posted on March 29, 2007 07:17:48 AM new
Looks like one of the west coast surrender monkeys has been caught after six years of reviewing and awarding contracts for military base construction and issues with US military services to her husbands conpanies.
Can you say "conflict of interest". Ethics, hell, but I forgot, its OK for a demo to lack ethics.
Feinstein Resigns (only after being caught)
Senator exits MILCON following Metro exposé, vet-care scandal
By Peter Byrne
SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.
As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.
Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by Metro's expose of her ethics (which was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute). Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?
The MILCON subcommittee is not only in charge of supervising military construction, it also oversees "quality of life" issues for veterans, which includes building housing for military families and operating hospitals and clinics for wounded soldiers. Perhaps Feinstein is trying to disassociate herself from MILCON's incredible failure to provide decent medical care for wounded soldiers.
Two years ago, before the Washington Post became belatedly involved, the online magazine Salon.com exposed the horrors of deficient medical care for Iraq war veterans. While leading MILCON, Feinstein had ample warning of the medical-care meltdown. But she was not proactive on veteran's affairs.
Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It turns out that Blum also holds large investments in companies that were selling medical equipment and supplies and real estate leases—often without the benefit of competitive bidding—to the Department of Veterans Affairs, even as the system of medical care for veterans collapsed on his wife's watch.
As of December 2006, according to SEC filings and www.fedspending.org, three corporations in which Blum's financial entities own a total of $1 billion in stock won considerable favor from the budgets of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs:
# Boston Scientific Corporation: $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies; 85 percent of contracts awarded without benefit of competition.
# Kinetic Concepts Inc.: $12 million, medical equipment and supplies; 28 percent noncompetitively awarded.
# CB Richard Ellis: The Blum-controlled international real estate firm holds congressionally funded contracts to lease office space to the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also is involved in redeveloping military bases turned over to the private sector.
You would think that, considering all the money Feinstein's family has pocketed by waging global warfare while ignoring the plight of wounded American soldiers, she would show a smidgeon of shame and resign from the entire Senate, not just a subcommittee. Conversely, you'd think she might stick around MILCON to try and fix the medical-care disaster she helped to engineer for the vets who were suckered into fighting her and Bush's panoply of unjust wars.
As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms
Insider Information
The tale thickens with the appearance of Michael R. Klein, a top legal adviser to Feinstein and a long-time business partner of Blum's. The vice-chairman of Perini's board of directors, Klein was a partner in Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, a powerful law firm with close ties to the Democratic Party, for nearly 30 years. Klein and Blum co-own ASTAR Air Cargo, which has military contracts in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Klein also sits on the board of SRA International, a large defense contractor.
In an interview with this reporter in September, Klein stated that, beginning in 1997, he routinely informed Feinstein about specific federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake. The insider information, Klein said, was intended to help the senator avoid conflicts of interest. Although Klein's startling admission was intended to defuse the issue of Feinstein's conflict of interest, it had the effect of exacerbating it.
Klein said that he regularly gave Feinstein's chief of staff, Mark Kadesh, lists of Perini's current and upcoming contractual interests in federal legislation, so that the senator would not discuss, debate, vote on or participate in matters that could affect projects in which Perini was concerned. "Earmarks, you know, set asides, you name it, there was a system in place which on a regular basis I got notified, I notified her office and her office notified her," Klein said.
"We basically identified any bid that Perini was going for and checked to see whether it was the subject of already appropriated funds or funds yet to be appropriated, and if it was anything that the senator could not act on, her office was alerted and she did not act on it."
This is an extraordinary thing for Klein and the senator to do, since the detailed project proposals that the Pentagon sent to Feinstein's subcommittee for review do not usually name the firms already contracted to perform specific projects. Nor do defense officials typically identify, in MILCON hearings, which military construction contractors are eligible to bid on upcoming work.
In theory, Feinstein would not know the identity of any of the companies that stood to contractually benefit from her approval of specific items in the military construction budget--until Klein told her.
Klein explained, "They would get from me a notice that Perini was bidding on a contract that would be affected as we understood it by potential legislation that would come before either the full congress or any committee that she was a member of. And she would as a result of that not act, abstain from dealing with those pieces of legislation."
However, the public record shows that contrary to Klein's belief, Feinstein did act on legislation that affected Perini and URS.
According to Klein, the Senate Select Committee on Ethics ruled, in secret, that Feinstein did not have a conflict of interest with Perini because, due to the existence of the bid and project lists provided by Klein, she knew when to recuse herself. Klein says that after URS declined to participate in his conflict-of-interest prevention plan, the ethics committee ruled that Feinstein could act on matters that affected URS because she did not have a list of URS' needs. That these confidential rulings are contradictory is obvious and calls for explanation.
Klein declined to produce copies of the Perini project lists that he transmitted to Feinstein. And neither he nor Feinstein would furnish copies of the ethics committee rulings, nor examples of the senator recusing herself from acting on legislation that affected Perini or URS. But the Congressional Record shows that as chairperson and ranking member of MILCON, Feinstein was often involved in supervising the legislative details of military construction projects that directly affected Blum's defense-contracting firms.
After reviewing the results of this investigation, Wendell Rawls, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C., observes that by giving Feinstein notice of Perini's business objectives, Klein achieved the opposite of preventing a conflict of interest.
Rawls comments, "Sen. Feinstein has had a serious conflict of interest, a serious insensitivity to ethical considerations. The very least she should have done is to recuse herself from having conversations, debates, voting or any other kind of legislative activity that involved either Perini Corporation or URS Corporation or any other business activity where her husband's financial interests were involved.
"I cannot understand how someone who complains so vigorously as she has about conflicts of interest in the government and Congress can have turned such a deaf ear and a blind eye to her own. Because of her level of influence, the conflict of interest is just as serious as the Halliburton-Cheney connection."
Called into Question
Here are a few examples from the Congressional Record of questionable intersections between Feinstein's legislative duties and her financial interests:
# At a MILCON hearing in 2001, Feinstein interrogated defense officials about the details of constructing specific missile defense systems, which included upgrading the early warning radar system at Cobra Dane radar on Shemya Island, Alaska. In 2003, Perini reported that it had completed a contract to upgrade the Cobra Dane radar system. It has done similar work at Beale Air Force Base in California and in the United Kingdom. URS also bids on missile defense work.
# In the 2002 MILCON hearings, Feinstein questioned an official about details of the U.S. Army's chemical demilitarization program. URS is extensively involved in performing chemical demilitarization work at key disposal sites in the United States.
# At that same hearing, Feinstein asked about the possibility of increasing funding for anti-terrorism-force protection at Army bases. The following year, on March 4, 2003, Feinstein asked why the antiterrorism-force protection funds she had advocated for the year before had not yet been spent. On April 21, 2003, URS announced the award of a $600 million contract to provide, among other services, anti-terrorism-force protection for U.S. Army installations.
# Beginning in 2003, both Perini and URS were awarded a series of open-ended contracts for military construction work around the world, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under Feinstein's leadership, MILCON regularly approved specific project "task orders" that were issued to Perini and URS under these contracts.
# At a March 30, 2004, MILCON hearing, Feinstein grilled Maj. Gen. Dean Fox about whether or not the Pentagon intended to prioritize funding the construction of "beddown" maintenance facilities for its new airlifter, the C-17 Globemaster. After being reassured by Fox that these funds would soon be flowing, Feinstein said, "Good, that's what I really wanted to hear. Thank you very much. Appreciate it very much, General." Two years later, URS announced a $42 million award to build a beddown maintenance facility for the C-17 at Hickam Air Base in Hawaii as part of a multibillion dollar contract with the Air Force. Under Feinstein's leadership, MILCON approved the Hickam project.
# In mid-2005, MILCON approved a Pentagon proposal to fund "overhead coverage force protection" in Iraq that would reinforce the roofs of U.S. Army barracks to better withstand mortar rounds. On Oct. 13, 2005, Perini announced the award of a $185 million contract to provide overhead coverage force protection to the Army in Iraq.
In the 2005 MILCON hearings, Feinstein earmarked MILCON legislation with $25 million to increase environmental remediation at closed military bases. Year after year, Feinstein has closely overseen the environmental cleanup and redevelopment of McClellan Air Force Base near Sacramento, frequently requesting that officials add tens of millions of dollars to that project. URS and its joint ventures have earned tens of millions of dollars cleaning up McClellan. And CB Richard Ellis, a real estate company headed by Feinstein's husband Richard Blum, is involved in redeveloping McClellan for the private sector.
This investigation examined thousands of pages of documents, including transcripts of congressional hearings, U.S. Security and Exchange Commission filings, government audits and reports, federal procurement data and corporate press releases. The findings were shared with contracting and ethics experts at several nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based government oversight groups. Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit organization that analyzes defense contracts and who examined our evidence says, "The paper trail showing Sen. Feinstein's conflict of interest is irrefutable."
On the face of it, there is nothing objectionable about a senator closely examining proposed appropriations or advocating for missile defense or advancing the cleanup of a toxic military base. Blum profitably divested himself of ownership of both URS and Perini in 2005, ameliorating the conflict of interest. But Feinstein's ethical dilemma arose from the fact that, for five years, the interests of Perini and URS and CB Richard Ellis were inextricably entwined with her leadership of MILCON, which last year approved $16.2 billion for military construction projects.
Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, remarks, "There are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest. [California Republican Congressman John T.] Doolittle, for example, hired his wife as a fundraiser, and she skimmed 15 percent off of all campaign contributions. Others, like [former] Speaker [Dennis] Hastert and Cong. [Ken] Calvert were earmarking federal money for roads to enhance the value of property held by their families.
"But because of the amount of money involved," Sloan continues, "Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts."
http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on March 29, 2007 09:36:07 AM new
"Can you say "conflict of interest". Ethics, hell, but I forgot, its OK for a demo to lack ethics."
Bear, you again are wrong. It is NOT ok for dems to lack ethics. Neither side should be profiteering from this war.
However, I must add that to some degree the Republicans are to blame for this as well. This is why it was so important for there to be an ethics committee to review these problems. Keep in mind, it was the Republicans who dismantled the ethics committee during their control of congress. If they would have been doing their job to begin with, we would have many ethically challenged politicians under scrutiny. It appears that while the right hand was scrubbing the dirt off it also managed to scrub the left hand a little as well.
[ edited by shagmidmod on Mar 29, 2007 09:43 AM ]
posted on March 29, 2007 12:38:55 PM new
"Can you say "conflict of interest". Ethics, hell, but I forgot, its OK for a demo to lack ethics".
Yep...but it's okay for them....that double standard they use all the time. tsk tsk tsk
"Feinstein Resigns (only after being caught)"
Yep....their MO for sure. Always AFTER they can't deny the facts.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 29, 2007 01:53:16 PM new
Liar_k's reply is an act of desperation from a political loser.
Plus Liar_k my side plans on keeping your kind in the losing column.
Hey Bushy "Bring Them On" your veto's that is. Bring on the vetoes to insure a Democrat in the White House not to mention more Democrats in the Congress in 2008.
posted on March 29, 2007 04:25:33 PM new
I am a Democrat. Have been for over 30 years, Twelve of those years I served as a town chairman, and a state committeeman.
Diane Feinstein's and her husband's conflict of interest are shameful. They both should resign their positions. Their actions are a disgrace to the Democratic party, and an affront to hard working Californians whose interests they purport to represent.
When you start believing BLOGS new-cons like bear post you are in trouble.
This guy Bear really has nothing to say so he often post stupid photos that show his middle school mentality or flat out lies.
He has been such a liar and been caught being a liar so many times that very few can believe him. Bear reminds me a lot of his step mother LIAR_K neither one has any creditably. Their actions and words have put them both in a tiny minority where they will be kept.
I am waiting for Bushy's veto's that will empower the Good Guys Democrats more.
posted on March 29, 2007 07:15:40 PM new
It's refreshing to read a democrat say that if something is wrong...then it's WRONG period - no matter who is doing it.
Welcome aboard, kozersky. I knew there were dems out there like you.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on March 30, 2007 12:42:21 AM new
""She'll go into rehab for cough medicine addiction and get the chair back when she comes out.""
Ha ! The repugs sure have THAT down pat !
Then linduh drools over new MALE poster...."""It's refreshing to read a democrat say that if something is wrong...then it's WRONG period - no matter who is doing it.""
poor old gal...can't remember how many times other Democrats in her have said the same thing.....
Didn't those electric shock treatments work ???
Now if you could just say that about your beloved gods...the repugs !
posted on March 30, 2007 10:07:50 AM new
You know what is even more hilarious? People that use the terms "Democrat" or "Republican" and think they mean anything different than "politician".
posted on April 4, 2007 10:03:34 AM new
Well...now feinstein's saying she and her husband did nothing wrong. LOL LOL LOL
With the way the liberals just LOVE investigations into these sort of 'profit making schemes' some of our elected congressmen/women take advantage of ...does anyone HERE really think they'll ask for an investigation in feinstein's case. LOL LOL Not a chance in hell, imo.
=========
feinstein claims she or her husband didn't profit from her position. lol lol lol
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
April 04, 2007
(CNSNews.com) -
Breaking nearly a week of silence, Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office Tuesday called allegations of a conflict of interest "nonsense" and said the California Democrat played no role in awarding military contracts that benefited companies owned by her husband.
It was reported last week that Feinstein no longer serves on a Senate subcommittee that oversaw military construction.
Earlier this year, Metro Newspapers accused Feinstein of a conflict of interest because the subcommittee had oversight of military contracts that often went to defense contractors owned by her husband, Richard Blum.
Feinstein's departure from the Senate subcommittee on military construction appropriation, also called MILCON, had nothing to do with reports in the Silicon Valley weeklies, said Feinstein spokesman Scott Gerber. In fact, she had already left the panel before the reports were published in late January.
"It is nonsense to suggest Sen. Feinstein resigned from the military construction subcommittee," Gerber told Cybercast News Service Tuesday. "At the beginning of Congress, following the historic shift in power, Sen. Feinstein had the opportunity to be the chair of the interior appropriations subcommittee."
This Senate panel offered her more ways to help the state of California, Gerber said, adding, "She is still on the full defense appropriations subcommittee."
Feinstein's service on the committee never presented a conflict of interest, Gerber said, because she didn't have the power to direct contracts to her husband's business or any other company.
"Sen. Feinstein never sought to award military contracts," Gerber said. "That procedure is done by the defense department. Congress plays no role in that process."
That's only technically true, said Kenneth Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative government watchdog group. He said Tuesday it was disingenuous for Feinstein's office to claim she had no role in awarding contracts.
"The Pentagon does award contracts, but when the Pentagon wants money it goes to the appropriation subcommittees in the House and Senate for money," Boehm noted. "It's hard to imagine a more textbook example of a major financial conflict of interest."
When the Pentagon or any federal agency submits its wish list to Congress, Boehm explained, the appropriations committee members select which programs and projects are funded and often have knowledge of what companies might be suited for the project based on geography, specialization and other factors.
This is well known on Capitol Hill, he said.
"To say she didn't actually do the contract is fall-down-laughing material," Boehm said.
Metro Newspapers first reported in late January several instances in which Feinstein seemed directly involved in issues that could benefit Perini Corp. and URS Corp. Her husband has ownership in both, according to the newspapers.
The examples include a subcommittee hearing where Feinstein asked Pentagon officials about increasing anti-terrorism protection for army bases.
The next year, in March 2003, Feinstein asked why the funds for anti-terror protection had not been spent. Just over a month later, URS announced a $600 million contract to provide services for U.S. Army bases that include anti-terrorism force protection.
In another instance, Feinstein asked another military official when money would be spent on a maintenance facility for the C-17 Hickam Air Base in Hawaii. URS later announced a $42 million contract to build it.
Also, Feinstein's subcommittee in mid-2005 approved funds to reinforce roofs at military stations in Iraq, and in October of that year, Perini got a $185 million federal contract for that purpose, the papers reported.
Feinstein at the very least had knowledge about what the military wanted and when, said Chris Farrell, research director for Judicial Watch.
The conservative group is working on a complaint to the Senate Ethics Committee and a freedom of information request to the U.S. Department of Defense.
"She had a preview of what was coming down the pipeline," Farrell told Cybercast News Service. "It's a sneak preview for him [Blum]. It's like ordering off a menu."
Feinstein chairs the Senate Rules Committee, which sets both procedural rules and ethical guidelines for members.
====
See Earlier Story:
Feinstein Leaves Senate Defense Panel Amid Controversy (April 2, 2007)
Yep....looks to me like a thorough investigation is called for. lol lol
posted on April 4, 2007 10:15:51 AM new
Republicans make a profit on the war and it's OK with the repugs in here....the Democrats may have done the same thing and the repugs are in a tizzy
