What’s the Story on Spencer Abraham?
From what has been reported in the media and the blogosphere it would seem that the concern over the Fred Thompson campaign hiring Spencer Abraham was primarily based on two items. Abraham is viewed as in favor of unrestrained immigration and by preference and cultural heritage practices and supports Islamic or Muslim religion and beliefs.
This is an open post requesting comment on the question of exactly who is Spencer Abraham and what significance does working with the Fred Thompson campaign present? As indicated in the text below from the records of Congress, Rep David Obey of Wisconsin and a copy of a letter from then Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham are offered merely as documents that would not by themselves alarm anyone who is not familiar with Spencer Abraham. Hence the request for comment on this topic. What do you know for sure about Spencer Abraham?
As best it can be, this post will be moderated so kindly restrain yourself if this topic bothers you enough to cause great emotional distress. That would save someone much time on blog maintenance that could be used for more useful tasks.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 4775) making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. OBEY moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to H.R. 4775 be instructed to insist, for each item directly related to the war on terrorism or homeland security, on the higher dollar amount in either the House bill or the Senate amendment and to disagree to any item that appropriates additional funds earmarked for a specific project not related to the war on terrorism or homeland security.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will be recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 9 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct conferees directs the House Members serving on the conference to convert what has been all too often merely a rhetorical assault on terrorism into a real war. It requires that we go to the higher dollar figure on any item directly related to the war on terrorism, and it also directs that we delete from the conference report funding for any item that is earmarked for a specific project or individual Member of Congress. That is to ensure that this supplemental remains focused on the job before us, fighting terrorism, and that those engaged in that war on behalf of the American people have the resources that they need to conduct that war.
I find that ordinary people are somewhat amazed when they find that, despite all the rhetoric about a war on terrorism, we often continue to decline to provide the resources needed to actually conduct that effort. One example is the fact that the Pentagon called up 80,000 Guard and Reservists following September 11.
We need those Reserves because our regular force is overwhelmed with all of the requirements being placed on them. If you do not believe me, Secretary Rumsfeld has made that statement. We do not have enough mechanics to keep all of our planes in the air, we do not have enough MPs to protect our bases and guard prisoners. But, remarkably, when the Pentagon told the White House budget office that it would cost $5.8 billion more than was contained in the regular fiscal 2003 appropriation bill to pay the cost of those Guards and Reservists called up to active duty, the White House budget office told them they could only have $4.1 billion. As a result, many of those reserves will have to be sent home early, unless we appropriate a considerable amount above the White House request. In my view, this is ludicrous. It is one of those situations that continues because it is so outrageous that nobody really believes it is going on.
The truth is that some of the same people at the other end of the avenue who give lectures about the war on terrorism, particularly in the OMB, are particularly stingy when it comes to providing cash that is actually needed to conduct the effort. As a result, the resources needed by those who are actually engaged in that effort are not getting there and will not get there unless Congress acts to reverse the request.
I would give the House another example. We have heard a lot of talk in the last several days about a dirty bomb. The President and Secretary of Energy, a former Republican Senator, a man named to that office by the President and confirmed by the Senate when it was still in Republican hands, a man respected on both sides of the aisle, Secretary Abraham, has asked that we spend some money in this bill to deny terrorists access to the radioactive materials that could be used to build a dirty bomb. He asked that we clean up sites where we used to make nuclear weapons and increase security at those sites. He asked that we relocate low level radioactive materials in a central depository. He asked that we provide more security for the movement of nuclear weapons.
This the White House Budget Director did not say no to, they said “hell,
[Page: H3460] GPO’s PDF
no.'’ I would like to insert in the RECORD at this point a letter written by the Assistant Secretary of Energy for the Budget to OMB in order to demonstrate what I just said.
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY,
Washington, DC, March 14, 2002.
Hon. MITCHELL DANIELS, Jr.,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, DC.DEAR MR. DANIELS: This letter and accompanying enclosure transmit the Department of Energy’s proposal to request supplemental funding to meet urgent and compelling requirements for safeguards and security, emergency response, and energy security and assurance activities.
The Department of Energy is entrusted with the mission of designing, developing, manufacturing, assembling, stockpiling, refurbishing, decommissioning, and most importantly protecting the Nation’s critical nuclear complex. To meet the Department’s critical security mission, we are storing vast amounts of materials that remain highly volatile and subject to unthinkable consequences if placed in the wrong hands. These materials permeate the Departmental complex including sites under the programmatic jurisdiction of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Office of Environmental Management, and the Office of Science.
The events of September 11 resulted in heightened security throughout the complex. Our sites were directed to conduct vulnerability assessments based on an evaluation of potential consequences of the type of event that occurred on September 11. These security vulnerabilities were assessed on a site-by-site basis and immediate action was taken to mitigate many of the concerns. As a result, the Department issued Interim Implementing Guidance to the Design Basis Threat document that outlined the basis for initial physical security measures. In conjunction with this guidance, I directed the Departmental Elements to reassess their security requirements and associated costs with a view towards maintaining the highest level of security commensurate with the revised threat and response strategy. Although the initial supplemental and funds appropriated by Congress helped respond to the most urgent near term security needs, the Department now is unable to meet the next round of critical security mission requirements.
The funding request of $379.7 million identified in the enclosure is a critical down payment to the safety and security of our Nation and its people. Failure to support these urgent security requirements is a risk that would be unwise.
I appreciate the time your staff has spent with us in discussions about the Department’s security concerns and needs. However, as you can see, we need your financial support to continue addressing the critical security requirements that face the Department and our Nation. Accordingly, if you and your senior staff need a more detailed classified briefing of our requirements, threats, and strategies, please have your staff contact Mr. Joseph Mahaley, the Department’s Director of Security, at 202-586-3345.
My point of contact on the specifics of this funding supplemental request is Dr. Bruce M. Carnes, the Director of the Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation/Chief Financial Officer, who can be reached on 202-586-4171.
Sincerely,
SPENCER ABRAHAM.
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, DeMediacratic Nation, Nanotechnology Today, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Thoughts, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.