While the House was in the process of voting on the Energy Bill, this letter(pdf) and follow-up(pdf) was sent from Rep. Henry Waxman to the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert. The short version of the letters is as follows:

1) After the joint committee on the Energy Bill had closed the bill to amendments and created its final report, a provision was inserted into the bill under a 30-page subtitle called the "Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Resources". This appropriation would send $1.5 Billion dollars to the oil industry, Halliburton, and, you guessed it, Sugar Land, Texas. Bear in mind, this provision was added after the committee had closed the report to amendments, therefore not a single member of Congress had a chance to review this as an amendment to the joint report. Nor did they have knowledge of it before both the House and Senate passed the legislation.

2) 75% of this appropriation would land in Tom DeLay's district and would be managed by a private consortium.

3) Up to 10% of this 1.5 Billion (150 million for math challenged folks like me) can be kept by this consortium for "administrative expenses".

Questions for Debate:

1) Is it ethical for the leadership of the join committee to insert a provision into the bill after the committee had closed the report to amendments? Why or why not?

2) Should the Energy Bill be ruled null and void since at least 1 provision wasn't appropriately considered prior to passage?

Doc, did you even read the "followup letter" that you posted from Waxman? That was his version of Gilda Radner on Saturday Night Live saying, "Oh, nevermind". He even states that he understands the procedural issues involved and that he understands that the bi-partisan leadership of both the Senate and House Energy Committees were in agreement. This is apparently something that happens on large bills and is apparently within the rules of Congress to have happen. Your reference to Halliburton and DeLay is just more of the same ole, same ole. Halliburton is one of the largest energy companies in the world, it would make sense that they might just be involved in energy legislation. Nothing nefarious there at all.

1) Is it ethical for the leadership of the join committee to insert a provision into the bill after the committee had closed the report to amendments? Why or why not?

Apparently it is within the rules of the House and Senate since Waxman didn't take issue with that at all. He also didn't call for a rule change.


2) Should the Energy Bill be ruled null and void since at least 1 provision wasn't appropriately considered prior to passage?

Nope, perfectly legal. Waxman is going to have to find something else to "investigate" since that seems to be all he does.

Aquilla, I don't provide links without reading them. Trust me, this was a *very* different topic before I found the 2nd Waxman letter while researching this. The 2nd letter certainly dropped my blood pressure on the matter a bit, this action still stinks. This is pork barrel politics at its worst. But I guess you've gotten used to the smell. Waxman may have let them off the hook, but I don't.

As for Halliburton, I guess it is more of the same ole, same ole. That doesn't make it right. Please explain to me why a company that is likely enjoying some of its most profitable years due to the record oil prices we are experiencing would need more pork from the Federal Government? Divide that up amongst the total population of the US, and you and I just gave Halliburton the equivalent of 2.2 gallons of gas each. Why are my tax dollars going there?

And yes, when 75% of that 1.5 Billion goes to the district of the majority leader of the House, I take notice. The question is, why don't you? Especially when this fund isn't being managed by the government, its being managed by a private consortium.



I didn't ask if it was in the rules, I asked if its ethical. In my ethical rulebook, when you ask a legislator to vote on something, they should have all the facts at their disposal, whether they choose to avail themselves of that information or not. I can't help but wonder if this bill would have had the bipartisan support it carried if the Democratic caucus knew that a good chunk of it was feathering DeLay's nest egg and funneling more pork to Halliburton. They didn't get that chance, however, and that is why its unethical.


Being the minority leader of the House Committee for Government reform, I would certainly hope that watching the government would be one of his primary activities. You may trust our government, I don't. Not in the rampant age of corporatism and unrivaled pork barrel politics.

Doc

I don't know if this particular rider in this bill is "pork" or not, I haven't really read it. Maybe it is, or maybe it's a legitimate funding of R&D for advanced methods of oil and gas exploration/extraction. To be sure, there is way too much pork in all kinds of legislation, from both sides and it's nearly impossible to stop that. Members of Congress don't bite the hand that feeds them and they all feed at the same trough when it comes to pork. President Reagan tried to stop that when he wanted the Line Item Veto. As my link demonstrates, President Clinton got it and then was shot down in the Supreme Court.



So, there you go. You want to end pork spending? Get a Constitutional Amendment through the process. I'd be in favor of that, but that's another debate.

On this topic though, your question dealt with ethics. From Webster we have the following definitions of the word ethical.....



Perhaps your choice of the meaning was #2. I used #3 for this topic because according to the second letter, this action was acceptable within the rules of the Congress. Were we to use #2, then we would be in effect calling into question the moral approval or disapproval of the Congress in general. That would be one extensive debate I suspect.




I would now invoke definition #2 and ask you if making a determination on spending based purely on political grounds is "ethical". That seems to be the implication contained in your statement. You seem to be less concerned about the spending itself and more that the spending is going to a company in DeLay's district.

Hypothetical for you......

The Congressman in my district is a Democrat named Adam Schiff, but prior to him it was Jim Rogan who was hammered by the big bucks liberals in Hollywood (David Geffen for one) who pumped millions into Schiff's campaign. This was payback because Rogan was a member of the Clinton Impeachment team. Now, had Rogan won that election would you consider the funding of NASA-JPL to be "pork" beacause it was in Rogan's district?

There is certainly a distinction between pork going to government entities located in a district and pork going to private entities. I frown on the former but loudly object to the latter. Moreover, I would look at the change in funding to NASA-JPL, not the absolute amount, as well as the context. If JPL funding went up dramatically, especially when other NASA facilities were cut back, then I would frown harder. But if it went up in the context of system-wide increases in NASA funding, then my frown would soften.

Just a little comment that might make for a good debate elsewhere. A shift in the funding percentage towards or away from JPL would most likely be a reflection of the direction NASA is going with regards to space exploration. Just as the Johnson Space Center in Houston is the center of the manned programs, and usually the contracting agency for that aspect of NASA, so JPL is for the unmanned side. A disporportional change in funding either direction would be more a reflection of a policy change than politics I would hope. I am an admittedly staunch Republican, but I can state without hesitation that should Congress decide to make a significant cut in JPL's budget simply because we have a Democratic Party Congressman, I'd be raising holy hell about that with every GOP organization I know.

Moving on, your point about government funded entities vs. private ones. I don't think it's that simple. JPL doesn't build a lot of stuff for their programs. The launch vehicles they use to put things into space are built by private companies, normally Boeing or Lockheed Martin. Their satellites are built by private companies like Hughes, TRW, GE, Teledyne, etc.... Propulsion systems by companies like AeroJet General. All funded through NASA-JPL.

Same way with the shuttle program, and every other manned space program.

Shuttle.....
Orbiter - Rockwell
Solid Rocket motors - Morton-Thiokol
Solid Rocket booster structure - McDonnell-Douglas (now Boeing)
External Fuel tank - Martin (Now, Lockheed Martin)
External tiles - Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin)
Launch contractor - Lockheed Martin

All private companies, paid by the US government through NASA funding for R&D. Is that pork?

I'm concerned at both levels, Aquilla. The fact that this pork is channeled to DeLay's district just enhances the stench. My primary point, which you seem to be missing (I'll admit my ire at the situation may not have made this clear), is that the 275 people in the House of Representatives and 85 members of the Senate (give or take the 5 that created the deal) that voted for this legislation did so ignorant of this transaction. That is where my ethical issue lies.


Poor hypothetical, given that Rogan wasn't in office when the appropriation was made. However, it misses the point. My complaint isn't just that its pork, its how that pork was added as a rider to a bill that had already closed to amendment in joint committee. 4 bi-partisan leaders in the committee agreeing to "slip it in" doesn't change the ethics of the matter, it just lessens the aroma. The "representative" part of our democracy got mooned by 5 people cutting a back door deal.

Doc

It's not pork when it's put out to fair open bidding. If the bidding is rigged in favor of one company or, as in this case, the contractor is named outright by Congress, then it's pork.

JPL received funding when Rogan was in office. They get funded every year. They received funding this year when a Democrat was representing that district. So not all of this stuff is political, although it does at times make for some strange bedfellows. And, that leads me to a response to your point.....

I don't know now whether to refer to you as Doc or Don Quixote because my friend, you are tilting at windmills. This stuff has been going on for as long as there has been a Congress. It's SOP - for both parties. "You vote to fund my pork and I'll vote to fund yours...." And yeah, you're right, it's the taxpayers that are getting reamed in all of this, always has been. Now, if you have an idea on how to stop this stuff, hey man, share it! I'd love to join with you and tilt at a couple of windmills myself.

Edited to add a response to Erasmussimo....



Like I said, I haven't read the specifics of the rider in question so I don't know if this is a brand new program of some sort, or an existing one. Somewhere along the line though there must have been someone who came up with the level of funding required to do whatever this is going to do. Even with the kinds of problems Doc has illustrated in this thread with pork funding, Congress isn't going to just give a company a billion dollars for the hell of it. They're pretty dumb at times, but even they aren't that stupid.

Now, were Congress to decide to fund another shuttle orbiter to replace Columbia, the legislation authorizing that would most likely say something like "Authorizes XXX in funds for NASA to purchase an additional shuttle orbiter from Rockwell." Now, technically that is NASA funding, but it names the contractor because Rockwell is the only company that builds space shuttle orbiters. I don't know if that's the situation here or not.

Based upon the above comments that question should be reframed as to why this particular ammendment was not open to conference debate. The answer is that this pork, and would stink like all pig slop does in the plain light of day.

I find it morally and ethically repugnant that people try to defend this action by saying "its not against the procedures," when the procedures are controlled by the very people who wish to gain the advantage of the the perpetuation and exploitation of procedural LOOPHOLES. This is the corporate, neoliberal beltway mentality wherein every representative is exploiting the system to serve their own consituencies self-interests. Certainly one expects one to fight for his districts interests, but that belies the fact that this was not debated out in the open.

If this bill contains such obvious "cost-effective" logic, why is it not debated? Because it's PORK.

Can someone explain to me why the struggling, weak, pitiful little Halliburton needs corporate socialism to do research? The taxpayers are subsidizing Halliburton, and yet people say its "okay" because "it's not against the rules."

That's pure unmitigated bull, and indefensible.

Ethics do not apply to the corporate mentality of the self-interested and the benefit maximizers. This is amoral decision making falling upon "rules" to excuse their corruption and it is unethical.

And what will they say when the revolving door propels Delay into a cushy private sector energy job?





No. But this is the epitome of the corruption of those who create rules to maximize their own benefit.

The procedure itself is "pork," and is institutionalized anti-democratic corruption.