by clicking on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level. Return to the original size by clicking on the page again.
the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.
the zoom using the slider on the top right.
by clicking on the zoomed-in page.
by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues respectively.
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
this publication and page.
displays a table of sections with thumbnails and descriptions.
displays thumbnails of every page in the issue. Click on a page to jump.
allows you to browse through every available issue.
FCW : September 15, 2014
18 September 15, 2014 FCW.COM “There are no earmarks in this bill,” Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infra- structure Committee, told fellow law- makers in May when he urged support for a major bipartisan agreement on legislation to develop the nation’s water resources. “This conference report contains no earmarks,” added Rep. Robert Gibbs (R-Ohio), chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcom- mittee that handled the bill, which the House passed 412-4. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reinforced the point the same day when he told reporters that he has kept his promise and that as long as he is speaker, “there will be no earmarks.” But that message apparently did not reach the other side of the Capitol two days later when the Senate gave final approval to the measure, 91-7. A sum- mary prepared by the bill’s bipartisan managers boasted that the agreement “sets priorities that address the needs of larger ports, like Los Angeles, Long Beach and New Orleans.” Not coincidentally, those major facil- ities happen to be in the home states of the chairman and ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which handled the bill in the Senate. Neither Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) nor the pan- el’s senior Republican, David Vitter of Louisiana, cited or embraced the no-earmark claims of the bill’s House sponsors. A legislative hybrid The House and Senate were participat- ing in what could be called the “big wink.” Their bicameral deal created a legislative hybrid that seems similar to the old practice of approving funds for local projects, but with little public or news media attention, Congress added sufficient additional steps so that ear- mark opponents could claim that they were abandoning their bad practices of the past. The new procedures likely will emerge in other federal programs, and BY RICHARD E. COHEN Legislators have a new way of targeting spending that could bring benefits and burdens for agencies Earmarks by another name? The term’s meaning was originally quite literal: It referred to a cut or mark on the ears of livestock that identified the animals’ owner. Since the 19th century, however, it has been used to mean “setting aside money for a special purpose.” The Office of Management and Budget has defined earmarks as “funds provided by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported congressional direction...circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or com- petitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory and constitutional respon- sibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.” Before House Republicans declared a ban on congressional earmarks, major spending bills could contain hundreds or even thousands of those designations. IT- specific earmarks have included: $479,000 for a health information system in New Jersey (2008) $600,000 for a Center for the Development of IT in Florida (2008) What is an earmark?
September 30, 2014
August 30, 2014