Posted on 06/03/2002 7:37:35 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
WASHINGTON — An emergency spending bill to help defend America against terrorism tops the Senate's agenda as Congress returns this week. But the bill has attracted plenty of items that have little to do with homeland security.The items include $2 million to help the Smithsonian Institution house its jars of biological specimens; $5 million to subsidize farmers' markets and roadside produce stands; and textile import restrictions designed to help two vulnerable House Republicans.
It's not unusual for lawmakers to attach pet projects to fast-moving legislation. But to do so on an urgent homeland-security bill is "disgraceful," says Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a frequent critic of pork-barrel spending. "There are policy changes which have nothing to do with any national emergency."
The administration originally asked for $27 billion in mostly homeland-security and defense spending. The House passed a $28 billion version. The Senate's bill has grown to $31 billion. Among the add-ons:
*$2 million so the Smithsonian can start a 108,000-square-foot building in Maryland to house its collection of fish, frogs, bugs, birds and other animals preserved in alcohol-filled containers. Now on the National Mall, the containers are seen as a flammable hazard, but they have been that way since long before Sept. 11. "It's something that we have been hoping for for some years," says Jerome Conlon, the museum's assistant director for facility operations.
*$5 million to subsidize farmers' markets and roadside produce stands in 31 states. The bill singles out Wisconsin, home of Rep. Dave Obey, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
*$2.5 million to map coral reefs in the waters around Hawaii. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, is a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
*$16 million for fishermen and communities in New England hurt by federal fishing limits, and another $5 million for loans to commercial fishing operations there and elsewhere.
*$7.2 million to buy a second supercomputer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to forecast the weather. Lawmakers say the agency needs a backup in case of terrorism.
*More than $1 billion for veterans benefits and medical care. The House bill directs the administration not to use that money for homeland defense.
*To provide political help for lawmakers, the House or Senate bills contain provisions that would: *Boost Medicare payments to hospitals in the districts of eight New York and Pennsylvania lawmakers.
*Direct $10 million in aid to farmers along the Rio Grande in Texas.
*Help the textile industry and two House Republicans — Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Robin Hayes of North Carolina — who cast politically risky votes for a free-trade bill Bush wanted.
*$2 million so the Smithsonian can start a 108,000-square-foot building in Maryland to house its collection of fish, frogs, bugs, birds and other animals preserved in alcohol-filled containers.
Doesn't the Smithsonian charge admission, sell various items, have a magazine and ask for donations on a regular basis?
*$5 million to subsidize farmers' markets and roadside produce stands in 31 states.
Why aren't the various states doing this? Isn't it their responsibility?
$2.5 million to map coral reefs in the waters around Hawaii.
Again, why can't the state do this?
$16 million for fishermen and communities in New England hurt by federal fishing limits, and another $5 million for loans to commercial fishing operations there and elsewhere.
The state again?
$7.2 million to buy a second supercomputer for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to forecast the weather. Lawmakers say the agency needs a backup in case of terrorism.
?????????????????????????? Oh good grief!
*More than $1 billion for veterans benefits and medical care. The House bill directs the administration not to use that money for homeland defense.
This is the only one that might make sense if it were to be used for the vets and not to line someones pockets.
To provide political help for lawmakers, the House or Senate bills contain provisions that would: *Boost Medicare payments to hospitals in the districts of eight New York and Pennsylvania lawmakers
EXCUUUUUSSSE ME!
Direct $10 million in aid to farmers along the Rio Grande in Texas.
Again, the state should do this.
Help the textile industry and two House Republicans — Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Robin Hayes of North Carolina — who cast politically risky votes for a free-trade bill Bush wanted.
Again the state and what kind of help for DeMint. (This bears looking into)
How much PORK is attached to each and every bill that is passed? Isn't time to stop this practice? Come to think of it, wasn't that a promise or was it just political rhetoric again - empty words, nothing but empty words. Who can you trust now-a-days?
I wouldn't be surprised if Robert Byrd used this situation to have a monument erected in his name.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Somebody stop me, please!
Talk to the US Supreme Court about it. They're the ones who ruled Presidential Line Item Veto "Un-Constitutional."
Long gone are the days of a President (Reagan was the last) who had the backbone to flat-out REJECT appropriations bills or entire Fiscal Spending Budgets that had this kind of crap in 'em.
While I firmly support the President on other issues, on this one he's all talk. He doesn't have the tool nor desire to eliminate "pork" barrel spending. In this case, it's clear that he's aiming to keep strategic House seats and trying to win back the Senate.
Aren't you willing to pay for that? (/sarcasm)
Disgraceful! Fifteen billion, that is $15,000,000,000 -- fifteen thousand million bux, FReepers! to buy votes for sitting Congresspersons and Senators.
And not one dime of this Pork-barrel spending is Constitutional!
Politicians, like diapers, should be changed from time to time. Time for a diaper change in Washington, DC!
Be sure you are registered and that you vote in November. If you don't, you cannot complain when the Congress misbehaves!
And the solution involves actively supporting and working for those candidates who will ". . . support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and voting.
Further, if all a person does is sit around and bitch (i.e., a "keyboard kowboy"), and doesn't get involved in the action and passion of their time, then that person really doesn't have a lot of credibility, and will not garner much respect in the political arena when it is learned that he/she sat out the election.
IOW, that person can certainly exercise his/her First Amendment Rights, but no one will listen.
We have an election coming up in November. Get involved between now and then, and above all else, vote!
Further, if all a person does is sit around and bitch (i.e., a "keyboard kowboy"), and doesn't get involved in the action and passion of their time, then that person really doesn't have a lot of credibility, and will not garner much respect in the political arena when it is learned that he/she sat out the election.
Frankly, I'm not looking for credibility or respect in any "political arena". Jesus himself gave no respect to person (a person held in high esteem by others) so I wnat and give none either. Further, that is your opinion, unless you speak for everybody.
And I have done more than "sit around and bitch" which, in the end, didn't do a bit of good anyway so my time was wasted on an effort that, unbeknownst to me, was failed from the outset.
Why Civilian Control of the Military?
Ike, a graduate of West Point, had never voted. People did not know his party affiliation. He turned down Truman's offer, but in 1952 did run for president -- as a Republican.
ZACHARY TAYLOR
A career soldier who never voted, he served fewer than 500 days in the WHITE HOUSE.
The Brethren, Inside the Supreme Court
John Marshall Harlan, the "unflappable" Eisenhower conservative, who was the court's scholar. To avoid appearances of endorsing any executive branch action, he never voted and never applauded at the president's state of the union address.
I'm not even going to bother any more. Your argument has holes all in it!
AP | 6/5/02
WASHINGTON- The White House threat to veto the Senate's $31.4 billion anti-terrorism bill is inconsistent with recent Bush administration warnings of possible new attacks by the al-Qaida network, the Senate majority leader said Wednesday.
"It's troubling that the administration would say that we're spending too much on homeland defense, that we're spending too much on the effort on the war on terror ... given the fears generated by the pronouncements" by the administration, Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., told reporters.
White House officials issued the veto threat Tuesday, complaining that the measure exceeds the $27.1 billion request that President Bush sent Congress in March. The election-year squabble pits administration efforts to limit spending at a time when federal deficits are returning against Democratic attempts to beef up domestic counter-terror initiatives.
"For the administration to say, 'Well, we want to respond but not that much,' is a hard sell to the American people," Daschle said.
Senators from both parties lined up to offer amendments. They included an effort by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to add $150 million for summer schools and a plan by bipartisan fiscal conservatives to set spending limits for the next five years, which both seemed likely to lose.
"We're going to go after this pork barrel spending and go after it and after it and after it," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who was preparing amendments to cut items from the bill.
Daschle set a procedural vote that was likely on Thursday to limit debate on the measure. He seemed likely to prevail, which could mean the Senate would finish the bill this week.
In Tuesday's only roll call, the Senate voted 91-4 to drop a ban the bill had included on new emergency loans for airlines until Oct. 1. The loans are part of a bailout program for air carriers enacted just after the Sept. 11 attacks.
The vote was a major boon to financially ailing US Airways, which says it needs a $1 billion emergency loan this summer. By erasing the $393 million the loan restrictions were supposed to save, the overall bill's cost grew to $31.4 billion.
The House anti-terror bill would block new loans until October, but aides predict the eventual House-Senate compromise will omit the restrictions.
The counterterror legislation is dominated by funds for defense, intelligence, aviation safety, local law enforcement and aid to help New York rebuild from the attacks. Most Senate add-ons are for domestic security programs.
"The Senate bill includes scores of unneeded items that total billions of dollars - all classified as an `emergency,'" said a White House statement on the bill. "The bill adds unrequested funds for numerous programs and projects throughout nearly all of the federal agencies."
Projects the administration found objectionable include $100 million to secure Russian nuclear weapons and $315 million for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention construction, which the White House said could not possibly be spent this year.
The spending is for the remaining months of the federal fiscal year that runs through Sept. 30.
Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, top Republican on the Appropriations Committee and co-author of the bill, called the veto threat "just a tactic of the administration."
"We'll work this out" by the time a compromise bill is finished, he said.
Other fights also are likely, with the administration opposing:
-A provision making Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge's job one that requires Senate confirmation. Byrd has been feuding with Ridge over the White House's refusal to let him testify to Congress.
-Language requiring Bush to release $34 million in aid for overseas family planning efforts by the United Nations. An administration team recently returned from China, where it investigated conservative charges that U.N.-affiliated agencies help forced abortions and sterilizations there.
Why aren't the various states doing this? Isn't it their responsibility?
Nobody should be subsidizing this one!! Farmers' Markets are the ultimate in free trade. The farmer sells directly to the consumer, no middlemen, no transportation, no costs for stores or employees. And, most people like buying producer, knowing the money goes directly to them. This is nuts.
MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS...(WON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN)
The Who
Has this ever been tried?
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.