Thursday, June 30, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: Report: Disney IT Restructuring Favored Foreign Gu...
The Plain Truth Is: Report: Disney IT Restructuring Favored Foreign Gu...: Computerworld’s Patrick Thibodeau examined a restructuring of IT operations at Disney’s Parks and Resorts division last year and found t...
Report: Disney IT Restructuring Favored Foreign Guest Workers Over Americans!
The restructuring, which occurred in October of 2014, was not intended to displace workers according to Disney. A spokesperson said "We have restructured our global technology organization to significantly increase our [staff] focus on future innovation and new capabilities, and are continuing to work with leading technical firms to maintain our existing systems as needed."
Thibodeau spoke to five laid-off IT workers at Disney’s Lake Buena Vista location. They said the company cut well-paid and longtime staff and hired contractors that used H-1B and L-1 guest workers. "Some of these folks were literally flown in the day before to take over the exact same job I was doing," said one laid-off worker. He was required to train his replacement before being discharged.
The laid-off workers said Disney cut several hundred employees in October, although the company placed the actual number at about 135. Disney reportedly encouraged the terminated staff to apply for the new innovation-based positions but the workers interviewed said few of those discharged acquired one of the new jobs.
One of the laid-off workers told Thibodeau that Disney did not have to fire existing workers to achieve its goals. "There is no need to have any type of foreigners, boots on the ground, augmenting any type of perceived technological gap," said one worker. "We don't have one, first off…[Staff could have been trained because] "once you are in the system and you are a learner, you are a learner for life in IT. You are going to constantly learn."
Congress has begun to focus more on the displacement of American workers since Southern California Edison made news replacing hundreds of IT workers with H-1B guest workers. But companies like Disney having been pushing Congress to allow in more H-1B workers.
Thibodeau notes Disney CEO Bob Iger is a co-chair of the Partnership for a New American Economy, which seeks an increase in the annual H-1B visa cap. The group’s web site says it is dedicated to creating a “streamlined process by which employers can get the seasonal and permanent employees they need, when Americans aren’t filling vacant jobs.” According to Disney’s laid-off workers, the company could have filled its new, restructured jobs with existing workers but Disney chose cheaper foreign labor.
The Plain Truth Is: Big Business "Speacial Interest"
The Plain Truth Is: Big Business "Speacial Interest": The Big Business Lobbyists apparently are getting nearly everything they want from Pres. Obama when it comes to favoring cheap forei...
Big Business "Speacial Interest"
According to a 2009 Obama executive order, government contractors and subcontractors will no longer be obliged to verify all employees working on the government contract. Instead, they will only have to verify those employees who are hired specifically for the contract and are hired after the company receives the government contract. This change will allow illegal aliens to easily acquire government-funded jobs. This, however, looks like a total surrender to the Lobbyists of Greed.
Senator Sessions defends the American worker and criticizes fellow Republicans who are only interested in catering to big business.
A few in our party will argue that immigration reform must “serve the needs of businesses.” What about the needs of workers? Since when did we did we accept the idea that the immigration policy for our entire nation—with all its lasting social, economic, and moral implications—should be tailored to suit the financial interests of a few CEOs?
The Plain Truth Is: DHS: Illegal Border Crossing of Family Units Excee...
The Plain Truth Is: DHS: Illegal Border Crossing of Family Units Excee...: According to the Department of Homeland Security figures by May 2016 more illegal alien family units have been apprehended at the border ...
DHS: Illegal Border Crossing of Family Units Exceed FY15!
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection report shows that 6,788 family units were caught at the border In May alone, a 20% increase from April. The number of unaccompanied alien minors or UACS have also increased this year with the current total of UAC apprehensions at 38,566 for this year, just shy of the total FY 2015 number of 39,970.
A deputy assistant attorney, Leon Fresco, told a federal judge earlier this month that many families are coming across to take advantage of the Obama administration’s lax immigration enforcement policies. “When people now know that when I come as a family unit, I won’t be apprehended and detained,” Fresco told the court.
This lenient policy was enacted when a federal judge ruled last year that illegal alien families must be quickly processed and released, due to the Flores-agreement signed in 1997.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: Harmful effects of the H-1B/Foreign Worker Program...
The Plain Truth Is: Harmful effects of the H-1B/Foreign Worker Program...: The H-1B program has, over the years, proven to be one of the more harmful visa programs impacting America's highly educated workers....
Harmful effects of the H-1B/Foreign Worker Programs!
- American taxpayers are forced to support extremely expensive research universities whose main purpose is to train students from abroad - many of whom will stay here and take jobs that could have gone to Americans (CalTech Vice Provost David Goodstein, 1993)
- A study by Rutgers University released in October 2009 found that while the U.S. is still producing enough skilled graduates in core STEM disciplines to fill industry needs, many highly qualified U.S. students in STEM fields leave the "pipeline" from STEM college major to STEM career possibly based on perceptions that STEM careers are highly susceptible to offshoring. [Lowell, B. Lindsay, Harold Salzman, Hamutal Bernstein, and Everett Henderson. Steady as She Goes? Three Generations of Students through the Science and Engineering Pipeline. Publication. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 2009. Print. Pg. 31]
- We stifle innovation by replacing older workers (over 35) before their inventions can be turned into practical revenue generators (Gene Nelson)
- The H-1B program is rife with abuse, enabling employers to avoid hiring U.S. Workers (see corresponding factsheet)
- According to the Department of Labor's 2006 Strategic Plan, "H-1B workers may be hired even when a qualified U.S. worker wants the job, and a U.S. worker can be displaced from the job in favor of the foreign worker."
- The violation rate in the H-1B program is 21 percent. Among employers with 25 or fewer employees it is 54 percent. (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment" September 2008)
- Eight out of the top ten companies that use the H-1B visa lottery
are not U.S. firms but Indian outsourcing companies who do not even keep
their employees in the U.S. (Ephraim Schwartz)
- India's commerce minister, Kamal Nath, has called the H-1B the "outsourcing visa." (Ron Hira, Rochester Institute of Technology, Economic Policy Institute)
- The Indian media is remarkably candid about the H-1B visa program, regularly touting the benefits of cheap labor that H-1B provides.
- Stagnating wages (as employers reduce labor costs) reduces the purchasing power of highly-skilled workers (James Carlini, adjunct professor at Northwestern University)
- H-1B holders are paid less than Americans: most are paid in the $60,000 range when the top talents (the "best and brightest") make more than $100,000 - indicating that the vast majority of H-1B holders have comparable skill levels to their American counterparts, but come at a cheaper price. (Norm Matloff)
- Prevailing wage claims for computer workers average $18,000 a year below the actual median wage for the same occupation. Employers may be understating what U.S. computer workers are earning in order to justify paying lower wages to H-1B visa holders. (Center for Immigration Studies: "Low Salaries for Low Skills" April 2007)
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: Syrian Refugee Fact Sheet!!
The Plain Truth Is: Syrian Refugee Fact Sheet!!: Forcibly Displaced Persons Worldwide: 59.5 million ( UNHCR ) What is a “forcibly displaced person?” Refugees Worldwide: 19...
Syrian Refugee Fact Sheet!!
What is a “forcibly displaced person?”
Refugees Worldwide: 19.5 million (UNHCR)
How does the UN define “refugee”?
Total Syrian Population: 17.1 million (PRB)
Internally Displaced Syrians: 7.6 million (UNOCHA)
Registered Syrian Refugees: 4.3 million (UNHCR)
- Refugees from Syria comprise almost a quarter (22%) of total refugees worldwide.
- Over four million Syrians have been classified as refugees by the United Nations. Most of these refugees are in temporary camps in neighboring countries.
- The Gulf States: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have taken in no Syrian refugees.
country not their own while they await conditions in their own country to improve so that they can return home. Permanent resettlement is the transfer of refugees from an asylum
country to a third country where they will be granted permanent legal residence. Only about
one percent of refugees are permanently resettled (UNHCR).
The United Nations views permanent resettlement as the last resort of refugee policy, instead recommending that refugees return to their home country when conditions allow. The United Nations recognizes no right to resettlement. It is up to individual countries to decide their own refugee policies. (UNHCR)
Refugee Admissions to the United States: A refugee is admitted into the United
States from abroad under that designation because that individual has demonstrated to the U.S. government he or she was persecuted or feared persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group, and does not pose a threat to the American people. A refugee may bring into the United States a spouse and any unmarried children under the age of 21.
How does the U.S. designate refugee status in law?
The President, in consultation with Congress, which budgets for the refugee program, sets a yearly numerical limit on refugee admissions. From 2004 to 2014 (fiscal years), the ceiling has remained between 70,000 and 80,000 a year (CRS). The proposed ceiling for 2016 is 85,000 with 10,000 of those spots allocated for Syrian nationals (Dept. of State).
Difference Between a Refugee and an Asylum Seeker: Asylum is a legal
status granted by the U.S. government that extends protection to individuals already in the United States who meet the criterion of a refugee. Anyone, regardless of their immigration status, may apply for asylum once in the United States, though according to law, an individual must apply for asylum within a year of arriving in the United States, and the Attorney General shall not grant asylum to individuals, excepting Cuban nationals, who entered a “safe third country” on way to the United States. An asylum seeker may also bring in a spouse and any unmarried children under the age of 21.
Permanently Resettled Refugees in the United States: The United States
takes in, by far, the most permanently resettled refugees. Since 2009, the United States has taken in 70 percent of all refugees who have been settled worldwide (CIS). As of November 2015, the U.S. has taken in 2,147 Syrian refugees for permanent resettlement, according to a State Department spokesperson (USA Today). The President has submitted a plan to Congress to take 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016. Fourteen Members of Congress, led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) sent a letter to President Obama urging him to ask for 65,000 Syrian refugees to be admitted in 2016. Since 1975, a total 3.3 million refugees have been permanently resettled in the United States (RPC).
- Very few countries in the world have agreed to take in any Syrian refugees. The United States and countries of Western Europe, along with Australia and Canada receive 98 percent of all permanently resettled refugees (UNHCR).
- The United States has an “open-ended resettlement” commitment with the United Nations, meaning it has placed no limits on how many refugees it may accept in the future. (UNHCR)
According to the UN, there are several types of “forcibly displaced persons.”
- Refugee: someone who fled his or her home and country owing to “a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”, according to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.
- Asylum Seekers: asylum seekers say they are refugees and have fled their homes as refugees do, but their claim to refugee status is not yet definitively evaluated in the country to which they fled.
- Internally Displaced Persons: people who have not crossed an international border but have moved to a different region than the one they call home within their own country.
- Stateless persons: stateless persons do not have a recognized nationality and do not belong to any country.
- Returnees: former refugees who return to their own countries or regions of origin after time in exile. Returnees need continuous support and reintegration assistance to ensure that they can rebuild their lives at home. (back to top)
“A refugee is someone who fled his or her home and country owing to “a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion”, according to the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention.”
(back to top)
101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The term “refugee” means…any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or…in such circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation …may specify, any person who is within the country of such person's nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The Plain Truth Is: Olympic Countdown: Al Qaeda Terrorist Released fro...
The Plain Truth Is: Olympic Countdown: Al Qaeda Terrorist Released fro...: With the summer Olympics just a few weeks away in Brazil, a veteran Al Qaeda operative released from Guantanamo to Uruguay has gone missi...
Olympic Countdown: Al Qaeda Terrorist Released from Gitmo to Uruguay Sneaked into Brazil, Whereabouts Unknown!
Diyab’s Department of Defense (DOD) file says he’s a high-risk terrorist that poses a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies. “Detainee is a member of the Syrian Group comprised of dismantled terrorist cells that escaped Syrian authorities and fled to Afghanistan (AF) in2000,” the DOD file states. “Detainee was sentenced to death in absentia, probably for his terrorist activities in Syria. Detainee is assessed to be a Global Jihad Support Network (GJSN) document forger who provided services to the network operated by Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn aka (Abu Zubaydah), ISN US9GZ-010016DP (GZ-10016), supporting European, North African, and Levant extremists facilitating their international travels. Detainee is an associate of several other significant al-Qaida members to include Ali Muhammad Abdul Aziz al-Fakhri, 11 September 2001 recruiter Muhammad Zammar, and other facilitators and identified document forgers.”
Nevertheless, Obama sent Diyab off to Uruguay in December 2014 and the country’s president at the time granted him and his five cohorts “refugee” status, which means they get to come and go as they please. Diyab never even tried to hide his terrorist ties. In fact, in interviews with Latin American publications he proudly proclaimed his support for the “radical Islamic group Al Qaeda.” This is probably why Brazilian authorities denied him legal entry. Diyab was also denied a visa to enter Qatar, according to an Uruguayan newspaper article that cites government sources in that country. A few days after Diyab was discovered missing Uruguay’s Minister of the Interior, Eduardo Bonomi, confirmed in a local newspaper story that Diyab left the country. “It’s not known with what documentation he (Diyab) left the country because he didn’t go through any registry,” Bonomi said referring to Uruguay’s official border screening tools.
Many of the prisoners released from Gitmo have reengaged in terrorism after leaving the compound and Judicial Watch has reported on it for years. Just a few months ago Judicial Watch wrote about an intelligence report that confirmed the latest tally of Gitmo alums that returned to terrorist causes after leaving the prison. Of the 144 Gitmo prisoners freed by the Obama administration seven are confirmed to have returned to the fight, according to the assessment, which was issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Of the 532 captives released under the George W. Bush administration, 111 eventually reengaged in extremist causes. In 2010 an ODNI report to Congress revealed that 150 former Gitmo prisoners were confirmed or suspected of “reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities after transfer.” At the time the agency revealed that at least 83 “remain at large” and that if additional detainees get released some will “reengage in terrorist or insurgent activities.” That assessment came two years after the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency disclosed a sharp rise in the number of Gitmo detainees who rejoin terrorist missions after leaving U.S. custody. Using data such as fingerprints, pictures and other reports the defense agency, which gathers foreign military intelligence, determined that the number of Middle Eastern terrorists who returned to “the fight” after being released nearly doubled in a short time.
This hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from releasing droves of Gitmo inmates, compromising national security and embarrassing itself in the process. In 2014, years after liberating an Al Qaeda operative from Gitmo, the U.S. government put him on a global terrorist list and offered a $5 million reward for information on his whereabouts. The recently released intelligence report cited above repeats what other government assessments have long documented: “Based on trends identified during the past eleven years, we assess that some detainees currently at GTMO will seek to reengage in terrorist or insurgent activities after they are transferred. Transfers to countries with ongoing conflicts and internal instability, as well as recruitment by insurgent and terrorist organizations, could pose problems. While enforcement of transfer conditions may deter reengagement by many former detainees and delay reengagement by others, some detainees who are determined to reengage will do so regardless of any transfer conditions, albeit probably at a lower rate than if they were transferred without conditions.” Still left at the top security facility are the world’s most dangerous terrorists, including 9/11 masterminds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi as well as USS Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
Monday, June 27, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: Benghazi: What Did Bill Clinton Know & When Did He...
The Plain Truth Is: Benghazi: What Did Bill Clinton Know & When Did He...: New documents obtained by Judicial Watch raise questions about the role of Clinton Inc. in the Benghazi debacle, particularly the in...
Benghazi: What Did Bill Clinton Know & When Did He Know It?
Mrs. Clinton, seeking to ease concerns about her ties to the Clintons’ powerful political machine, famously pledged as secretary of state-designate not to “participate personally and substantially” in matters relating to the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Global Initiative. We now know that promise was swiftly broken. Blumenthal—a man so hated by the Obama White House that it banned the State Department from hiring him—was secretly put on Mrs. Clinton’s payroll in an arms-length arrangement funded by the Clinton Foundation and Clinton ally David Brock. Judicial Watch and the New York Post documented the deep ties between the Clinton State Department and Blumenthal here.
Blumenthal was active in Libyan affairs. He privately urged Mrs. Clinton to take a more aggressive military role in country and to claim more credit for Muammar Gaddafi’s downfall. He also promoted a Libya deal sought by U.S. defense contractor Osprey Global Solutions. Among Blumenthal’s many memos to Secretary of State Clinton are several that claim to possess an inside track to the thinking of the new Libyan president, Mohammed Magariaf.
According to the new Judicial Watch documents, while the Benghazi facilities were under attack on September 11, Clinton phoned Magariaf at 6:49 p.m. Washington time, asking the president “to provide additional security to the compound immediately as there is a gun battle going on, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia is claiming responsibility for.”
Three hours later, Clinton issued a statement blaming the attack on an Internet video: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
An hour later, at 11:11 pm, Clinton emailed her daughter: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group.”
Shortly after midnight, Clinton received a “Confidential” email from Blumenthal titled “Magariaf and the Attacks on Libya.” Citing intelligence gleaned from unnamed “senior advisers, including members of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood,” Blumenthal said Magariaf had been told the Benghazi and Tripoli attacks were inspired by a “a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet Mohammed.”
Blumenthal devotes most of the lengthy memo to defending Magariaf and weaving an elaborate conspiracy theory. Magariaf has “growing concerns,” he writes, about “current covert efforts by his political opponents to link him directly to foreign intelligence services. According to a separate sensitive source, el Magariaf noted that his opponents had often tried to connect him to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) through the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), a group…Magariaf led in the 1980s.”
According to this source, Blumenthal writes, “the attacks on the U.S. missions were as much a result of the atmosphere created by this campaign [to connect Magariaf to the CIA], as the controversial internet video.”
Magariaf is a Libyan patriot. He spent thirty years in exile, most of it in the United States, leading the NFSL, the main opposition group to Gaddafi. If he wasn’t closely connected to the CIA, somebody at Langley should be fired for dereliction of duty. But what master is Blumenthal serving here? Why carry water for the CIA–suggesting that Magariaf’s position is shaky because of his earlier putative loyalty to the agency–when the fires are still burning in Benghazi?
The day after the Benghazi killings, the Clinton Foundation received a sudden request. A senior Magariaf aide, Fathi Nuah, emails Amitabh Desai, the foundations director of foreign policy. Magariaf will be in New York for the UN General Assembly and wishes to “meet President Clinton and participate at the Clinton Global Initiative.”
Dr. Nuah also spent decades in exile in the United States, working in opposition to the Gaddafi regime. According to a recent biographical note, Dr. Nuah is “engaged in developing major business” in the Libyan “education, oil, construction and commerce sectors.” Was he also one of Blumenthal’s unnamed sources?
The Clinton Foundation’s Desai emails senior Clinton aide Cheryl Mills: “Would USG have concerns about Libyan President being invited to CGI? Odd timing, I know.”
Mills replies, copying to another senior Clinton aide, Jake Sullivan: “we would not have issues.”
Five days later, sounding a note of caution, Desai emails Mills and Sullivan again. Magariaf is seeking a private meeting with Bill Clinton. “Would you recommend accepting or declining the WJC meeting request?”
The email chain, first uncovered by Judicial Watch as the result of a federal court order in ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation, is linked here.
The State Department apparently had no objection to the private meeting with the former president. On September 26, Desai emailed Mills, “He had a v good meeting with Libya.” Separately, in New York for the Clinton Global Initiative, Secretary of State Clinton met with Magariaf on September 24.
Sidney Blumenthal, recall, was a Clinton Foundation employee. What role did he play in brokering the meeting between Bill Clinton and the CIA-connected new Libyan president? What was discussed at the meeting? Why the sudden request from Magariaf the day after the Benghazi attacks, hours after Blumenthal’s memo went out to Mrs. Clinton?
Blumenthal also was a key advisor to the secretary of state. The Magariaf meetings in New York and Blumenthal’s Libya connections are further evidence that despite the Clintons’ pledges, there was no sunlight between Clinton Inc. and the Hillary Clinton State Department. Expect more of the same if Mrs. Clinton makes it to the White House.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: Cartels, Corruption & Terrorism , An Investigation...
The Plain Truth Is: Cartels, Corruption & Terrorism , An Investigation...: Cartels, corruption and terrorism have ignited a major security threat on the Mexican border. Islamic terrorists are training in souther...
Cartels, Corruption & Terrorism , An Investigation on the Mexican Border!
Mexican Cartels Smuggle Terrorists into U.S. Through Rural Texas Border Region
July 29, 2015Mexican drug cartels are smuggling foreigners from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas rural town near El Paso and they’re using remote farm roads—rather than interstates—to elude the Border Patrol and other law enforcement barriers, according to Judicial Watch sources on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. border…
ISIS Terrorist Released in Plea Deal Months Ago in Illinois
November 16, 2015The Paris terrorist attacks bring to mind the frightening case of an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) operative arrested in Chicago last fall and released earlier this year to serve probation in Illinois for a state crime that secretly drew federal intervention…
Cartels Help Terrorists in Mexico Get to U.S. to Explore Targets; ISIS Militant Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir Among Them
April 26, 2016Mexican drug traffickers help Islamic terrorists stationed in Mexico cross into the United States to explore targets for future attacks, according to information forwarded to Judicial Watch by a high-ranking Homeland Security official in a border state. Among the jihadists that travel back and forth through the porous southern border is a Kuwaiti named Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir, an ISIS operative who lives in the Mexican state of Chihuahua not far from El Paso, Texas…
Pakistani with Fake Ecuadorean Passport Enters U.S. via Mexico Multiple Times
May 18, 2016A Pakistani man with a fake passport and residence card from two different South American countries has been caught entering the U.S. illegally through Mexico and federal court documents reveal he has previously crossed into the country undetected by immigration authorities…
Judicial Watch: Justice Department Documents Reveal Widespread Use of Fast and Furious Weapons by Major Mexican Drug Cartels – Linked to at least 69 Killings
May 25, 2016Judicial Watch released Justice Department documents showing that weapons sent from the U.S. into Mexico as part of the Obama administration’s Operation Fast and Furious gunrunning program have been widely used by major Mexican drug cartels Maybe we Really need to build a new Border Wall?
The Plain Truth Is: Clinton Email Scandal: Latest Batch Exposes Two Bi...
The Plain Truth Is: Clinton Email Scandal: Latest Batch Exposes Two Bi...: The latest batch of emails from Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State exposes two new troubling developments in the long-run...
Clinton Email Scandal: Latest Batch Exposes Two Big New Problems For Hillary!
First, it turns out that Clinton managed to avoid turning over one key email, despite her repeated promises that she gave the State Department every single work-related email from her private email server. As the Associated Press reported, in the missing email, Clinton admits that her private setup was a problem.
"Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible," Clinton wrote to her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin. That was in response to an email from Abedin in November 2010, in which she advised Hillary that she should get on the state.gov email system or consider "releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam."
That exchange turned up only because it was in a batch of emails Abedin provided the government from her own private account. And it directly contradicts statements Clinton has made about the reason for her having a private setup, as well as her claim that she provided all her work-related emails.
Another email released this week reveals that State had set up an official government email account for Clinton to use, and then gives a clue as to why Clinton never used it.
"You should be aware," the email says, "that any email would go through the Department's infrastructure and subject to FOIA searches."
Meanwhile, other emails show that not only did Clinton's unsecured private email system risk exposing sensitive and at times highly classified information to outsiders, it forced the State Department to compromise its own security to accommodate her.
The new batch of emails was uncovered by Judicial Watch, which had asked for them to be released after a scathing inspector general report referenced them.
As the AP reports, "the emails ... show that the State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses."
The staff members did so, the emails show, because "they were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton's private server."
In one email, a senior technical official, Ken LaVolpe, told IT employees that "this should trump all other activities." The emails also describe the IT staff's frustration at trying to figure out what is blocking Clinton's emails.
Other emails uncovered by Judicial Watch highlight how vulnerable Clinton's email setup was to outages and attacks.
Clinton's tech person twice had to report that he had to shut down Clinton's private server because it was being hacked. Another email notes that "clintonemail.com is down due to an outage with our ISP." Clinton chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, says in another that "hrc email coming back -- is server OK?"
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton summed it all up by saying that "the emails show the Obama State Department gave special accommodations to Clinton's email system, which the agency knew was unsecure, was likely hacked and was not transparent under FOIA."
The State Department not only made "special accommodations," they put the security of their own communication systems at risk to appease Clinton's recklessness.
Friday, June 24, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: Illegal Alien Who Butchered Conn. Woman Not Deport...
The Plain Truth Is: Illegal Alien Who Butchered Conn. Woman Not Deport...: An illegal immigrant who stabbed a young Connecticut woman to death after completing a 15-year sentence for murder couldn’t be deported b...
Illegal Alien Who Butchered Conn. Woman Not Deported After Serving 15 Yrs. for Murder Because Haiti Refused to Repatriate!
Now, a year after an innocent woman was viciously butchered to death in her own apartment, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is getting a bit of a spanking from its watchdog for failing to do its job. It’s a sad old story, but this one is extra special because the DHS agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), responsible for deporting the murderous thug (Jean Jacques) claims Haiti simply refused to take him—on three different occasions. In fact, Jacques was listed as a passenger on three flights to Haiti but the Haitian government refused to repatriate him. U.S. authorities followed the orders of a famously corrupt, third-world country that gets billions in “humanitarian” aid from American taxpayers and Jacques was released to kill again.
As unbelievable as this may sound, it’s the somber reality of an agency created after 9/11 to keep the nation safe. A few years after coming to the U.S. in the early 1990s Jacques went on a crime spree and was convicted of attempted murder and illegally possessing a gun. He was sentenced to 20 years but got out after serving 15 and was jailed again for violating the terms of his parole before getting released for good in January of 2015. Six months later he stabbed 25-year-old Casey Chadwick to death in Norwich, a city of about 40,000 residents. Connecticut has long protected illegal immigrants with sanctuary policies and even offers them special drivers’ licenses, but the gruesome crime ignited fury and the state’s congressional delegation—all Democrats and avid defenders of sanctuary measures—demanded that the DHS Inspector General conduct an investigation.
The DHS watchdog reluctantly put it on its lengthy list of “ongoing projects” earlier this year and the findings were made public in a scathing report issued this month. The IG blasts ICE for not doing more to remove Jacques from the country and failing to contact the Haitian consulate in Miami, Florida to request a travel document after Jacques’ third repatriation rejection. “There is no record that ICE ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations) made this request,” the report states, adding that “ERO officials had previously made hundreds of similar requests to the Haitian consulates for travel documents without success and we have no reason to believe that the Jacques matter would have been different.” ICE didn’t bother asking the State Department for help because it believed the agency’s involvement was typically limited to aliens engaged in terrorism or human rights violations, the report says. Once released Jacques supervision was “minimal and ineffective,” the DHS watchdog found.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. In the last few years illegal immigrants with lengthy criminal histories have been allowed to remain in the U.S. despite being repeat offenders. Judicial Watch has investigated several of the cases and obtained public records from the government. For instance, back in 2008 Judicial Watch launched a California public records request with the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department to obtain the arrest and booking information on Edwin Ramos, an illegal alien from El Salvador who murdered three innocent American citizens. Ramos was a member of a renowned violent street gang and had been convicted of two felonies as a juvenile (a gang-related assault on a bus passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman) yet he was allowed to remain in the country.
Judicial Watch also investigated the 2010 case of a drunken illegal alien who killed a nun in Virginia and sued DHS to obtain records. The Bolivian national, Carlos Montano, had a criminal history but federal authorities released him on his own recognizance after two previous arrests. Judicial Watch’s probe determined that Montano had a revoked license and had previously been arrested on drunk-driving charges when his car crossed a median and slammed into a vehicle carrying three nuns. The two survivors were critically injured. Local police said they had turned Montano over to ICE after at least one of his arrests, but he never got deported.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: DHS May Ban “Religiously-Charged” Terms Jihad, Sha...
The Plain Truth Is: DHS May Ban “Religiously-Charged” Terms Jihad, Sha...: Four years after the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) purged anti-terrorism training material determined to be offensive to Muslim...
DHS May Ban “Religiously-Charged” Terms Jihad, Sharia to Avert “Us versus Them” in Anti-Terror Programs!
It’s political correctness run amok and the Obama administration has played a central role in promoting it by caving in to the demands of various Muslim rights groups. In this latest case a Homeland Security Advisory Council is recommending that, to avoid “us versus them” when discussing extremism, certain “religiously-charged” terminology must be avoided. This includes using “American Muslim” rather than “Muslim American” and rejecting religious, legal and cultural terms like jihad, sharia, takfir and umma. Jihad is the holy war that propels Islamic terrorism. Sharia is the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists—including the world’s most violent groups such as Al Qaeda—and their jihadism. Takfir and umma are Arabic terms that mean apostasy and Muslim community.
In a report released this month the DHS panel, known as Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee, unanimously recommends that the agency dedicates $100 million to counter a new generation of threats involving “violent extremism.” The goal is to curb the spread of violent extremist ideology (read between the lines, Islamic terrorism) and the recruitment of American youth to extremist groups with DHS serving as a platform to leverage partnerships in technology, health, education, communications, cultural, philanthropic, financial and non-government sectors. To accomplish it the feds must “prioritize attention on efforts to counter the recruitment of youth to violent ideologies across race, religion, ethnicity, location, socioeconomic levels, and gender,” the report states. This clearly means to practice political correctness and not single out Muslims. “Often without knowing it, we have constructed language in daily use that promotes an “us and them” narrative of division,” the report says. DHS must ensure terminology is “properly calibrated to diminish the recruitment efforts of extremists who argue that the West is at war with Islam.”
This is part of a broader effort by the Obama administration to appease Muslim rights groups, especially the terrorist front organization Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the force behind the FBI purging of anti-terrorism material. Judicial Watch uncovered that scandal a few years ago and obtained hundreds of pages of FBI documents with details of the arrangement. The FBI memos and other documents reveal that the agency purged its anti-terrorism training curricula of material determined by an undisclosed group of “Subject Matter Experts” (SME) to be “offensive” to Muslims. The excised material included references linking the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorism, tying Al Qaeda to the 1993 World Trade Center and Khobar Towers bombings, and suggesting that “young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance … may fit the terrorist profile best.” Last fall Judicial Watch published a special in-depth report on the unprecedented broad purging of FBI training material.
Just a few months ago the FBI again caved into the demands of Islamic activists, suspending a new internet program aimed at preventing the radicalization of youth. Muslim and Arab rights groups determined that the interactive website, created as a tool for the nation’s schools to prevent susceptible youth from getting recruited online by terrorists, discriminated against Muslims and would lead to bullying, bias and religious profiling of students. One of the groups behind the program’s demise, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, claimed the website improperly characterized Muslims as a suspect community with targeted focus and stereotypical depictions.
CAIR and its allies also got several police departments in President Obama’s home state of Illinois to cancel essential counterterrorism courses over accusations that the instructor was anti-Muslim. The course was called “Islamic Awareness as a Counter-Terrorist Strategy” and departments in Lombard, Elmhurst and Highland Park caved into CAIR’s demands. The group responded with a statement commending officials for their “swift action in addressing the Muslim community’s concerns.” CAIR has flexed its muscle in a number of other cases during the Obama presidency, including blocking an FBI probe involving the radicalization of young Somali men in the U.S. and pressuring the government to file discrimination lawsuits against employers who don’t accommodate Muslims in the workplace.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: Two Scandals Nobody is Talking About!
The Plain Truth Is: Two Scandals Nobody is Talking About!: As you know, the whole nation is currently enraptured by three scandals – the Benghazi, IRS and DOJ/AP scandals. But what most people do...
Two Scandals Nobody is Talking About!
But what most people don’t realize is that there are two more scandals that haven’t fully come to light yet.
Believe me, we’re on the verge of witnessing the greatest number of scandals ever seen in Washington – both at one period in time, and over the course of one presidency.
And that begs the question: When is enough, well, enough? It only took one scandal to dethrone Nixon.
Of course, the IRS, DOJ and Benghazi scandals have the nation in an uproar, but if those three can’t bury Obama, maybe these other two will put the nail in his coffin.
Unexposed Scandal #1: IRS-Like Targeting At the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the Obama administration, the IRS is now known as the Internal Revenge Service. An anonymous employee blew the whistle on how the whole system operates, and he made it perfectly clear that corrupt directives “come from the top.”
And it appears that holds true across several federal agencies. That’s why the EPA is currently involved in a similar scandal.
Supposedly, all federal agencies are required to distribute any requested documents as long as they don’t fall under certain specific exemptions. It’s part of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal law that gives the public the right to request federal agency records.
But like the IRS, the EPA has also been unfairly targeting conservatives while providing favorable treatment to liberal groups.
Recently, liberal groups requested 82 documents and conservative businesses requested 26.
Out of 82 requests, the EPA has waived fees for 75 major liberal environmental groups. If you don’t have your calculator on hand, that’s a 92% success rate.
On the flipside, conservative organizations have an abysmal 19% success rate. That’s right, 21 out of the 26 conservative groups’ FOIA requests were either rejected or completely ignored.
So there you have it… the EPA is blatantly conspiring with groups that share its same political agenda. This, along with the IRS scandal, confirms conservative fears of big government reign.
Unexposed Scandal #2: Obamacare Donor-Gate
Obamacare in and of itself is a scandal, mainly because of the sneaky way it was passed. And as the law has been slowly implemented, even more shameful behavior has come to light.
First of all, Sarah Hall Ingram – the woman in charge of the IRS division at the center of the recent scandal – is also heading up the division in charge of Obamacare tax regulation.
That should be plenty frightening on its own.
But if that weren’t enough, members from the House have sent a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the Department of Human and Health Services, questioning shady donor activity.
We already know that Sebelius has a history of bending the law to forward this administration’s agenda, and now we’re seeing the same behavior that’s gotten her in trouble before.
It turns out the HHS has been soliciting donations from nonprofit organizations involved with implementing Obamacare. Though the law states that department officials are prohibited from fundraising in their own professional capacity, Sebelius has been directly calling top executives in the health industry as well as community organizations and church groups to coerce them into donating to nonprofits tied to Obamacare.
This is the definition of “conflict of interest,” and even if they aren’t deemed illegal, they’re undoubtedly unethical and, at the very least, should lead to her resignation.
The Silver Lining
We keep seeing more scandals and no impeachment process. I understand that it’s disheartening to think about the president getting away with five exposed scandals. But there’s always a silver lining…
Today, the president is on the defensive (despite being arrogant enough at first to think he didn’t need to be).
You know things have hit rock bottom when Piers Morgan and Jon Stewart can no longer defend you…
And now, instead of putting all his effort into leaving an even heavier footprint on our nation, he will need to focus on damage control. These investigations are going to go on for a very long time, and even if they don’t bring about his impeachment, they’ll certainly delay the implementation of most of his agenda.
In Pursuit of the Truth,
The Plain Truth Is: Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Obama (Fina...
The Plain Truth Is: Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Obama (Fina...: Well, the best news of the week (or even the month) is that someone on Capitol Hill still has a spine. When Rep. Steve Stockman got up ...
Articles of Impeachment Against Barack Obama (Finally)!
When Rep. Steve Stockman got up and walked out of the president’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night, I rejoiced. Finally, someone has decided that enough is enough!
Stockman apparently couldn’t make it through the entire speech without losing his temper. He’s mad that President Obama is rewriting the U.S. Constitution, and he has every right to be.
Here’s what Stockman had to say:
“Tonight I left early after hearing how the president is further abusing his Constitutional powers. I could not bear to watch as he continued to cross the clearly defined boundaries of the Constitutional separation of powers.
“Even worse, Obama has openly vowed to break his oath of office and begin enacting his own brand of law through executive decree. This is a wholesale violation of his oath of office and a disqualifying offense.”
Stockman didn’t stop there, either.
He went on to proclaim: “I’m considering filing Articles of Impeachment against Barack Obama.”
Now we’re talking!
The nation is tired of the Republican leadership’s complacency and the “let’s all get along” culture that’s endemic among politicians. And finally, it appears that someone on the Hill agrees.
Instead of acting like nothing is wrong, Stockman is speaking the frustration of millions of Americans, citizens who are sickened by their selfish, do-nothing leaders who only care about getting re-elected at all costs.
Recent polls show that just 31% of Americans believe that the country is better off now than in 2009, when Obama was sworn in. And a new Rasmussen poll reported that 69% of likely voters believe that the president should work with Congress, while only 27% believe that the president should go around Congress.
A CNN snap poll conducted among State of the Union viewers found similar results: 67% said that they wanted Obama to compromise with Congress, while just 30% said that they preferred for him to act on his own.
Stockman told NPR that “acting unilaterally, without Congress, is not the concept of what our Founding Fathers envisioned. And I had hoped [Obama] would reach across the aisles and – especially in his final years – make a difference.”
Meanwhile, the rest of the Republican leadership would be smart to follow Stockman’s lead. Impeachment should be on the docket – it’s what the American people want. On top of that, the process is long overdue. To recap:
- Obama’s administration has trafficked guns to Mexican drug cartels.
- Obama’s administration ignored calls for help from numerous Americans in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, resulting in their deaths.
- Obama’s administration has unilaterally rewritten bankruptcy laws and stripped investors in GM bonds, including a teacher’s pension fund, of property rights.
- Obama illegally bombed Libya without Congressional authorization.
- Obama unilaterally rewrote the Affordable Care Act, exempting chosen businesses, unions and Congress from the effects of the law.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: U.S. Spends More on Medical Care for Inmates than ...
The Plain Truth Is: U.S. Spends More on Medical Care for Inmates than ...: President Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that there’s an extra special place in his heart for incarcerated criminals, but this is a bi...
U.S. Spends More on Medical Care for Inmates than Seniors, Veterans, Military Personnel!
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) consistently pays outside doctors and hospitals more to treat inmates than Medicare or other federal agencies would pay for the same services, according to the report which is the result of a Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General investigation. “We found that the BOP is the only federal agency that pays for medical care that is not covered under a statute or regulation under which the government sets the agency’s reimbursement rates, usually at the Medicare rate,” the report states. “Instead, the BOP solicits and awards a comprehensive medical services contract for each BOP institution to obtain outside medical services.”
This means the BOP negotiates its own rates for medical services, which is outrageous and ends up costing American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually. Without the cost regulations that apply to all other federal agencies, the BOP pays a premium above applicable Medicare rates for medical care. In fiscal year 2014, for instance, the BOP spent at least $100 million more for medical care than it would have if it had paid Medicare rates. Other law enforcement agencies, including those within the DOJ like the U.S. Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), stay within the Medicare rates to provide outside medical services for individuals in their custody. So does the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Indian Health Service to treat members of the military and their dependents, veterans and Native Americans.
In many cases the same medical providers that work for other federal agencies, charge the BOP a premium above the Medicare rate when treating inmates, the DOJ watchdog reveals. From fiscal year 2010 to 2014, BOP spending for outside medical services increased 24%, from $263 million to $327 million and the figure is only going to increase. “Medical spending constitutes a significant and increasing portion” of the BOP’s budget, the IG found. Specifically, the agency spent $905 million of its $6.2 billion budget on inmate medical care in one year alone, according to the figures provided in the report. This includes salaried BOP medical staff, prescription drugs, medical supplies and outside providers. In all, the agency purchases outside medical care at inflated rates for more than 170,000 inmates nationwide at a cost of more than $300 million annually. The contracts have reimbursement rates at least 15% above the Medicare benchmark rate, the report says.
The BOP claims its medical needs are more complex than other agencies because it provides chronic care for numerous inmates. Because medical providers have the choice not to treat inmates, the agency claims that it must pay extra. That still doesn’t explain why the government spends more money on the medical care of incarcerated criminals than active military personnel, veterans or senior citizens. Just because this information is out in the open doesn’t necessarily mean anything will happen to correct the problem, which is par for the course in government. The agency watchdog suggests convening a “working group” to find ways for the BOP to manage its medical costs and recommends that the agency improve the collection and analysis of data for inmate medical care. This will buy time, but it’s unlikely to result in any concrete action to cut the waste.
In the meantime federal inmates will continue to receive special treatment as long as Obama lives in the White House. Obama is the first sitting president to visit a federal prison and meet with inmates as part of his criminal justice reform movement. In 2010 the commander-in-chief proudly signed a law that, for the first time in decades, relaxed drug-crime sentences he claimed discriminated against minority offenders. Last year the administration released thousands of drug convicts from federal prisons around the country whose sentences were too long. In the aftermath of that mass release, the administration has spent huge amounts of taxpayer funds to help the prematurely discharged convicts reintegrate into society. This includes housing and job programs.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Friday, June 17, 2016
The Plain Truth Is: U.S. Doesn’t Track if Millions in Biz “Loans” to R...
The Plain Truth Is: U.S. Doesn’t Track if Millions in Biz “Loans” to R...: The U.S. government gives refugees on public assistance special “loans” of up to $15,000 to start a business but fails to keep track of ...
U.S. Doesn’t Track if Millions in Biz “Loans” to Refugees on Public Assistance Are Repaid!
Since 2010 the program has granted thousands of loans to refugees that lack the financial resources, credit history or personal assets to qualify for business loans from commercial banks. Most if not all the recipients already get assistance or subsidies from the government, according to the qualification guidelines set by the Microenterprise Development Program. It’s a risky operation that blindly gives public funds to poor foreign nationals with no roots in the U.S. and there’s no follow up to assure the cash is paid back. The idea behind it is to “equip refugees with the skills they need to become successful entrepreneurs” by helping them expand or maintain their own business and become financially independent.
Earlier this year, Judicial Watch submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to HHS for records related to the refugee business loan program. Specifically, JW asked for the number of loans that are written off per year and the amount of the write-off per defaulted loan. Unlike commercial banks or other lending institutions, HHS doesn’t keep track of default rates on loans issued through the Microenterprise program. This is astonishing considering that these are taxpayer dollars being furnished in the form of loans to foreign nationals granted refuge in the United States. An HHS official told JW the agency doesn’t have a tracking system in place to provide figures involving loan defaults. However, the agency is “preparing to collect this information in the future,” according to the records obtained by JW from the agency.
What we do know is that from 2010 to 2015, HHS gave a total of 3,096 of these so-called micro loans, the records show. In 2015 a record 558 loans were granted to refuges but it’s not clear for what amount. At the high end, if all 558 loans made last year were for the full $15,000 available to each refugee that would mean that HHS can’t account for an astounding $8.37 million. Here’s the rest of the breakdown, according to the records furnished by HHS as a result of JW’s FOIA request; in 2010 the agency granted 550 micro loans; in 2011, 541; 2012, 437; 2013, 466; 2014, 544. That’s a big chunk of change. The last year HHS filed an official annual report on this questionable cash giveaway was 2011. No official records have been made available to the public since then, which is why JW launched an investigation. According to the 2011 annual report, which resembles a promotional brochure, the default rate is only 3% but no further details or breakdown is offered making the information less than credible.
HHS is not the only government agency doling out huge sums of cash for this cause, though its focus on refugees appears to be unique. Others, such as the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Labor (DOL) also dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to various microenterprise causes. For instance, in one recent year alone USAID spent $223 million on microenterprise development activities, according to figures released by the agency. The USDA also allocates large sums to provide loans and grants to microenterprise development through a special “Rural Microloan Revolving Fund” and the DOL regularly pours lots of money into various microenterprise projects that are promoted as workforce investments in areas with high rates of poverty.
“Islamic Refugee” With Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border County!
The gas pipeline plans in the woman’s possession include the Deming region, law enforcement sources say. Deming is a Luna County city situated about 35 miles north of the Mexican border and 60 miles west of Las Cruces. It has a population of about 15,000. Last year one local publication listed Deming No. 1 on a list of the “ten worst places” to live in New Mexico due to high unemployment, poverty, crime and a horrible public education system. The entire region is a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA), according to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center due to the large amounts of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine and marijuana smuggled through the state by Mexican traffickers. Specifically, the renowned Juárez and Sinaloa cartels operate in the area, the feds affirm in a report.
Judicial Watch has broken a number of stories in the last few years about Mexican drug traffickers smuggling Islamic terrorists into the United States through the porous southern border. Last summer high-level sources on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. border offered alarming details about an operation in which cartels smuggle foreigners from countries with terrorist links into a small Texas rural town near El Paso. Classified as Special Interest Aliens (SIA) by the U.S. government, the foreigners get transported to stash areas in Acala, a rural crossroads located around 54 miles from El Paso on a state road – Highway 20. Once in the U.S., the SIAs wait for pick-up in the area’s sand hills just across Highway 20.
A few months ago Judicial Watch reported that members of a cell of Islamic terrorists stationed in Mexico cross into the U.S. to explore targets for future attacks with the help of Mexican drug traffickers. Among the jihadists that travel back and forth through the porous southern border is a Kuwaiti named Shaykh Mahmood Omar Khabir, an ISIS operative who lives in the Mexican state of Chihuahua not far from El Paso, Texas. Khabir trained hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen and has lived in Mexico for more than a year, according to Judicial Watch’s high-level Homeland Security sources. Now Khabir trains thousands of men—mostly Syrians and Yemenis—to fight in an ISIS base situated in the Mexico-U.S. border region near Ciudad Juárez. Khabir actually brags in a European newspaper article about how easy it is to stake out American targets because the border region is wide open. In the same story Foreign Affairs Secretary Claudia Ruiz, Mexico’s top diplomat, says she doesn’t understand why the Obama administration and the U.S. media are “culpably neglecting this phenomenon,” adding that “this new wave of fundamentalism could have nasty surprises in store for the United States.”
This recent New Mexico incident brings to mind a story Judicial Watch broke less than a year ago involving five young Middle Eastern men apprehended by Border Patrol in an Arizona town (Amado) situated about 30 miles from the Mexican border. Two of the Middle Eastern men were carrying stainless steel cylinders in backpacks, alarming Border Patrol officials enough to call the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for backup. A multitude of federal agents descended on the property and the two men carrying the cylinders were believed to be taken into custody by the FBI. Only three of the men’s names were entered in the Border Patrol’s E3 reporting system, which is used by the agency to track apprehensions, detention hearings and removals of illegal immigrants. E3 also collects and transmits biographic and biometric data including fingerprints for identification and verification of individuals encountered at the border. The other two men were listed as “unknown subjects,” which is unheard of. “In all my years I’ve never seen that before,” a veteran federal law enforcement agent told Judicial Watch.
The Plain Truth Is: Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress,...
The Plain Truth Is: Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress,...: Who's got the most juice on Capitol Hill? Here's a list of the top interest groups contributing to members of the Congress duri...
Top Interest Groups Giving to Members of Congress, 2016 Cycle!
Based on data released by the FEC on Monday, May 16, 2016.
The Plain Truth Is: 2016 Congressional Pig Book! Wow!!!
The Plain Truth Is: 2016 Congressional Pig Book! Wow!!!: The Congressional Pig Book is CAGW's annual compilation of the pork-barrel projects in the federal budget. A "pork" projec...
2016 Congressional Pig Book! Wow!!!
All About Pork
2016 Pig Book Summary
The 2016 Congressional Pig Book Summary gives a snapshot of each appropriations bill and details the juiciest projects culled from the complete Pig Book.Jump to an appropriations bill:
Introduction
Pork-barrel spending is alive and well in Washington, D.C., despite claims to the contrary. For the fourth time since Congress enacted an earmark moratorium that began in fiscal year (FY) 2011, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) has unearthed earmarks in the appropriations bills.The 2016 Congressional Pig Book exposes 123 earmarks in FY 2016, an increase of 17.1 percent from the 105 in FY 2015. The cost of earmarks in FY 2016 is $5.1 billion, an increase of 21.4 percent from the $4.2 billion in FY 2015. While the increase in cost over one year is disconcerting, the two-year rise of 88.9 percent over the $2.7 billion in FY 2014 is downright disturbing.
The FY 2016 earmarks are all contained in H.R. 2029, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, which presents its own challenges in regard to how the taxpayers’ money is being spent. Throwing all earmarks into one large bill makes it more difficult to identify and eliminate earmarks than if Congress adhered to regular order and considered the 12 appropriations bills individually.
Publication of the 2016 Pig Book also marks 10 years since the record earmark amount of $29 billion in FY 2006. In order for earmarks to reach that level over the next decade, legislators would need to increase the cost of earmarks by $2.4 billion annually. Unfortunately, this is not out of the question given its growth over the past two years.
In FY 2016, as in each of the years following the establishment of the moratorium, there are fewer earmarks than in the peak years, but far more money was spent on average for each earmark and no detailed description was provided. For instance, legislators added 15 earmarks costing $549.6 million for the FY 2016 Army Corps of Engineers in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. These earmarks correspond to 482 earmarks costing $541.7 million in FY 2010.
In other words, the average dollar amount for the earmarks in FY 2016 was $36.6 million, while in FY 2010 that average was $1.1 million. The “Congressionally Directed Spending” section at the end of the FY 2010 bill contained the names of the members of Congress requesting each project and its location, as required by the transparency rules. In stark contrast, the FY 2016 earmarks, which cost $7.9 million more than the FY 2010 projects, contained no such data and simply created a pool of money to be distributed at a later date without any specific information about the eventual recipients.
Members of Congress will argue that their standards differ from the earmark criteria used in the Pig Book, and that the appropriations bills are earmark-free according to their definition. However, the difference in the definition of earmarks between CAGW and Congress has existed since the first Pig Book in 1991. The pork-free claim can also be challenged based on the inclusion of projects that have appeared in past appropriations bills as earmarks. In addition to meeting CAGW’s long-standing seven-point criteria, to qualify for the 2016 Pig Book a project or program must have appeared in prior years as an earmark. The total number and cost of earmarks are, therefore, quite conservative.
The question for those in Congress who deny the existence of earmarks in the appropriations bills is: Why were these projects previously considered earmarks, but not in 2016?
Unfortunately, the earmark moratorium has not only failed to eliminate earmarks, but also has rendered the process patently less transparent. There are no names of legislators, no list or chart of earmarks, and limited information on where and how the money will be spent. Earmarks were scattered throughout the legislative and report language, requiring substantial detective work to unearth each project. While the lower number and cost of earmarks are an improvement relative to many prior years, transparency and accountability have regressed immeasurably.
The earmarks in the appropriations bills enacted since the initiation of the moratorium raise disturbing questions for the future, particularly because representatives and senators from both sides of the aisle continue to clamor for their revival.
One of the most frequently used arguments in favor of earmarks is that they would help pass certain spending bills. In the past, however, members have voted for excessively expensive legislation because they have received a few earmarks, which means the moratorium has helped restrain spending. A return to rampant earmarking would inevitably increase the risk of corruption and the potential for an explosion in expenditures compared to current levels.
There are also concerns regarding which legislators benefit most in a system with openly-incorporated earmarks. As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) explained on May 7, 2014, regarding those making the case for a return to earmarks, “The problem with all their arguments is: the more powerful you are, the more likely it is you get the earmark in. Therefore, it is a corrupt system.”
Earmarks create a few winners (appropriators, special interests, and lobbyists) and a great many losers (taxpayers). They contribute to the deficit directly, by tacking on extra funding, and indirectly, by attracting votes to costly legislation that might not otherwise pass. Earmarks corrupt democracy by eclipsing more important matters in the minds of legislators and voters.
The latest installment of CAGW’s 24-year exposé of pork-barrel spending includes $40 million to upgrade the M1 Abrams tank, which is opposed by the Pentagon; $8 million for the aquatic plant control program; $5.9 million for the East-West Center, an earmark championed by Senate Appropriations Committee member Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii); and, $5 million for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) account, a program with a remarkably long and sordid history.
The projects in the 2016 Congressional Pig Book Summary symbolize the most blatant examples of pork. As in previous years, all items in the Congressional Pig Book meet at least one of CAGW’s seven criteria, but most satisfy at least two:
- Requested by only one chamber of Congress;
- Not specifically authorized;
- Not competitively awarded;
- Not requested by the President;
- Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding;
- Not the subject of congressional hearings; or
- Serves only a local or special interest.
I. Agriculture
Members of Congress have long used the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act to feed at the trough, but some progress is being made. While there were four earmarks in both FYs 2015 and 2016, the cost dropped by 58.7 percent, from $57.8 million in FY 2015 to $23.9 million in FY 2016.$10,000,000 for high energy cost grants within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The RUS grew out of the remnants of the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Electrification Administration (REA) of the 1930s. The primary goal of the REA was to promote rural electrification to farmers and residents in out-of-the-way communities where the cost of providing electricity was considered to be too expensive for local utilities. By 1981, 98.7 percent electrification and 95 percent telephone service coverage was achieved. Rather than declaring victory and shutting down the REA, the agency was transformed into the RUS, and expanded into other areas.
RUS high energy cost grants are intended to assist communities whose energy costs exceed 275 percent of the national average by funding the construction, installation, and repair of energy distribution facilities. This may sound like a bright idea, but the RUS Electric Loan program is intended to achieve the same objective. President Obama’s FY 2013 version of Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings noted that low-interest electric loans are available through the RUS to residents of rural areas served by the high energy cost program. The grants are available in Alaska, Hawaii, several communities in certain other states, and in U.S. territories.
Since FY 2002, members of Congress have added six earmarks for high energy cost grants totaling $113.5 million.
$3,000,000 for the Delta Regional Authority (DRA), which also received a $3 million earmark in the Agriculture Appropriations bill in FYs 2014 and 2015. However, in FY 2016, the DRA received an additional earmark costing $10,064,000 in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, for a combined total of $13,064,000, an increase of 335.5 percent over the past earmarks.
Established in 2000, the DRA is intended to provide economic development assistance to support the creation of jobs and improve local conditions for the 10 million people who reside in 252 counties and parishes throughout the Mississippi Delta states of Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
According to the Republican Study Committee’s FY 2016 budget, funding for the DRA should be terminated because such regional commissions are duplicative of other federal programs and support mostly local projects. Support for cutting DRA funds is bipartisan, as President Obama’s FY 2017 version of Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings recommended reducing the agency’s budget by $3 million annually.
Since FY 2003, the DRA has received eight earmarks totaling $30.8 million.
II. Commerce, Justice, Science
While
each of the past two versions of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act have contained one earmark, its cost
increased by 300 percent, from $15 million in FY 2015 to $60 million in
FY 2016. Members of Congress should be congratulated for eliminating
the plethora of earmarks that previously appeared for programs such as
the Community Oriented Policing Services, but the lone earmark in the FY
2016 version of the bill is a stain on an otherwise pork-free piece of
legislation.
$60,000,000 for
construction of research facilities at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST). According to the legislation, the
funding is to initiate “the design and renovation of its outdated and
unsafe radiation physics infrastructure in fiscal year 2016.” Though the
legislation does not designate a location for the funding, NIST’s
Radiation Physics Division operates facilities in Boulder, Colorado, and
Gaithersburg, Maryland.Since FY 2002, members of Congress have directed 19 earmarks costing taxpayers $186 million for research facility construction at NIST in Alabama, Mississippi, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Virginia, and Puerto Rico. These include two earmarks costing $60 million by Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), and four earmarks totaling $19.5 million by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).
Sen. Cochran requested 709 earmarks costing taxpayers $1.9 billion between FYs 2008-2010, the three years in which members were required to identify their earmark requests. He requested both the highest number and dollar amount of earmarks in each of these years, making him the “King of Pork” for that period of time.
III. Defense
The
Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act usually contains the
most earmarks at the highest cost to taxpayers each year, and the FY
2016 bill did not break this tradition. While the number of earmarks in
the bill increased by 19.6 percent, from 56 in FY 2015 to 67 in FY 2016,
the cost of these earmarks skyrocketed. The $3.3 billion in FY 2016
represents a 43.5 percent increase from the $2.3 billion in FY 2015
(nearly identical to the 43.8 percent increase from FY 2014 and FY
2015), and constitutes 64.7 percent of the $5.1 billion in earmarks
contained in the 12 appropriations bills for FY 2016.
$1,150,800,000
for 28 earmarks for health and disease research under the Defense
Health Program, which is a 7.8 percent increase in cost over the 27
earmarks worth $1,067,115,000 in FY 2015. Former Sen. Tom Coburn’s
(R-Okla.) November 2012 report, The Department of Everything,
pointed out that the DOD disease earmarks added by Congress mean that
“fewer resources are available for DOD to address those specific health
challenges facing members of the armed forces for which no other
agencies are focused.” According to the report, in 2010 the Pentagon
withheld more than $45 million for overhead related to earmarks, which
means those funds were unavailable for national security needs or
medical research specifically affecting those serving in the military.A March 14, 2012, Washington Post article stated that DOD Comptroller Robert Hale proposed decreasing the Pentagon health budget in part by eliminating “one-time congressional adds,” which totaled $603.6 million in FY 2012 for the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program.
Since FY 1996, members of Congress have added 640 earmarks for the Defense Health Program, costing taxpayers $9.2 billion.
$1,000,000,000 for one additional DDG 51 ship, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. The DDG 51 has a long history of receiving earmarks from members of Congress, including $720 million requested by then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in FY 1998. Like many legislators, Sen. Lott was unrepentant in his pork-barreling, stating “I’ll do anything for that [Ingalls] shipyard,” the DDG 51 construction site. Since FY 1991, members of Congress have added 21 earmarks for the DDG 51 program, costing taxpayers $2.7 billion.
$255,000,000 for two additional F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft for the Navy. The acquisition misadventures of the JSF program have been well-documented. In development for nearly 15 years and four years behind schedule, the program is approximately $170 billion over budget and has encountered an abundance of persistent issues. An April 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report noted that the lifetime operation and maintenance costs of the most expensive weapon system in history will total approximately $1 trillion.
Many of the problems with the F-35 program can be traced back to the decision to operate program development and procurement simultaneously. This meant that whenever problems were identified, contractors needed to go back and make changes to aircraft that were already in production.
Top Pentagon brass agrees. Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum on July 24, 2015, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James stated, “The biggest lesson I have learned from the F-35 is never again should we be flying an aircraft while we’re building it.” And Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Frank Kendall referred to the purchase of the F-35 as “acquisition malpractice” in February 2014.
Beyond the litany of setbacks and drawbacks, doubts exist as to whether the JSF will be an improvement over the aircraft it is set to replace. Many members of Congress, including Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.), who served 26 years in the Air Force and retired as a colonel in 2010, have questioned whether the F-35 will exceed the performance of the (far cheaper) A-10 in close-air support of troops on the ground. In addition, a January 2015 simulation which pitted the JSF against the F-16, another aircraft due to be replaced, found the F-35 to be at a disadvantage in air-to-air combat, according to a leaked test pilot’s report.
Rather than asking pressing questions as to whether the JSF remained worthy of further commitment, members of Congress provided funding via an earmark for two additional aircraft. Since FY 2001, members of Congress have added 12 earmarks for the JSF program, costing $1.9 billion.
$125,000,000 for two earmarks for the National Guard Counter-Drug Program. Formerly earmarked to individual states and congressional districts, the program, which allows for the use of military personnel in domestic drug enforcement operations, is now funded in one bundle as a work-around to the earmark moratorium.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, with a budget of $2.1 billion, is already responsible for these activities. Since FY 2001, there have been 66 earmarks costing taxpayers $492.1 million for the National Guard Counter-Drug Program. Members of Congress who have inserted earmarks for this program in the past include longtime pork advocates such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), and the late Sens. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
$40,000,000 for the continued upgrade of the M1 Abrams tank to the M1A2SEP variant. Over the objections of senior DOD officials, members of Congress have for many years been earmarking funds for the M1 upgrade program. Although the tank plant is located in Lima, Ohio, its suppliers are spread across the country, which helps to explain the widespread support.
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on February 17, 2012, then-Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno told Congress that the U.S. possesses more than enough tanks to meet the country’s needs. In fact, the Army has so many M1 tanks that 2,000 of them are parked in a California desert.
The FY 2016 DOD Appropriations Act hinted at a parochial incentive for the program’s continuance: the earmark will be used for “industrial base support.” There’s nothing like an old-fashioned jobs program disguised as a national security priority.
Since FY 1994, there have been 39 earmarks for the M1 Abrams program, requested by at least 13 members of Congress, costing taxpayers $948.6 million. As Congress continues to ignore the DOD, taxpayers will carry on footing the bill for upgrades to what Gen. Odierno described as “tanks that we simply do not need.”
$25,000,000 for the Starbase Youth Program, which teaches science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) to at-risk youth in multiple locations at or near military bases around the country. Since FY 2001, nine earmarks costing taxpayers $94 million have been added for Starbase, including an earmark worth $1.9 million in FY 2010 added by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.).
A March 2012 GAO annual report on program duplication, overlap, and fragmentation found that $3 billion was spent in FY 2010 across 13 agencies for 209 STEM programs, 83 percent of DEFENSE which overlapped with at least one other program. President Obama proposed the consolidation or elimination of 31 STEM programs in FY 2015, and a further 20 STEM programs in FY 2016. No funding was requested for Starbase in his FY 2016 budget.
$20,000,000 for alternative energy research. Since FY 2004, Congress has used the defense appropriations bill as a vehicle to insert 26 earmarks worth $274.9 million for this purpose, despite the fact that the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act supplies billions of dollars for alternative energy research every year.
During a March 13, 2012, Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, then-Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) asserted that the Navy’s efforts to develop biofuels could turn into another “Solyndra situation,” citing the solar panel manufacturer that received a $535 million loan guarantee through the Department of Energy before filing for bankruptcy in September 2011.
According to Sen. McCain, the Navy spent in excess of $400 per gallon for approximately 20,000 gallons of algae-based biofuel. In a February 2011 hearing, House Armed Services Committee member Randy Forbes (R-Va.) fired a shot across the Navy’s bow, telling Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, “You’re not the secretary of Energy. You’re the secretary of the Navy.”
IV. Energy and Water
The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act is more flooded with pork than it was in FY 2015. The number of earmarks increased by 10 percent, from 20 in FY 2015 to 22 in FY 2016, while the cost surged by 16.5 percent, from $604.8 million in FY 2015 to $704.7 million in FY 2016.$549,594,000 for 15 earmarks for the Army Corps of Engineers, a 51 percent increase in cost from the $363.9 million in FY 2015. President Obama’s FY 2017 version of Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings recommended reducing the operations and maintenance budget for the Corps of Engineers by $432 million.
Legislators have long treated the Army Corps of Engineers as a prime repository of pork, and it is among the most heavily earmarked areas of the federal budget. Since FY 1996, members of Congress have added 6,902 earmarks for the Corps, costing taxpayers $12.2 billion.
$51,000,000 for the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), which is a 133.9 percent increase over the $21.8 million earmark in FY 2015. ARC was created by Congress in 1965 to “bring the 13 Appalachian states into the mainstream of the American economy.” The commission represents a partnership of federal, state, and local governments and covers all of West Virginia along with portions of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. The ARC provides funding for several hundred highway and development projects throughout the Appalachian region. The commission is duplicative of dozens of other programs that exist at the federal, state, and local levels, and unfairly focuses on a region of the country that is no more deserving than other impoverished areas.
Since FY 1995, the ARC has received eight earmarks totaling $221.5 million for projects in Alabama, Kentucky, and West Virginia.
$10,064,000 for the Delta Regional Authority, which also received an earmark costing $3 million in the Agriculture Appropriations Act, for a combined total of $13,064,000.
$8,000,000 for the aquatic plant control program, double the $4 million earmarked in FY 2015. Since 1994, there have been 22 earmarks worth a total of $38.1 million for aquatic plant control projects, including three by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and one each by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.).
V. Financial Services
Both
the FY 2015 and FY 2016 versions of the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act contained one earmark, with the cost
increasing by 9.7 percent, from $51.6 million in FY 2015 to $56.6
million in FY 2016. Members of Congress should be congratulated for
eliminating the numerous earmarks for the Small Business Administration
that have plagued previous bills, but an earmark-free bill would have
been a better result.
$56,600,000 for
the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program (HIDTA) at the Office
of National Drug Control Policy. Originally intended for border states,
members of Congress have used earmarks to expand HIDTA to non-border
states. Since FY 1997, 30 earmarks costing taxpayers $269.8 million have
been provided for HIDTA programs; 16 of the earmarks were directed to
programs in 10 states, only two of which, Arizona and New Mexico, are
border states. The other eight states that received HIDTA earmarks were
Alabama, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.The President’s FY 2017 version of Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings recommended trimming the HIDTA program by $54 million, or 21.6 percent, from the $250 million spent in FY 2016. The proposed reduction is nearly identical to the $56.6 million earmarked by Congress in FY 2016.
VI. Homeland Security
The
cost of the earmarks in the FY 2016 Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) Appropriations Act remained relatively consistent, increasing by
3.1 percent, from $319.1 million in FY 2015 to $329.1 million in FY
2016. Members of Congress added one earmark to the six found in FY 2015
for a total of seven in FY 2016.
$100,000,000
for the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP), which has received six
earmarks totaling $789 million since FY 2005. A June 2014 GAO report
found that, despite distributing nearly $2.9 billion in funding to the
PSGP since 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency “stated that it
is unable – due to resource constraints – to annually measure reduced
vulnerability attributed to enhanced PSGP-funded security measures.”$70,500,000 for the Offshore Patrol Cutter program (OPC). According to the legislation, the earmark is “included to exercise the option for Detail Design and commence Phase II of the OPC acquisition.” A May 14, 2015, GAO report found the Coast Guard acquisition portfolio for its overall fleet to be unaffordable, in large part because the OPC is crowding out other spending. According to the report, the program is estimated “to cost $12.1 billion. The OPC will absorb about two-thirds of the Coast Guard’s acquisition funding between 2018 and 2032 while it is being built. As a result, remaining Coast Guard acquisition programs will have to compete for a small percentage of funding during this time.” Since FY 2005, legislators have added two earmarks for the OPC, costing $90.1 million.
$56,000,000 for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC), which strives to increase the preparedness of first responders to the threats of terrorism. Since FY 2005, the NDPC has received six earmarks worth $415.6 million, including a $10.1 million earmark in FY 2010 by Senate appropriator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and former Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.).
VII. Interior
Reversing the larger trend for the year, the cost of earmarks shrank in the FY 2016 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The number of earmarks decreased by 50 percent, from six in FY 2015 to three in FY 2016, and the dollar amount decreased by 65.3 percent, from $86.2 million in FY 2015 to $29.9 million in FY 2016.$9,869,000 for the Heritage Partnership Program (HPP), which supports the 49 National Heritage Areas (NHAs) created by Congress. Operated through the National Park Service, the HPP has received 50 earmarks costing $66.1 million since FY 2001, including funding for projects such as park improvements, sports complexes, health centers, water quality monitoring, bike paths, sustainable agriculture, and agricultural tourism.
Each of the President’s budgets from FYs 2011-2017 have slashed funding for NHAs, including the FY 2017 version of Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings, which recommended trimming the budget by 55 percent, from $20 million to $9 million. Unfortunately, members of Congress have annually ignored the budget cuts. In each of the years Congress has passed the 12 appropriations bills over this timeframe, legislators have provided an earmark for the NHAs.
A 2009 ExpectMore.gov assessment of the HPP found that the program “lacks a systematic process to identify and designate NHAs.” Funding for individual areas is not allocated through a competitive process, and there are no national performance measures to hold the NHAs accountable for the use of federal funds.
VIII. Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (Labor/HHS)
One of three appropriations bills to see a reduction in the cost of earmarks, spending was reduced by 55.1 percent in the FY 2016 Labor/HHS Appropriations Act, from $562.5 million in FY 2015 to $252.6 million in FY 2016. The total number of earmarks increased by 50 percent, from six earmarks in FY 2015 to nine in FY 2016.$163,889,000 for the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE), which provides grants to state and local education agencies, nonprofit organizations, for-profit organizations, and other public and private entities “to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education at the state and local levels.” Since FY 2001, FIE has received 2,572 earmarks costing taxpayers $1.8 billion. President Obama did not request funding for FIE in either his FY 2011 or FY 2012 budgets.
$15,409,000 for Rural Hospital Flexibility Grants (Flex) through the Department of Health and Human Services. Flex grants were created to “improve access to hospitals and other health services for families that live in rural communities.” The past six Obama administration budgets have recommended slashing funding for the Flex program. In each instance, legislators restored funding via an earmark. Since FY 2006, Flex grants have received five earmarks totaling $124.3 million.
IX. Legislative Branch
The last version of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act to contain an earmark was the FY 2010 iteration, prior to the establishment of the earmark moratorium. Members of Congress added one earmark costing $200,000 that year. The lone earmark in FY 2016 cost $84.7 million, a 42,250 percent increase from FY 2010.$84,680,000 for House office buildings under the Architect of the Capitol for a total of $174,962,000, or 93.8 percent more than the administration request of $90,282,000. While the legislation is not specific as to how the money will be spent, the most logical purpose is for the Cannon House Office Building renovation project. Constructed in 1908, Cannon is the oldest congressional office building. The renewal project began in early 2015, and is anticipated to take 10 years and cost $752.7 million.
Hopefully the finished product will not be as much of a boondoggle as the Capitol Visitor Center, which came in approximately $400 million over budget when it was completed in December 2008.
X. Military Construction
The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act had been earmark-free since FY 2012, when members of Congress added three earmarks costing $89 million. The single earmark costing $15 million in FY 2016 constitutes a 66.7 percent reduction in the number of earmarks and an 83.1 percent decline in cost from that year.$15,000,000 for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) planning and design account. According to the legislation, “The additional funding is to expedite the construction and deployment of urgently needed missile defense assets in various locations within the Continental United States, including Alaska and Hawaii.” The MDA has received two earmarks costing $35 million since FY 2004.
XI. State and Foreign Operations
The number of earmarks in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act remained steady at five, while the cost increased by 31 percent, from $177.4 million in FY 2015 to $232.4 million in FY 2016.$66,550,000 for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a private, nonprofit foundation that aims to help grow and strengthen democratic institutions around the world. The $66.6 million earmark in FY 2016 is a 110.8 percent increase over the $31.6 million earmarked in FY 2015. Since FY 1997, NED has received six earmarks worth a total of $212.7 million.
$5,900,000 for the East-West Center in Hawaii, which is intended to promote better relations with Pacific and Asian nations. The center was established by Congress in 1960 with no congressional hearings and over the State Department’s opposition. For years, the State Department tried to eliminate the center by not requesting funding in the department’s annual budget requests.
After Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) passed away in 2013, Senate Appropriations Committee member Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) willingly stepped up to the plate to defend the center. In a December 17, 2015, press release, Sen. Schatz claimed credit for securing funding at a level $5.9 million above the Administration’s request. The press release also touted increased federal spending in Hawaii as a victory: “Overall, defense spending in Hawai‘i will increase by more than $200 million, and transportation funding will increase by nearly $10 million.”
The East-West Center is similar to the North-South Center, which stopped receiving federal funding in 2001. An April 3, 2009, Congressional Research Service report stated, “Congress has not funded the North-South Center since FY 2001, noting that it should be funded by the private sector.” Following that logic, the East-West Center should be funded by the private sector as well. It probably would be, except the center is located in the state of a Senate appropriator. Since FY 1997, the center has received 13 earmarks totaling $121.5 million.
$5,000,000 for the Asia Foundation, which is “committed to improving lives across a dynamic and developing Asia.” Since FY 1997, members of Congress have directed 10 earmarks totaling $59.6 million to the Asia Foundation. $4,400,000 for the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), which promotes and invests in grassroots projects in the Caribbean and Latin America. President Obama proposed a reduction in funding for IAF in each of his budgets, including a cut of 1.3 percent, from $22.5 million to $22.2 million in FY 2017, and has recommended that IAF continue to seek partnerships with corporate foundations to leverage additional funding. Since FY 2001, IAF has received four earmarks totaling $25.2 million.
$4,400,000 for the Inter-American Foundation (IAF), which promotes and invests in grassroots projects in the Caribbean and Latin America. President Obama proposed a reduction in funding for IAF in each of his budgets, including a cut of 1.3 percent, from $22.5 million to $22.2 million in FY 2017, and has recommended that IAF continue to seek partnerships with corporate foundations to leverage additional funding. Since FY 2001, IAF has received four earmarks totaling $25.2 million.
XII. Transportation Housing and Urban Development (THUD)
The THUD and Related Agencies Appropriations Act last contained an earmark in FY 2014, when legislators added one project costing $845,000. In FY 2016, there are two earmarks totaling $8.8 million, a 941.4 percent increase over FY 2014.$5,000,000 for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) program. In 2001, then-Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels labeled the program as an “unwarranted corporate subsidy.” According to an August 8, 2011, Bloomberg Businessweek article, the program was suspended in 1987 following 129 loan defaults between FYs 1985-1987, and the Bush administration ceased issuing loans in 2005. However, Congress consistently resuscitated the program. In one high-profile failure, two ferries meant for Hawaii sat docked in Norfolk, Virginia, after the operating company defaulted on a $138 million loan in 2009. The Navy bought the ferries for $35 million in 2012.
A December 7, 2010, Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General report found that between February 1998 and April 2002, nine borrowers defaulted on approximately $490 million in Title XI loans. Between August 2008 and January 2010, six additional borrowers defaulted on approximately $305 million. Loan information was not maintained properly and, therefore, “there is no assurance that information … need[ed] to effectively oversee the $2.3 billion Title XI program is readily accessible.”
In August 2011, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called the program “an egregious example of pork-barrel spending.” The same can be said for this earmark in 2016. Since FY 2006, there have been three earmarks totaling $10.8 million for the program.
This booklet was written by Sean Kennedy, Director of Research, and Curtis Kalin, Media Director. It was edited by Thomas A. Schatz, President.
Historical Trends
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)