Posted on 03/16/2002 8:43:20 AM PST by madfly
Sources: Reuters | AP | ABCNEWS.com
Friday March 15 3:24 AM ET
Lawmakers Demand Anti-Terror Details
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress may have to cut into spending that President Bush wants if his administration keeps unconstitutionally withholding information about anti-terror efforts at home, a House member said.
And that was a Republican.
White House budget chief Mitchell Daniels got it from both sides of the aisle in the latest clash between Congress and the White House over information sharing and the war. By the end of a hearing before members of the House Appropriations Committee, Daniels was contrite - somewhat.
``Their concern is completely legitimate,'' the budget director told reporters. ``The question is how to meet it.''
The administration's chief GOP critic was Rep. Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, who became the latest lawmaker to complain that Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge is refusing to testify to Congress, despite the $38 billion in domestic safety spending Bush wants for next year.
``Any effort to cut off Congress' normal interaction with agency heads and policy-makers ... is not only wrong, but it violates the United States Constitution's express grant to Congress'' of the powers of defending the country and regulating the armed services, Istook said.
He also said the lack of information ``jeopardizes the administration's request for additional homeland security funds.'' Istook chairs the Appropriations committee's panel that controls the budget for the White House's operations.
Administration officials say Ridge has privately briefed lawmakers but will heed the usual practice in which the president's immediate staff does not testify to Congress.
Even more critical was Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the committee.
Obey said Daniels and other administration officials have ``a severe attitude problem'' and view Congress as ``small-minded and inconsequential rabble.'' He cited their refusal to fully brief lawmakers on domestic security, White House criticisms of congressional earmarks of money for hometown projects, and the recent firing of a civilian Army official who criticized administration plans for water projects.
``This committee has an obligation,'' said Obey, citing Congress' constitutional power to spend funds. ``No information, no money.''
Obey also criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill for disparaging Congress' role in decision making. And he lambasted Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., whom he called the ``Ole Miss cheerleader in residence in the Senate'' for criticizing Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., for questioning the administration's war aims.
Daniels would not back away from his frequent criticisms of parochial projects lawmakers win for their districts. And as for last week's firing of Mike Parker, head of the Army Corps of Engineers, Daniels said ``the course of honor ... if one can't agree with a president's policy is to resign one's post.''
With terrorists being pursued overseas and at home, it seems unlikely that lawmakers would cut spending for U.S. security.
But symbolic reductions somewhere are possible. Obey said cuts should be aimed at the White House budget office that Daniels heads ``if we don't get better cooperation.''
Other recent clashes include the lawsuit by Congress' General Accounting Office seeking the names of business executives who met with Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.
In addition, some congressional leaders said they did not know some federal officials were secretly working outside Washington in case of a catastrophic attack on the capital.
Oh, I get it: "commander-in-chief" is simply an honorary position.
I think that Daniels and other admin. officials have the right idea of arrogant, partisan Congress-critters.
They are complaining about not getting information that they are not entitled to. I hope they carry out the threat to hold up funding.
The writer of this hit piece seems to be parroting the DNC talking points.
I could be mistaken, but I don't think the Constitution does grant any defense powers to the congress outside of providing for and overseeing the armed services. It's the Presidents job to denfend the country.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
He may have some grounds on this point,alhough I'm sure they have been well informed and are trying to score political points by saying they have'nt.
Enron didn't work,the so called"recession" didn't work,so they gotta keep trying.
There was a good reason Bush didn't want to make Homeland Security a cabinet position; if he did, Ridge would be nothing more than a whipping boy for the roadblocks to national security that have been systematically built by congress.
It's heartening to know that politics doesn't play any role in our self-defense, isn't it?
If we get past the 2002 elections without another terrorist attack, it will be a miracle -- simply because this verbal posturing signals weakness and devisiveness to our enemies, who may not be far off the mark.
The wisdom of our forefathers, in setting up three seperate branches of goverment, never ceases to amaze me.
I agree. Give them something they can possibly use against Bush and you need a stopwatch to time its release to the press and, thus, the other side. The classified nuke report and its release has not helped us IMHO.
And if this country is endangered as a result of this little exercise in ego, if anything happens because that money was withheld, I think we should throw these jerks in prison for gross neglect of duty.
They KNOW that Ridge has NO say over the expenditures. They KNOW that they can call the heads of the agencies to testify and that they will come. They KNOW all of this because these have ALWAYS been the rules. This is a question of the senators wanting to fight a turf war with the president in order to satisfy their own self-importance. They will risk our lives to grab a little more power for themselves.
Good grief, Tom Ridge has enough to do without wasting days sitting in front of a bunch of senators who will be rude, ruthless, and treat him like a piece of trash just to get a soundbite for the evening news. I'd rather have Ridge working to try to unravel that gordian knot we call government.
Why? So we can have the likes of Leaky Leahy to call up Osama and tell him what's up?
These Democrats are trying their hardest to make sure America DOES get attacked.
They fight to keep the boarders open, refuse to give us judges to prosecute, and now they want to hold funding for national defence.
If the American system were to fall, they could create the Socialist revelution they've been fighting for (since Clinton) through anarchy by their own domestic terrorist groups. PETA, ELF, ALF....
The Democrats in Washington are getting scarier and scarier. I'm supprised they haven't just hired the Chinese to take care of it for them.
More or less. The idea was that Congress would declare war and the President would oversee the running of the war Congress had declared. This business with the President using the military to suit himself and the Congress going "uhuh-uhuh-uhuh!" is a perversion of the original intent.
Well thanks for the clarification, I really thought we were fighting a mortal enemy, but now I know the President is just "using the military to suit himself."
Are you suggesting that Congress should be involved in the day-to-day operation of the war? The Constitution states that defense appropriations may only be made for two years at a time -- doesn't that imply that the check of the Congress is in the purse-strings, not on the field of battle?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.