My man Vern strikes again.
U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra said he was sending a message when he broke Republican ranks and voted against a record $453 billion defense bill early Monday.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee should know how much is spent on gathering intelligence -- especially post 9/11, he said.
"There's more than just a little frustration," he said.
Hoekstra, of Holland, and U.S. Rep. Vernon Ehlers, of Grand Rapids, were among 16 Republicans who voted against the defense bill, which passed 308-106. For Ehlers, it was mostly a matter of energy policy. A provision to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which he opposes, was tied to the bill.
Hoekstra and Ehlers said they were not voting against the troops in Iraq.
Hoekstra said he was unable to learn, until after the vote, where the money was going for intelligence.
"I believe on a point of principle that the authorizing committees ought to have full exposure and access to how the appropriators spend money," Hoekstra said.
Pete votes against the defense bill because he doesn't have full access to where the money is going. But, Pete supports the President on the wire-tap issue. Does that mean Pete has full access to who is being tapped and for what purposes? Or does that mean Pete is more concerned about money than civil liberties? You decide.
U.S. Rep. Peter Hoekstra rejected claims White House-approved eavesdropping violates privacy rights, and he confirmed Monday that he was briefed "at least three times" about the secret program.
Hoekstra defended the eavesdropping as a legitimate tool in the war against terrorists.
The Holland Republican was briefed as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee at the White House by officials he described as the "upper levels" of the administration.
Anyway, back to Vern. I'm proud of him for taking a stand on ANWR. Way to go, Mr. Ehlers.
He couldn't let $5 million in local projects sway his vote on more than $400 billion in defense spending, Ehlers said, explaining the Arctic drilling provision was "something we should have voted on separately. I thought that was dirty pool."
The drilling poses an environmental threat and keeps the United States in the wrong direction on energy, he said. The nation, he said, should spend more on alternative sources.
"We're going to develop bigger appetites for oil. Ten years from now, when ANWR's gone, we're going to be in even worse shape than we're in now."
He also said he didn't have time enough to study the defense bill.
"I thought this was extreme -- a huge bill with that many expenditures," he said. He feared he would "read in the paper" about some "silly little things" -- pork barrel projects -- that were included.
Yea for Vern. I wish more Congresscritters felt that way.