Analysis:

This story was about how Representatives Vern Ehlers and Pete Hoekstra voted against a bill that passed by a margin of 308-106 in the House. The headline read “Ehlers, Hoekstra critical of defense budget,” and the opening line reads as “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.” Clearly the article is framing the story in such a way as to paint the area Congressman as opposed to this defense bill. The article claims that Rep. Ehlers voted against the bill because it included drilling for oil in Alaska. The only claim provided for why Hoekstra voted against this bill was because he was unable to find out until after the vote where money for intelligence was going.

There are several omissions worth mentioning here. First, the Press reporter Ken Kolker did not question the claims made by either Congressman, which he could have done by asking follow up questions. One question could have been “did both of you vote against this bill because you live in districts that are uncontested?” A second omission in this article is that it doesn’t provide any other perspectives on the Defense Spending bill, which is pretty major since it is $453 billion, the largest in US history, nor does it provide any details about the bill other than 2 local defense companies that are beneficiaries of contracts. The Last major omission is that the article does investigate further Rep. Ehlers claim that hiding the ANWAR oil drilling in the Defense Budget was “dirty pool.” Much has been written about the practice of hiding the oil drilling in the Defense bill. Senator Levin calls it a “violation of Senate Rule 28”, which doesn’t allow for provisions to be added in the manner it was. Readers should ask themselves if providing more information on what the $453 billion bill was about and perspectives other than the 2 Congressman would better serve the public?

Story:

Ehlers, Hoekstra critical of defense budget
By Ken Kolker

The Grand Rapids Press

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.

Despite his no vote, his office issued press releases touting $5 million in defense spending on two West Michigan projects:

• $2.8 million for military aircraft transportation equipment made by a Cadillac company, AAR Mobility Systems.

• $2.1 million for a computer network being developed by Mercy General Health Partners of Muskegon that allows hospitals to share information on patients. It will serve as a prototype for the military.

While he supports both, 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.