March 17, 2010, 8:20 pm

PESTICIDES: EPA Cracks Down on Flea, Tick Labels in Wake of Center Probe

By Jim Morris and M.B. Pell

The Environmental Protection Agency is ordering clearer labels for all “spot-on” flea and tick treatments applied directly to dogs’ and cats’ skin, and will consider banning the products if pet deaths and illnesses linked to them don’t decline.

The Wednesday announcement came 15 months after the Center for Public Integrity revealed serious problems with pyrethroid-based spot-on treatments. Pyrethroids are typically used in less-expensive products sold at grocery stores and by other retailers. About 1,600 deaths were reported to the EPA over a five-year period—as well as seizures, heart attacks and gastrointestinal illnesses—in animals treated with pyrethroid-based products, the Center investigation showed.

Steve Owens, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, said the number of reported incidents connected with all spot-on products jumped from about 28,000 in 2007 to 44,000 in 2008. “We found that a number of the current labels have insufficient warning statements on them,” Owens said during a media teleconference. “Sometimes the labels were hard to read and the warnings were buried in the text.”

Owens classified most of the 44,000 incidents in 2008 as minor, but said there were about 600 reported deaths. An expert veterinary team convened by the EPA analyzed the data and concluded that small dogs were particularly vulnerable to adverse reactions – probably because the doses they were given were too high — as were cats when they were mistakenly given products formulated for dogs. “The existing label warnings against the use of dog products on cats are simply not working,” Owens said, leading to potential misapplication. A report on 2008 incidents reviewed by the EPA can be found here.

Read more

March 17, 2010, 11:21 am

TRANSPORTATION: Separation of Earmark Powers

By Matthew Lewis

As both parties in the House attempt to get the upper hand on earmark repudiation, Florida Republican John Mica also tossed a curve ball to the White House last week. Cut down on the "Executive earmarks," the congressman wrote in an op-ed for The Hill, arguing that branch of government's spending "has not come under similar scrutiny."

Mica, the ranking member of the House Transportation committee, pointed to a stimulus grant program at the U.S. Department of Transportation, which last month awarded $1.5 billion to projects around the nation. A streetscape project in downtown Dubuque, Iowa, spotlighted in a Center story in January, was among the recipients of the so-called TIGER grants, a cross agency effort to competitively award transportation projects with significant regional or national impact. In the spirit of Sunshine Week for open government advocates, Mica demanded that the DOT show the math on its decision-making process.

“Unelected bureaucrats,” Mica wrote, “determined that Florida, with the 7th highest unemployment rate, would receive no TIGER grant funding at all.”

A DOT team is preparing a detailed response about how the selections were made from a field of more than $59 billion in applications for the TIGER funding, said department spokesman Bill Adams.

But calling attention to executive branch earmarking reflects back on Congressional transportation earmarks as well.

Read more

March 16, 2010, 5:26 pm

TRANSPARENCY: New House Bill Would Put Gov’t Documents Online

By Julie Vorman

No government information would be considered “public” unless it is posted on the Internet in user-friendly formats, according to a House bill introduced on Tuesday. Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., says his legislation aims to redefine the meaning of “public” by recognizing that government data and documents should be easily available to anyone with a computer.

“Right now, our government will stamp something ‘public’ and lock it away in a warehouse in Maryland. That’s about as accessible and transparent as a nuclear missile silo,” Israel said. “People across the country – from scholars to school children – should be able to see any public government information from the convenience of their computer.”

The bill, which does not yet have any co-sponsors, would require each agency to create a searchable catalog of all disclosed public documents.
The Data Mine project, sponsored by the Center for Public Integrity and the Sunlight Foundation, spotlights government information that should be accessible but isn’t, or is available but too cumbersome and impractical for meaningful use.

Some government information is required by law to be public but is not available online. Examples include pension plan annual filings with the Labor Department, high-level government officials’ filings summarizing their personal financial interests, and reports disclosing lobbying activities by government contractors and grantees made in connection with winning a grant, according to Israel.

The Sunlight Foundation, Personal Democracy Forum, Center for Democracy and Technology, Center for Responsive Politics, and Federation of American Scientists were among the groups saying they welcomed the legislation.

Follow the Center on Twitter and Facebook.

March 16, 2010, 7:00 am

ACCOUNTABILITY: Government Transparency Under Obama Misses the Mark

By Jim Morris

To mark Sunshine Week, open-government groups are assessing President Barack Obama’s pledge to make the federal bureaucracy more open and less secretive. The administration’s grade after nearly 14 months: Needs Improvement.

In a government-wide audit released Monday, for example, the National Security Archive at George Washington University found pending Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests up to 18 years old. Only four of 28 agencies surveyed reported FOIA releases up and denials down since January 2009. Meanwhile, 70 percent of respondents to a poll conducted by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University described the federal government as being either “very secretive” or “somewhat secretive.”

The Center for Public Integrity’s experience with FOIA under the Obama administration has been mixed at best. After a six-month negotiation with the Department of Health and Human Services that included a lawsuit, the Center was able to get the price of federal health-care data reduced from prohibitive to manageable. The information, to be used in a future project, arrived this month.

The Department of Education was less than cooperative last year when the Center asked for letters of determination in cases of alleged sexual assault on college campuses. It took about six months and another lawsuit for the department to produce the records, and when they arrived, pages – or entire letters – were missing. The department initially refused to acknowledge the Center as a media organization, despite our 20-year history, further slowing down the FOIA process.

And, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. recently balked at providing the Center certain congressional correspondence, but discussions are continuing and it is unclear whether another lengthy FOIA battle looms.

“Freedom of information is about the public’s right to know. The Center for Public Integrity will continue to push hard for public access to data and records,” said Bill Buzenberg, the Center’s Executive Director. “We have a long list of investigative projects that aim to show how taxpayers’ money is being spent. Although the Obama administration is speaking about more openness and transparency, the Center for Public Integrity still needs to see more evidence that agencies throughout the government are acting on that message.”

None of the Center’s current FOIA battles with the Obama administration have rivaled its yearlong attempt to obtain emergency AIDS relief data from former President George W. Bush’s State Department four years ago. At one point, the department sought to charge $300,000. The lengthy fight ended with the Center getting most, but not all, of what it had asked for in a lawsuit. A full accounting is provided here.

Follow the Center on Twitter and Facebook.

March 15, 2010, 2:49 pm

MONEY & POLITICS: Health Reform Lobbyist Mistakenly Errs on Side of Transparency

By Joe Eaton

If numbers are to be trusted, longtime advertising lobbyist Jim Davidson of Polsinelli Shughart is the top dog of the 2009 health care reform battle. Davidson’s name shows up 88 times, more than any other lobbyist, in a Center for Public Integrity database of health reform lobbyists compiled from U.S. Senate lobby disclosure records.

But, as is often the case when trying to nail down influence peddling in Washington, Davidson’s records are both accurate — and misleading. Davidson comes out first, because unlike other lobbyists, he did not take advantage of a loophole shielding individual company names from disclosure when lobby dollars are channeled through nonprofit associations. The case illustrates the complexity of tracking money spent by industry to protect its interests on the Hill.

Since the late 1980s, Davidson has been an advertising industry point man fighting restrictions on food advertising aimed at children, and battling calls to tax pharmaceutical companies’ advertising expenses.

Neither issue made it beyond the discussion stages in the 2009 health reform legislation, but Davidson monitored the legislation for media companies and manufacturers such as cable giant Viacom Inc., CBS Corp., drug group PhRMA, General Mills Inc. and the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“What you find in any bill is that people will offer amendments that will try to undermine advertising,” Davidson said. “That’s why we find ourselves reported [in the Senate lobby disclosure documents] on a number of different issues.”

Federal lobbyists are required to file quarterly disclosure statements, but the true number they represent is many times higher than official reports, said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. Companies, organizations and individuals can remain invisible, for example, by funneling money to advocacy and professional associations that lobby on their behalf but are not required to disclose funders.

Read more

March 12, 2010, 12:05 pm

DEFENSE: DoD Bows to Critics, Denies Kuwaiti Firm Sole Source Contract

By Nick Schwellenbach

A Kuwaiti company held up to illustrate a major loophole in the accountability of foreign contractors won’t get a lucrative logistics contract for trucking and storage in war zones, at least not without having to compete. The Pentagon bowed to congressional criticism this week that the award should have been subject to competition. KGL Holding Co. and one of its business units has been criticized for its behavior toward the family of an Army officer killed in an accident involving a KGL truck in Iraq, and for allegations of human trafficking.

In January, the Defense Logistics Agency announced its intent to award a sole source contract award to KGL for logistics services throughout the U.S. military’s Central Command area, which includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and other countries.

But the agency said this week it was reversing course and opening the contract to full and open competition for companies willing to bid. DLA explained it had found other companies could provide the same services as KGL.

KGL “never sought a sole source award and welcomes any decision by the Defense Logistics Agency that promotes competition in U.S. government contracting,” the company said in a statement.

KGL has been in the spotlight since the 2003 death of Army Lt. Col. Dominic ‘Rocky’ Baragona Jr. when a KGL tractor-trailer crossed two lanes of traffic and struck Baragona’s vehicle. U.S. District Judge William Duffey Jr. in Atlanta last year threw out a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Baragona’s family because such legal action belonged in Kuwait.

But the judge also had harsh words for KGL, saying the company was “callous” and used delaying tactics to drag out the case for nearly four years. “The Court implored KGL to work with Plaintiffs to fashion a just resolution in this case, but this request was ignored,” Duffey wrote.

Read more

March 11, 2010, 3:38 pm

MONEY & POLITICS: House Dems and GOP Both Claim Earmark Reform High Ground

By Nick Schwellenbach

U.S. House Democrats and Republicans are in the midst of one-upping each other on the issue of earmarks – the very sort of earmarks that were the subject of a major Center investigation, The Murtha Method, last fall. But this time it’s not about which party can insert the most earmarks for pet projects into legislation. Instead, House members are hurrying to shun earmarks as the politically toxic symbols of inside-the-Beltway corruption and fiscal imprudence. Yet to be seen is whether Senate lawmakers will also swear off earmarks.

Yesterday, the Democratic-run House Appropriations Committee declared that it will not approve any earmarks directed to for-profit companies, and will require audits of earmarks to non-profit groups to prevent any companies “from masquerading as non-profits.” The change is intended for the long term, not just the coming fiscal year appropriation bills, a committee fact sheet notes. Additionally, a new program will be established in the Defense Department to open more contracting opportunities to small companies with no Pentagon connections, and to select winners based on merit, according to the committee.

The announcement was made jointly by Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and by the new chair of its Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Norm Dicks, D-Wash. Dicks’ subcommittee is the gatekeeper for the most federal money spent on earmarks.

“If this rule had been in effect last year, it would have resulted in 1,000 fewer earmarks,” according to the committee’s press release.

The defense appropriations bill also contains the most earmarks directed to for-profit companies. Other spending bills largely steer earmarks towards non-profits, said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., perhaps the most vocal opponent of earmarks in the House.

“It’s not enough to swear off some of the earmarks that lend themselves to corruption – we need to get rid of all earmarks if we have any hope of regaining taxpayers’ trust,” Flake said in a statement yesterday.

Republicans in the House quickly responded by adopting a moratorium on all earmarks for fiscal 2011. The government’s fiscal year begins on Oct. 1. “We’ve taken a big step toward fiscal responsibility. We’ve got a long way to go, but we’re headed in the right direction,” said Flake. “We now need to encourage the Democrats follow our lead.”

Read more

March 02, 2010, 2:52 pm

TRANSPORTATION: Halt in Federal Highway Program Reveals Lobby’s Larger Frustrations

By Matthew Lewis

The transportation lobby stands united in its collective angst with Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, whose objections to deficit spending brought many of the federal government’s highway programs to a halt Sunday night. The political impasse over a $10 billion bill extending unemployment benefits carried the additional consequence of halting spending from the federal highway trust fund, which pays for roads, bridges and safety inspections. Until the stand-off ends, thousands of federal employees are furloughed and hundreds of millions in state funding is in limbo.

State transportation directors, who happen to be in Washington for their annual legislative meetings, held a well-attended news conference to call attention to, as Mississippi’s Larry L. “Butch” Brown put it, “the severity of the actions caused by inaction.” Underpinning their frustration was the fact that Congress has already extended an expired transportation law three times since Sept. 30 in lieu of passing a new bill.

Far and wide in the transportation lobby, from the National Asphalt Pavement Association to the public interest coalition Transportation for America, groups issued statements, flooded Washington with phone calls, and sought answers to questions that even the U.S. Department of Transportation was not prepared to answer. Among them: Who will perform the federal accounting on stimulus projects during the shutdown? “It’s not clear,” said Missouri Transportation Director Pete Rahn, after meeting with federal officials.

“This couldn’t have come at a worse time,” said Brian Turmail of the Associated General Contractors of America, which was busy contacting its members, putting out alerts, and talking to congressional leaders to press for a fix. “Everyone we talked to was engaged,” Turmail said. “But until it’s fixed, you never know.”

Read more

February 25, 2010, 1:30 pm

Health Care Reform Emerges As New Olympian Challenge

By Joe Eaton and Aaron Mehta

When a U.S. hockey player lays out a Canadian opponent, he need not worry about stitches, a concussion or knocked-out teeth. Unlike 46 million Americans, U.S. Olympians have health insurance.

But that doesn’t mean U.S. athletes aren’t watching as President Barack Obama meets with Congressional leadership today to push health reform.

Like other small organizations that don’t have a lot of employees to spread out the insurance risk, the United States Olympic Committee is finding that covering figure skaters and bobsledders is getting seriously expensive, says Desiree Filippone, the USOC’s director of government relations. That’s why the committee paid $40,000 to the Washington, D.C., lobby firm Monument Policy Group to keep tabs on Congressional health reform efforts and other issues in 2009.

Filippone did not say how much it costs to insure an Olympic star like Lindsey Vonn, who took a spill in the giant slalom Wednesday that required X-rays. American athletes are actually covered through the 46 individual governing bodies for various sports, she said. U.S. Figure Skating covers figure skaters. U.S.A. Curling covers the rock throwers.

“That’s not very cost effective in a lot of ways,” Filippone said, because it means higher premiums than if the groups joined together. “We are trying to figure out if there is a better way to do it. We haven’t found it.”

Monument Policy Group, the lobby company USOC hired, is run by C. Stewart Verdery, Jr., a high-power lobbyist and former Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Verdery did not return Center calls for comment.

The U.S. Olympic Committee “didn’t push for any angle at all” in the legislation, Filippone said. In 2009, the committee lobbied on issues as diverse as immigration visas and military construction. “We are nonpartisan. We had no particular political position on this one way or the other.”

A quick look at Congressional lobby records reveals that the U.S. Olympic Committee isn’t the only sports organization concerned about health reform. The National Football League Players Association and the Professional Golfers Association of America also lobbied on the issue last year.

The NFL players’ lobbyist, William Sweetnam, Jr., who was paid $30,000 to work exclusively on health reform, was foggy about what the group of well-paid athletes wanted from Congress. Players were concerned about how cash from their health reimbursement account is split in the case of divorce, he said.

PGA lobbyist Eric Winborn said the association was worried about the impact of health reform on small businesses. The PGA, he noted, represents golf pros working at local country clubs – not just multi-millionaire players like Tiger Woods .

It’s unclear what the PGA got for the $18,000 it paid Winborn to work on health reform and other issues. On Tuesday, two days before Obama’s summit, Winborn was on vacation. Golfing? Nope. Skiing in Utah.

Follow the Center on Twitter and Facebook.

February 09, 2010, 3:07 pm

ENVIRONMENT: New EPA Scrutiny for Atrazine Reflected in Center’s Database Complaints

By Jim Morris and M.B. Pell

After years of fielding complaints about the ubiquitous weed-killer and water pollutant atrazine, the Environmental Protection Agency has decided to take a closer look at the product, used on corn and other crops, mainly in the Midwest. Some of those complaints are documented in a database produced by the Center in 2008 as part as of our Perils of the New Pesticides investigation.

Last week, an EPA advisory panel began assessing the latest science on the chemical, frequently found in surface waters and groundwater, and two more meetings of the advisory group are planned for later this year.

The Perils of the New Pesticides project includes a tool that allows the public to search 15 years of previously undisclosed EPA data for reported environmental and health effects of specific products. A search of “atrazine” produces 242 pages of results from 1992 through 2007. This material reveals that the EPA received hundreds, if not thousands, of reports of atrazine in water, but does not indicate the severity of the contamination or whether potential health threats existed. Atrazine is the most common water pollutant found in the EPA database, but that could be the result of state and federal agencies specifically testing for the compound.

Last October, the EPA announced that it would re-evaluate atrazine, focusing on the compound’s potential association with cancer as well as birth defects, low birth weights, and premature births. Of concern are recent studies, such as this one by researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine, which found a correlation between birth defects and elevated levels of agrichemicals, including atrazine, in surface waters.

Steve Owens, assistant administrator over the EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, said in a statement that the agency “will take a hard look at atrazine and other substances” and “determine whether a change in our regulatory position is appropriate.” Atrazine was banned in the European Union in 2003 due to its presence in groundwater above a strict regulatory limit for all pesticides; there are some restrictions on its use in the U.S., but it remains one of the most commonly applied herbicides. More than 60 million pounds were used domestically in 2008.

Steven Goldsmith, a spokesman for atrazine’s Switzerland-based manufacturer, Syngenta, called the EPA’s reassessment “really unnecessary. Atrazine has been one of the most studied agricultural products in history. The EPA just completed a 12-year review, which resulted in [atrazine’s] re-registration in 2006.” While atrazine often turns up in rivers and streams, Goldsmith said, the concentrations are “well below thresholds set by the EPA to protect human health.”

The EPA’s renewed interest in a pesticide that has long troubled public health advocates closely follows a move by the Food and Drug Administration to reassess bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical used in hard plastic bottles and metal food and beverage cans since the 1960s. The FDA announced in January that it had “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children” and would, along with the National Institutes of Health, conduct “in-depth studies to answer key questions and clarify uncertainties about the risks of BPA.” The agency said it supported industry actions to stop producing baby bottles and cups containing the chemical.

Follow the Center on Twitter and Facebook.