A $2 Billion Shady Deal In the Stimulus Bill?
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
February 10, 2009
 |
| ** FILE ** In this Nov. 20, 2007 file photo, Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wisc., left, and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., right, talk with reporters during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson, File) |
Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are asking questions about the lobbying activities of Craig Obey, who is the son of House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey. The elder Obey is, as much as anyone, the author of the giant stimulus bill that passed the House. Craig Obey works for an organization called the National Parks Conservation Association, which describes its mission as "to protect and enhance America's national parks for present and future generations" and to "advocate for the national parks and the National Park Service."
Now, it just so happens that the National Park Service stands to get a lot -- a lot -- of money if a certain provision in the Obey House stimulus bill becomes law. "Under the House version of the stimulus, NPS is to receive in excess of $2 billion," says a report issued by minority Republicans on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "This proposed figure nearly doubles the National Park Service's annual appropriation, which was $2.39 billion for Fiscal Year 2008." The money would be given to the Park Service, again according to the Republican report, "without regard for whether the agency will be able to effectively absorb such a significant increase in federal dollars."
So there are two questions here. One, did Craig Obey lobby his father's committee on this issue? And two, would the bill give the National Park Service far more than it can deal with?
On the first question, representatives for both Obeys say that Craig Obey did not lobby his father on the issue. But the minority staff on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee has produced evidence that the younger Obey not only lobbies for the National Parks Conservation Association on budget and appropriations issues, but that he was also listed in Association documents as the contact person for issues related to the stimulus bill. So at the very least the House Republicans have raised compelling questions about the propriety of what went on.
As for the second question -- like some school systems slated to receive huge amounts of money, there are real questions about whether the Park Service has the ability to wisely spend the amount of money it would receive under the Obey stimulus bill. And indeed, the figure allotted to the National Park Service has been substantially reduced in the Senate version of the stimulus. So at minimum, it appears that the House bill would send too much money to the Park Service, and do so under questionable circumstances.
UPDATE -- After this item was posted, I got a note from an Appropriations Committee staffer who said, "Rep. Obey’s son never spoke to him about the recovery bill. [Craig Obey] does not lobby Obey’s congressional office or the full committee staff. Interior Secretary Salazar said the funding levels were reasonable." The staffer also included a recent article from USA Today headlined, "Interior Secretary: No Impropriety in Parks Funding," which included this passage:
Association spokesman Tom Hill said Craig and Dave Obey are "extraordinarily aware of the problems that would ensue if (Craig) were attempting to influence his father's decisions." He said the association does not lobby Dave Obey's congressional office nor the full committee's staff.
A passage in the note from the staffer and a paragraph in the USA Today article were very similar. My source had said that Craig Obey "does not lobby Obey's congressional office or the full committee staff," and the Association spokesman, Tom Hill, told USA Today that the younger Obey does not lobby Dave Obey's congressional office nor the full committee's staff.
Reading that, I thought some parsing might be in order. It seemed that both the committee source and the Association spokesman were placing great emphasis on the words "congressional office" and "full committee staff." Perhaps there was some other office, or some other staff, that Craig Obey was allowed to lobby? Indeed, that turned out to be the case.
I'm told there is a restriction on the committee that forbids Craig Obey from lobbying his father's personal staff ("congressional office") or the staff of the full Appropriations Committee ("full committee staff"), all of whom work directly for Chairman Obey. But the rule does not extend to Appropriations subcommittee staff, who work for the chairman or chairwoman of the subcommittee. Thus, Rep. Norm Dicks, who chairs the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, has subcommittee staff who work for him -- and Craig Obey is allowed to lobby them. And Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who chairs the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, has subcommittee staff who work for her -- and the younger Obey is allowed to lobby them.
So Craig Obey is, in fact, allowed to lobby staff and members of the Appropriations Committee, which is chaired by his father. My guess is that the distinctions here -- "congressional office" and "full committee staff" -- will not satisfy the Republicans who are charging a conflict of interest here. We'll see.
More from Byron York
- GOP responds: White House 'trying to pass the buck'
- White House: People who criticize us are helping al Qaeda
- GOP winning war over Miranda rights for terrorists
- GOP fires back: White House did not tell us about reading Abdulmutallab his rights
- White House: Top GOP leaders didn't object to reading Abdulmutallab his rights
