Report: DHS employees wasted thousands
Audit: iPods, dog booties, beer-making equipment among expenses

WASHINGTON - The Homeland Security Department wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars last year on iPods, dog booties, beer-making equipment and designer jackets, congressional investigators have concluded.

More than 100 laptop computers and a dozen boats also bought by Homeland Security employees are missing, the investigators found.

Poor training, lax oversight and rampant confusion over what employees are allowed to buy with government-issued purchase cards left Homeland Security "vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse," according to a draft report by the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative and auditing arm.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

The report was to be released Wednesday by a Senate panel that oversees the department.

Senators said more than 10,000 Homeland Security employees carry purchase cards for business-related expenses — with a spending limit that was raised to $250,000 for emergencies after Hurricane Katrina hit last Aug. 29. Aides said the audit covered expenses for a five-month period both before and after Katrina.

Investigators: Scant training, lax supervision
But investigators found that employees received scant training on how to use the cards, were given little or lax supervision and were told to follow spending guidelines that differed among the 22 agencies that make up the department.

The department spent $435 million with the purchase cards in the 2005 budget year, compared with $296 million in 2004, Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said Tuesday evening. But he said only a fraction of the expenses were improper, noting that the department has disciplined about 70 employees amid 1.1 million purchases.

"Comparatively, we're talking about a small number of bad apples," Knocke said.

Among the expenses that investigators described as abusive or otherwise questionable:

    * More than 2,000 sets of dog booties, costing $68,442, that have sat unused in storage since emergency responders decided they were not suited for canines assisting in Gulf Coast recovery efforts.
    * Three portable shower units for $71,170 from a contractor who investigators said overcharged the government. Customs and Border Protection agents could have gotten similar showers for nearly a third of the price — and faster.
    * 12 Apple iPod Nanos and 42 iPod Shuffles, worth $7,000, for Secret Service "training and data storage." Because the Shuffles cost less than $300, the Secret Service said they were not required to track them to ensure they were used properly.
    * 37 black Helly Hansen designer rain jackets, costing nearly $2,500, for use in a firing range that the Customs and Border Protection purchaser later acknowledged shuts down when it's raining.
    * Conference and hotel rooms at a golf and tennis resort at St. Simons Island in Georgia, worth $2,395, for training 32 newly hired attorneys when they could have used a nearby federal law enforcement training center.
    * A beer brewing kit and ingredients for more than $1,000 for a Coast Guard official to brew alcohol while on duty as a social organizer for the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. "The estimated price for a six-pack of USCG beer was $12," the investigators noted, adding: "Given that the six-pack cost of most beers is far less than $12, it is difficult to demonstrate that the Academy is achieving cost savings by brewing its own beer."

Investigators also noted that Customs and Border Protection wasted up to $464,586 by buying meals-ready-to-eat over the Internet instead of contracting through the Pentagon, as is standard procedure. And they found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency cannot locate 107 laptops, 22 printers and two GPS units worth $170,000. FEMA also cannot find 12 of 20 boats the agency bought for $208,000.

Judge Orders Teen to Cancer Treatment
Jul 21 7:49 PM US/Eastern
Email this story      

By SONJA BARISIC
Associated Press Writer

NORFOLK, Va.

A judge ruled Friday that a 16-year-old boy fighting to use alternative treatment for his cancer must report to a hospital by Tuesday and accept treatment that doctors deem necessary, the family's attorney said.

The judge also found Starchild Abraham Cherrix's parents were neglectful for allowing him to pursue alternative treatment of a sugar-free, organic diet and herbal supplements supervised by a clinic in Mexico, lawyer John Stepanovich said.

Jay and Rose Cherrix of Chincoteague on Virginia's Eastern Shore must continue to share custody of their son with the Accomack County Department of Social Services, as the judge had previously ordered, Stepanovich said.

The parents were devastated by the new order and planned to appeal, the lawyer said.

Stepanovich said he will ask a higher court on Monday to stay enforcement of the order, which requires the parents to take Abraham to Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters in Norfolk and to give the oncologist their written legal consent to treat their son for Hodgkin's disease.

"I want to caution all parents of Virginia: Look out, because Social Services may be pounding on your door next when they disagree with the decision you've made about the health care of your child," Stepanovich said.

Phone calls to the Cherrix home went unanswered.

The lawyer declined to release the ruling, saying juvenile court Judge Jesse E. Demps has sealed much of the case.

Social Services officials have declined to comment, citing privacy laws.

After three months of chemotherapy last year made him nauseated and weak, Abraham rejected doctors' recommendations to go through a second round when he learned early this year that his Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes, was active again.

A social worker then asked a judge to require the teen to continue conventional treatment. In May, the judge issued a temporary order finding Abraham's parents neglectful and awarding partial custody to the county, with Abraham continuing to live at home with his four siblings.

Murdoch 'unlikely' to back Clinton in race for president

By Holly Yeager in Washington and Aline van Duyn in New York
Updated: 1:42 a.m. ET July 22, 2006

Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media mogul, said it was unlikely that he would support Hillary Clinton if she were to run for president – just days after hosting a New York fundraiser for her Senate re-election campaign.

Appearing on the Charlie Rose Show, the US public television interview programme, Mr Murdoch said on Thursday that if the 2008 presidential contest came down to a choice between Mrs Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, and John McCain, the Republican frontrunner, he would "probably support McCain. If it was happening today, I think so."
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Mr Murdoch's New York Post tabloid was tough on Mrs Clinton during her first campaign for the Senate six years ago, and his media group, including the conservative Fox News, were part of the "vast rightwing conspiracy" that she said targeted her husband Bill while he was president.

Mr Murdoch's surprising decision to host a fundraiser was seen as a warming of relations between the two and an indication that Mrs Clinton's attempt to soften her liberal reputation was working, at least on him.

But Mr Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corp, insisted that the fundraiser was based on her performance as a senator.

He called her "a very impressive, able woman" but said he remained uncertain of her political philosophy. "Has she suddenly become a moderate and a centrist in everything or is she the old Hillary Clinton? I don't know."

Mr Murdoch has been a strong supporter of Tony Blair, the British prime minister; the decision by The Sun, one of his newspapers, to back Mr Blair in the 1997 general election is considered to have contributed to Mr Blair's electoral success.

Asked if he was keeping the door open to giving similar support to Mrs Clinton in 2008, Mr Murdoch said: "I'd be very surprised if I found myself doing that." But he said Mr McCain "would be a fine president".

"I like him very much. I think he's a great natural hero, and I think he's talking a lot of sense," Mr Murdoch said.

That praise was offered despite Mr McCain's support of an overhaul of the cable industry's pricing model that would allow for more customer choice. "It would destroy the business and destroy so many channels," Mr Murdoch said.

A WNBC/Marist poll of New York voters, released on Friday, showed that Mrs Clinton continues to lead her potential rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. But many – including 54 per cent of Democrats – think she will not be elected president. And while the state usually backs Democrats in presidential races, the poll found Mrs Clinton trailing to Rudy Giuliani, the Republican former mayor of New York, and in a close contest with Mr McCain.

Mr Murdoch was also asked what he thought of David Cameron, the new leader of the Conservative party in Britain.

"Not much," he said, potentially reducing the chances that Mr Murdoch's media empire would give him its backing in the next general election.

MURDOCH TO HOST FUNDRAISER FOR HILLARY CLINTON
Mon May 08 2006 18:25:16 ET

Rupert Murdoch has agreed to host a political fundraiser for Hillary Clinton this summer!

Murdoch's surprise decision to raise money for Clinton, on behalf of NEWS CORP., parent company of FOXNEWS and the NEW YORK POST, underlines a dramatic turn of relations between Murdoch and Clinton, who in 1998 coined the phrase ?vast rightwing conspiracy? to denounce critics of her husband.

The move by Murdoch is believed to reflected his views of her as a senator, rather than as a presidential candidate in 2008.

Last week, Clinton surprised Washington and media watchers by attending a FOX NEWS anniversary party, where she toasted Murdoch.

Political powerbroker and studio head Harvey Weinsten is said to have convinced Hillary that Murdoch could be a friend, not a foe, in her ongoing political maneuvers.

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51240

FEMA bans reporters from Katrina victims
Residents of trailer parks not permitted to talk with media unless agent present

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: July 26, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


Federal officials are preventing Hurricane Katrina victims in government trailer parks from being interviewed by the media unless a FEMA agent is present at all times.


Many victims of Hurricane Katrina still reside in FEMA trailer parks like this one, but are being precluded from talking with the media unless federal officials are present.


The rule is coming under heavy fire from Louisiana's congressional delegation who are blasting the policy as absurd and outrageous.

"How in the world can you stop someone in their home from talking to whomever they want?" Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-Kenner, asked the Baton Rouge Advocate. "It's a freedom of speech issue; it's a freedom of association issue."

Jindal was reacting to an incident the paper reported July 15, where a reporter and photographer were ordered off a Federal Emergency Management Agency-operated trailer park in Morgan City, La.

The journalists were invited to a trailer by resident Dekotha Devall and her family. But during the interview, the news team was ordered by a security guard to leave.

When the reporter tried giving a business card to Devall, the security guard called police, saying such an act was forbidden.


The guard also told another resident, Pansy Ardeneaux, she was not permitted to speak to reporters through a chain-link fence at the park and ordered her back to her trailer.

Upon learning of the incident, FEMA officials said media had to be escorted at all times by members of the agency.

"If a resident invites the media to the trailer, they have to be escorted by a FEMA representative who sits in on the interview," FEMA spokeswoman Rachel Rodi told the Advocate. "That's just policy."

FEMA says it's not allowing media easy access to its trailer parks in order to "protect the privacy" of those dwelling there.


Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-La.

Jindal calls such a policy ridiculous.

"FEMA just strikes you as a bureaucracy that's out of control," the congressman said. "You don't lose your fundamental rights just because you're living in temporary housing. It's an outrageous pattern of behavior."

"To try and defend the behavior and say that was FEMA policy added insult to injury," Jindal added. "FEMA should have apologized and tried to rectify the situation."

Other members of Congress are stunned.

"These people are not incarcerated; they're not crooks," said Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville. "There's no reason why the press or anyone else shouldn't be able to talk to these folks if they want to talk."


Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La.

Rep. Charles W. Boustany, R-Lafayette, noted, "This seems to be a clear case of arrogance coupled with incompetence and that' s not a good combination. I don't think the heavy hand of government should be telling people what they can and can't do in that regard."

The Society of Professional Journalists has already sent a complaint to FEMA Director David R. Paulison. It was signed by SPJ president David E. Carlson and Charles N. Davis, co-chair of the Freedom of Information Committee.

"On behalf of the Society of Professional Journalists, we are writing to express outrage at the treatment given to residents of FEMA parks in Louisiana and the journalists trying to report their stories," the two wrote.

"We are outraged by the arrogance and contempt for public discourse on display in Louisiana, a year after FEMA's performance in the wake of Katrina earned it widespread criticism," the letter states. "Now FEMA is banning reporters from public property as reporters try to provide scrutiny of the agency.

"We fail to see how such journalism is anything but the very sort of newsgathering for which the First Amendment was created," the letter says.

The message requests FEMA evaluate "the constitutionality of any policy that dictates when and how those affected by FEMA's work may speak to the press."

It concludes, "Receipt of FEMA aid should not mean that citizens leave their constitutional rights behind."