll be in jail. Why do you obsess over him so much? You don't see the rest of us dwelling on Stevens getting busted, even though we certainly could. Hopefully he also gets what he deserves.

THE POINT is that this congress is doing a hell of a lot more than the last one. ...In 6 months they've made more progress in needed areas than the last could manage in a decade. ...And they'd be accomplishing even more if Bush wasn't being such a prick.

I know you don't like it that they are doing some good things. That's why you won't acknowledge any of it and deflect to things like Jefferson. Maybe you should get on board and acknowledge their efforts rather than complain. ...Geez, you complain so much, it makes me wonder if you are some kind of liberal deep down.:shrug:
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
He bulldoggedly hangs on to Jefferson, cause there ain't a lot of others on the dems side to call out in situations such as this. Unless he wanted to go the easy, obvious route and skewer a republican or twenty...

:mj07:
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
And of course, the truth about Pelosi/Jefferson, in case anyone is interested or has "forgotten":

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stripped Jefferson of his seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee and placed him instead on the Small Business Committee. He resigned that committee assignment after being indicted.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
214
63
"the bunker"
who are they publicizing and disclosing them to?

congress?.....themselves?...lol

will it be part of an open,public record that citizens have access to?....

if not,it`s nothing more than a sham....
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
More whining from the right and lack of acknowledgement of something being done. Thanks, Weasel.;)
 

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Major provisions in the proposed legislation:
? Bars senators from accepting gifts and meals from lobbyists.

? Requires advanced ethics committee approval of transportation or lodging provided by a private party. The party must certify that a lobbyist did not finance the trip.

? Requires senators or staff traveling by private aircraft to report to the Secretary of the Senate the trip's purpose and those on board.

? Bans official contacts between a senator's staff and the senator's spouse or immediate family member registered as a lobbyist.

? Requires mandatory ethics training.

? Extends from one year to two years the period a congressman must wait before lobbying a former place of employment.

? Extends disclosure requirements to lobbyists helping clients to encourage the general public to contact federal officials.

? Bars senators from punishing or rewarding a lobbying firm based on the party affiliations of those they hire.

? Requires filing disclosure reports quarterly, not semiannually.

? Requires lobbyists to annually disclose contributions to federal candidates, officeholders and political action committees.

? Increases the maximum civil fine for lobbying violations from $50,000 to $100,000.

? Ends the practice of secret "holds," whereby senators can single-handedly block action on a bill without revealing that they are the source of the hold.

What the bill doesn't do:
? Ban privately financed travel.

? Require reimbursement at the charter rate for flights on corporate jets.

? Create an independent panel to police ethics.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Although many of these are terrific, I really love this one:

? Ends the practice of secret "holds," whereby senators can single-handedly block action on a bill without revealing that they are the source of the hold.

:00x15

Congratulations, democrats, for following your promise on this one.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
He bulldoggedly hangs on to Jefferson, cause there ain't a lot of others on the dems side to call out in situations such as this. Unless he wanted to go the easy, obvious route and skewer a republican or twenty...

:mj07:

I have to side with dogs here and maybe you and Smurph ought to give him a break. To me its a little refreshing hearing a new name "Jefferson" besides hearing Bill Clintons again.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,407
121
63
Bowling Green Ky
Smurph I quess you forgot the big hoopla after Pelosi put him at heead of committe until the blue dog dems threw a fit.

--and comments on them cutting the pork---
The News

Murtha nabs $150M pork
By Roxana Tiron
August 03, 2007
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense panel, has secured the most earmarked dollars in the 2008 military spending bill, followed closely by the panel?s ranking member Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.).



Even though Young secured 52 earmarks, worth $117.2 million ? and co-sponsored at least $27 million worth of others ? Murtha?s 48 earmarks amount to a total of $150.5 million, according to a database compiled by the watchdog organization Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS).

The House is expected to take up the $459.6 billion defense appropriations bill Friday. It contains 1,337 earmarks, costing $3.07 billion, which is less than half the number and value of earmarks in last year?s bill.

Keith Ashdown of TCS said, however, that the sum is derived from only the earmarks that the panel disclosed at the back of the bill?s report. He expects to find undisclosed projects as well.

?It appears that they are in keeping with the House commitment to reduce earmarks by 50 percent,? Ashdown said. ?There are less [earmarks], but it is early and we have not looked at everything.?

The 2008 bill for ?the first time gives us a snapshot [of] how the committee allocates taxpayers? resources,? Ashdown added.

Even though the panel disclosed the project name, the requesting member, and the budget line in which the project was requested, the bill and its earmarks are not a model of transparency. The panel did not disclose either the amount requested or the companies that would benefit. TCS paired the disclosed requests in the committee report with the dollar amounts for the projects published in the bill.

This year is the first in which earmarks were disclosed under new House rules mandating that lawmakers identify their earmarks in letters to the committee certifying that they have no financial interest in the project. The report accompanying the bill contained a chart listing projects and sponsors, but not the amounts of the earmark.

Still, it is clear that the chairman and ranking member are doing well in this year?s defense-spending bill, Ashdown added.

Murtha, the defense industry?s darling, has been known throughout his tenure on the defense panel to shell out a large number of earmarks. His biggest earmark in the bill is $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), a move that sparked a fierce fight with Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), who earlier this year voted in a private meeting to strip Murtha?s earmark.

The Bush administration requested $16 million to shut down the center, which is in Murtha?s district, because it replicated the work of a similar center.

Murtha?s second highest earmark is for $15 million for a military molecular medicine initiative.

Young has several requests valued at $5 million for projects such as ballistic missile range safety technology, the Common Aero Vehicle (another missile program) and rapid-response counter-measures to chemical and biological weapons.

The embattled former Appropriations Committee chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), also claims a big haul of earmark dollars, totaling $95 million. In some cases, he joined Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.) and other California lawmakers in requests for earmarks.

Lewis also requested $2 million for an integrated propulsion analysis tool, which would benefit Advatech Pacific, a company represented in Washington by Innovative Federal Strategies.

A partner of the firm is Letitia White, Lewis?s former Appropriations defense staff member. She was formerly with the firm Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White. Federal investigators are reportedly looking into the connection between Lewis, White and Bill Lowery, the lawmaker?s longtime friend. Lewis also asked for $3 million to fund the Lewis Center for Education Research.

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), one of the most senior defense appropriators, was able to secure $44 million in earmarks, including $1 million for medical technology to look into rare blood diseases. He made that request with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). The two also requested $5 million for a littoral sensor grid.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) got her share of pork projects ? 11 projects valued at $37.3 million.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer?s (D-Md.) haul is $26 million.

The lion?s share of the earmarks can be found in the research, development, test and evaluation budget account. Some of the biggest requests in that account include $21.8 million for ?electronic combat and counterterrorism training? by FATS Inc. of Georgia, sponsored by Jack Kingston (R-Ga). Kingston secured $55.3 million in total earmarks, some of which he made with Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.).

Another high request in the research account comes from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who got $19 million for an ?affordable weapons system,? according to Laura Peterson of TCS.

According to TCS, candidates for the non-defense earmark category include the Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, which received $2.5 million from Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), the Center for Genetic Origins of Cancer at the University of Michigan, which got $3 million from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), and $1.5 million for an eponymous project at the National Bureau for Asian Research in Seattle, sponsored by Rep. Dicks.

--and I thought the reb from alska was bad :)

--and whats this --cheating to get illegals funding :scared

Republicans Angry Over House Vote

By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Friday, August 3, 2007; 4:07 PM



WASHINGTON -- House Democrats apologized Friday for wrestling what appeared to be a winning vote away from Republicans Thursday night.

Republicans continued to steam, however, over the episode in which they appeared to be the winners by a 215-213 tally on a procedural motion designed to make sure illegal immigrants would not get certain benefits from an agriculture spending bill.
Instead, with several lawmakers milling in the well of the House registering votes, Rep. Michael McNulty, D-N.Y., gaveled the vote to a close, saying the GOP measure had failed on a 214-214 tie.

Republicans erupted, chanting "shame, shame, shame," and then walked out in protest after McNulty permitted further Democrats to switch their votes to prevail 216-212. Despite winning that tally, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., moved for a revote as permitted under the rules, and Democrats prevailed again.

On Friday, Hoyer apologized. "The minority was understandably angry," he said.

The heavy-handed tactics capped a partisan week in the chamber, and Hoyer and Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, promised to try to work out some accommodation.

Still, rank-and-file Republicans remained furious and the brouhaha led the House to recess for a while Friday morning, before returning to debate assorted legislation, including a bill to aid in rebuilding the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis.

Democrats changed House rules in January to disallow the practice of holding votes open to affect the outcome. The new rule came after Republicans routinely held open votes to twist arms, including a 2003 episode on the Medicare prescription drug bill in which Republicans held a vote open for three hours until finally prevailing.

"Never once did we in the majority attempt to steal a vote," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Friday.

The stakes on the issue involved Thursday were far smaller. Democrats had routinely accepted comparable language on illegal immigrants on other spending bills, but the agriculture measure was being debated under fast-track conditions denying Republicans a chance to offer the provision.

Later Friday, the House's electronic voting machines went haywire, causing leaders to agree to a recess so that they could be fixed.

___

If lawmakers try to go on vacation this weekend without updating a law governing U.S. eavesdropping on foreigners, one option for President Bush would be to call them back.

Bush said Friday he wanted Congress members to put off their August recess until they have passed the legislation. And although aides said it shouldn't come to this, they noted that the Constitution gives Bush authority to call Congress into session.

He wouldn't be the first president to haul lawmakers back to the Capitol.

According to the Senate Historical Office, presidents have called both the Senate and the House into "extraordinary" session 23 times, on such matters as war, economic crisis and crucial domestic legislation.

The first president to do so was John Adams in 1797, to suspend relations with France. The most recent was Harry Truman, who called Congress back into session in 1947 and 1948 to deal with domestic legislation.

Other notables: James Madison called Congress back during the War of 1812; Abraham Lincoln recalled lawmakers to deal with the secession of Southern states. And Franklin Roosevelt summoned Congress for the beginning of the New Deal.

Article II, Section3 of the Constitution provides that the president "may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them."

___
 
Last edited:

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
214
63
"the bunker"
Smurph I quess you forgot the big hoopla after Pelosi put him at heead of committe until the blue dog dems threw a fit.

--and comments on them cutting the pork---
The News

Murtha nabs $150M pork
By Roxana Tiron
August 03, 2007
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense panel, has secured the most earmarked dollars in the 2008 military spending bill, followed closely by the panel’s ranking member Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.).



Even though Young secured 52 earmarks, worth $117.2 million — and co-sponsored at least $27 million worth of others — Murtha’s 48 earmarks amount to a total of $150.5 million, according to a database compiled by the watchdog organization Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS).

The House is expected to take up the $459.6 billion defense appropriations bill Friday. It contains 1,337 earmarks, costing $3.07 billion, which is less than half the number and value of earmarks in last year’s bill.

Keith Ashdown of TCS said, however, that the sum is derived from only the earmarks that the panel disclosed at the back of the bill’s report. He expects to find undisclosed projects as well.

“It appears that they are in keeping with the House commitment to reduce earmarks by 50 percent,” Ashdown said. “There are less [earmarks], but it is early and we have not looked at everything.”

The 2008 bill for “the first time gives us a snapshot [of] how the committee allocates taxpayers’ resources,” Ashdown added.

Even though the panel disclosed the project name, the requesting member, and the budget line in which the project was requested, the bill and its earmarks are not a model of transparency. The panel did not disclose either the amount requested or the companies that would benefit. TCS paired the disclosed requests in the committee report with the dollar amounts for the projects published in the bill.

This year is the first in which earmarks were disclosed under new House rules mandating that lawmakers identify their earmarks in letters to the committee certifying that they have no financial interest in the project. The report accompanying the bill contained a chart listing projects and sponsors, but not the amounts of the earmark.

Still, it is clear that the chairman and ranking member are doing well in this year’s defense-spending bill, Ashdown added.

Murtha, the defense industry’s darling, has been known throughout his tenure on the defense panel to shell out a large number of earmarks. His biggest earmark in the bill is $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), a move that sparked a fierce fight with Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), who earlier this year voted in a private meeting to strip Murtha’s earmark.

The Bush administration requested $16 million to shut down the center, which is in Murtha’s district, because it replicated the work of a similar center.

Murtha’s second highest earmark is for $15 million for a military molecular medicine initiative.

Young has several requests valued at $5 million for projects such as ballistic missile range safety technology, the Common Aero Vehicle (another missile program) and rapid-response counter-measures to chemical and biological weapons.

The embattled former Appropriations Committee chairman, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), also claims a big haul of earmark dollars, totaling $95 million. In some cases, he joined Reps. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.) and other California lawmakers in requests for earmarks.

Lewis also requested $2 million for an integrated propulsion analysis tool, which would benefit Advatech Pacific, a company represented in Washington by Innovative Federal Strategies.

A partner of the firm is Letitia White, Lewis’s former Appropriations defense staff member. She was formerly with the firm Copeland Lowery Jacquez Denton & White. Federal investigators are reportedly looking into the connection between Lewis, White and Bill Lowery, the lawmaker’s longtime friend. Lewis also asked for $3 million to fund the Lewis Center for Education Research.

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), one of the most senior defense appropriators, was able to secure $44 million in earmarks, including $1 million for medical technology to look into rare blood diseases. He made that request with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). The two also requested $5 million for a littoral sensor grid.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) got her share of pork projects — 11 projects valued at $37.3 million.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-Md.) haul is $26 million.

The lion’s share of the earmarks can be found in the research, development, test and evaluation budget account. Some of the biggest requests in that account include $21.8 million for “electronic combat and counterterrorism training” by FATS Inc. of Georgia, sponsored by Jack Kingston (R-Ga). Kingston secured $55.3 million in total earmarks, some of which he made with Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.) and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.).

Another high request in the research account comes from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), who got $19 million for an “affordable weapons system,” according to Laura Peterson of TCS.

According to TCS, candidates for the non-defense earmark category include the Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, which received $2.5 million from Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), the Center for Genetic Origins of Cancer at the University of Michigan, which got $3 million from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), and $1.5 million for an eponymous project at the National Bureau for Asian Research in Seattle, sponsored by Rep. Dicks.

--and I thought the reb from alska was bad :)

--and whats this --cheating to get illegals funding :scared

Republicans Angry Over House Vote

By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Friday, August 3, 2007; 4:07 PM



WASHINGTON -- House Democrats apologized Friday for wrestling what appeared to be a winning vote away from Republicans Thursday night.

Republicans continued to steam, however, over the episode in which they appeared to be the winners by a 215-213 tally on a procedural motion designed to make sure illegal immigrants would not get certain benefits from an agriculture spending bill.
Instead, with several lawmakers milling in the well of the House registering votes, Rep. Michael McNulty, D-N.Y., gaveled the vote to a close, saying the GOP measure had failed on a 214-214 tie.

Republicans erupted, chanting "shame, shame, shame," and then walked out in protest after McNulty permitted further Democrats to switch their votes to prevail 216-212. Despite winning that tally, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., moved for a revote as permitted under the rules, and Democrats prevailed again.

On Friday, Hoyer apologized. "The minority was understandably angry," he said.

The heavy-handed tactics capped a partisan week in the chamber, and Hoyer and Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, promised to try to work out some accommodation.

Still, rank-and-file Republicans remained furious and the brouhaha led the House to recess for a while Friday morning, before returning to debate assorted legislation, including a bill to aid in rebuilding the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis.

Democrats changed House rules in January to disallow the practice of holding votes open to affect the outcome. The new rule came after Republicans routinely held open votes to twist arms, including a 2003 episode on the Medicare prescription drug bill in which Republicans held a vote open for three hours until finally prevailing.

"Never once did we in the majority attempt to steal a vote," Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Friday.

The stakes on the issue involved Thursday were far smaller. Democrats had routinely accepted comparable language on illegal immigrants on other spending bills, but the agriculture measure was being debated under fast-track conditions denying Republicans a chance to offer the provision.

Later Friday, the House's electronic voting machines went haywire, causing leaders to agree to a recess so that they could be fixed.

___

If lawmakers try to go on vacation this weekend without updating a law governing U.S. eavesdropping on foreigners, one option for President Bush would be to call them back.

Bush said Friday he wanted Congress members to put off their August recess until they have passed the legislation. And although aides said it shouldn't come to this, they noted that the Constitution gives Bush authority to call Congress into session.

He wouldn't be the first president to haul lawmakers back to the Capitol.

According to the Senate Historical Office, presidents have called both the Senate and the House into "extraordinary" session 23 times, on such matters as war, economic crisis and crucial domestic legislation.

The first president to do so was John Adams in 1797, to suspend relations with France. The most recent was Harry Truman, who called Congress back into session in 1947 and 1948 to deal with domestic legislation.

Other notables: James Madison called Congress back during the War of 1812; Abraham Lincoln recalled lawmakers to deal with the secession of Southern states. And Franklin Roosevelt summoned Congress for the beginning of the New Deal.

Article II, Section3 of the Constitution provides that the president "may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them."

___

they`re using strong-arm tactics to try and ram stuff through so it looks like they`ve done something other than partisan hearings and witch hunts......

again...does the public have access(names/specifics etc) to the earmarks being proposed?........and after these earmarks have been rammed through,who has a say?.....why would one congressman question another,only to have his own pork challenged by the congressman he challenged?....

if theres one thing that`s bi-partisan,it`s the pork barrel...

this changes nothing....anybody think that murtha`s constituents are gonna vote him out for bringing home more pork?....

this is b.s....stop the earmarks...change the process....that`s the answer...

this is window dressing...
 

smurphy

cartographer
Channel Member
Jul 31, 2004
19,896
133
63
16
L.A.
Look at you two - running all over the place, trying your best to downplay very positive steps taken by the Dems and dig up other stories to deflect attention. You just can't stand to see it happening. Sad, really.:)
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Look at you two - running all over the place, trying your best to downplay very positive steps taken by the Dems and dig up other stories to deflect attention. You just can't stand to see it happening. Sad, really.:)

Be nice if they had that passion with all the corruption over in Iraq.:shrug:
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top