CREW citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington March 7, 2011 By Facsimile: 202-307-1419 and First- Class Mail Dorothy Lee Office of Justice Programs Office of the General Counsel Attention: FOIA Staff 810 7th St, NW Room 5400, Washington, DC 20531 Telephone: 202-307-0790 Re: Freedom of Information Act Request Dear Ms. Lee: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) makes this request for records, regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics, and including electronic records and information, audiotapes, videotapes and photographs, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552, ef seg., and U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 16. Specifically, CREW seeks any and all correspondence between Representative Harold Rogers (R-KY), or any member of his staff, or any staff member of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations (“Appropriations Committee") acting on behalf of Rep. Rogers, and any employee of the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs from January 1, 2000, through the present. CREW further seeks any and all responses by any employee of the DJ's Office of Justice Programs to Representative Rogers, or any member of his staff, or any staff member of the Appropriations Committee acting on behalf of Rep. Rogers, during the same time period Please search for responsive records regardless of format, medium, or physical characteristics, Where possible, please produce records electronically, in PDF or TIF format on a CD-ROM. We seek records of any kind, including electronic records, audiotapes, videotapes, and photographs, Our request includes any letters, emails, facsimiles, telephone messages, voice mail messages, and transcripts, notes, or minutes of any meetings, telephone conversations, or discussions. Our request also includes any attachments to these records. Ifitis your position that any portion of the requested records is exempt from disclosure, CREW requests that you provide it with an index of those documents as required under Vaughn v, Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1972). As you are aware, a Vaughn index must describe each document claimed as exempt with sufficient specificity “to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under FOIA.” 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005 | 202.408.5565 phone | 202.588.5020fax | www.citizensforethies.orgDorothy Lee Mareh 7, 2011 Page 2 Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C. Cir. 1979), Moreover, the Vaughn index must “describe each document or portion thereof withheld, and for each withholding it must discuss the consequences of supplying the sought-after information.” King v, US. Dep't of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 223-24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). Further, “the withholding agency must supply ‘a relatively detailed justification, specifically identifying the reasons wy a particular exemption is relevant and correlating those claims with the particular part of a withheld document to which they apply.” Jd, at 224 (citing Mead Data Central v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, $66 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977) In the event some portions of the requested records are properly exempt from disclosure, please disclose any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the requested records, See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). IFit is your position that a document contains non-exempt segments, but that those non-exempt segments are so dispersed throughout the document as to make segregation impossible, please state what portion of the document is non-exempt, and how the material is dispersed throughout the document. Mead Data Central, 566 F.2d at 261. Claims of nonsegregability must be made with the same degree of detail as required for claims of exemptions in a Vaughn index. Ifa request is denied in whole, please state specitically that it is not reasonable to segregate portions of the record for release Finally, CREW welcomes the opportunity to discuss with you whether and to what extent this request can be narrowed or modified to better enable DOJ to process it within the FOIA’s deadlines. Anne Weismann, the CREW attorney handling this matter, can be reached at (202) 408-5565 or aweismann@citizensforethies.org. Fee Waiver Request In accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(AGii) and DOJ regulation 28 C.F.R. § 16.11(6), CREW requests a waiver of fees associated with processing this request for records. ‘The subject of this request concerns the operations of the federal government and expenditures, and the disclosures will likely contribute to a better understanding of relevant government procedures by CREW and the general public in a significant way. Moreover, the request is primarily and fundamentally for non-commercial purposes. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4(AM(ii). See, eg, MeClellan Ecological v, Carlucci, 835 F.2d 1282, 1285 (9th Cir. 1987). ‘These records are likely to contribute to greater public awareness about the relationship between Representative Rogers and the Department of Justice, particularly in regard to Representative Rogers’ support for funding nonprofit organizations in Somerset, Kentucky. Representative Rogers has started or helped start seven nonprofit organizations in Somerset thatare largely funded through congressional earmarks and federal grants, including from the DON's Office of Justice Programs, See Halimah Abdullah, Rogers” Earmark Requests Total Nearly Half'a Billion Dollars, McClatchy Newspapers, April 19, 2009 (Attached as Exhibit 1),Dorothy Lee March 7, 2011 Page 3 Understanding the relationship between Representative Rogers and the DOJ would shed light on the role Congressman Rogers plays in securing funds for the nonprofits. CREW is a non-profit corporation, organized under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, CREW is committed to protecting the public’s right to be aware of the activities of government officials and to ensuring the integrity of those officials. CREW uses a combination of research, litigation, and advocacy to advance its mission. The release of information garnered through this request is not in CREW’s financial interest, CREW will analyze the information responsive to this request, and will share its analysis with the public, either through memoranda, reports, or press releases. In addition, CREW will disseminate any documents it acquires from this request to the public through its website, www.citizensforethies.org, which also includes links to thousands of pages of documents CREW acquired through its multiple FOIA requests as well as documents related to CREW’ litigation and agency complaints, and through www. scribd.com. Under these circumstances, CREW satisfies fully the criteria for a fee waiver. News Media Fee Waiver Request CREW also asks that it not be charged search or review fees for this request because CREW qualifies as a “representative of the news media” pursuant to the FOIA and DOJ regulation 28 C.F.R. § 16.11. InNat’l See. Archive v. U.S. Dep't of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found the National Security Archive was a representative of the news media under the FOIA, relying on the FOIA’s legislative history, which indicates the phrase “representative of the news media” is to be interpreted broadly; “itis critical that the phrase ‘representative of the news media’ be broadly interpreted if the act is to work as expected. .. . In fact, any person or organization which regularly publishes or disseminates information to the public... . should qualify for waivers as a ‘representative of the news media,”” 132 Cong. Rec. $14298 (daily ed. Sept. 30, 1986) (emphasis added), cited in id, CREW routinely and systematically disseminates information to the public in several ways. First, CREW maintains a frequently visited website, www.citizensforethies.org, that received 71,353 page views in February 2011. In addition, CREW posts all of the documents it receives under the FOIA on www.scribd.com, and that site has received 660,525 page views of CREW’s documents since April 14, 2010. Second, since May 2007 CREW has published an online newsletter, CREWCuts, that currently has 16,853 subscribers. CREWCuts provides subscribers with regular updates regarding CREW’s activities and information the organization has received from government entities. A complete archive of past CREWCuls is available at http:i/www.c1 rethics.org/newsletterDorothy Lee March 7, 2011 Page 4 Third, CREW publishes a blog, Cirizens blogging for responsibility and ethics in Washington, that reports on and analyzes newsworthy developments regarding government ethics and corruption, ‘The blog, located at http://www citizensforethies.org/blog, also provides links that direct readers to other news articles and commentary on these issues. CREW’s blog had 3,864 page views in February 2011 Finally, CREW has published numerous reports to educate the public about government ethics and corruption, See The Revolving Door, a comprehensive look into the post-government activities of 24 former members of President Bush’s cabinet; Record Chaos, which examines agency compliance with electronic record keeping responsibilities; and Those Who Dared: 30 Officials Who Stood Up For Our Country. These and all other CREW’s reports are available at rw/reports. Based on these extensive publication activities, CREW qualifies for a fee waiver as a “representative of the news media” under the FOIA and agency regulations. Conclusion If you have any questions about this request or foresee any problems in releasing fully the requested records on an expedited basis, please contact me at (202) 408-5565. Also, if CREW's request for a fee waiver is not granted in full, please contact our office immediately upon making such determination, Please send the requested records to Anne L. Weismann, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005, Sincerely, e L. Weismann, Chief Counsel EnclosureEXHIBIT 13/4/2011, Rogers’ earmark requests total nearly ha McClatchy Washington Bureau rin This Antcie Posted on Sun, Apr. 19, 2009 Rogers’ earmark requests total nearly half a billion dollars Halimah Abdullah | McClatchy Newspapers last updates: Ap 47, 2008 05.5900 Pt WASHINGTON -- For nearly 30 years, Rep. Hal Rogers has used his sway on powerful committees to steer billions in federal funds into a ral stretch of bis Kentucky district dubbed "Silicon Holler." Now, new rules requiting members of Congress to publicize their requests on their Web sites offer ~~ forthe first time ~~ an early glimpse into exactly which projects the Somerset Republican, a Senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, favors before those multimilion- dollar requests are tucked into the federal spending bill, There are 203 requests Lotaling $466.6 million on Rogers’ 22-page request form, ‘which is buried several pages deep on his Web site and downloaded sideways in an unsearcbable format, ‘Those requests include more than $40 million for programs that Rogers ether created directly or are housed in Rogers’ hometown of ‘Somerset at the Center for Rural Development, a sprawling, state-of-the-art faclity that locals call the "Taj-Ma Hal." The National Institute for Hometown Security, non-profit organization that Rogers helped create and has few staffers, is slated to net $15 milion “to continue to provide leadership in discovering and developing community based critical infrastructure protections solutions.” ‘The Department of Homeland Security has never requested any funding for the National Institute of Hometown Security, though former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge came to Kentucky Lo announce the non-profits formation several years ago. Groups that monitor government transparency and the use of federal funds are especially troubled by the trend of members on the powerful House and Senate appropriations committees ~- which are in charge of setting specific money expenditures -- earmarking taxpayer money to fund lawmaker-ereated non-profit organizations. Rogers and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa,, who lke his Kentucky counterpart hails from an economically strapped region struggling to bring in new industry, stand out as prime examples ofthis practice, said Wiliam Alison, senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit group that advoeates for transparency in government. "You're using federal money to create organizations that wouldnt exist,” Alison said. "They're hiring people -- sometimes bringing in political ‘supporters. Sometimes (those supporters) promote the lawmaker as much as the group, because they're aut in the community and people identify the group with the member. It amplifies the member andl it raises a lot of questions.” ‘Taxpayer advocacy groups also say such practices are an abuse of power, an example of Rogers using his politial clout to channel miions in federal homeland security funds into pet projects for his distrit. "When we see a member of Congress using tax dollars to ereate such non-profit entities, we call it phony philanthropy,” said David Willams, vie president of policy for Citizens Against Government Waste, a Washington-based group that tracks federal pork, "i's easy to spend ‘someone else's money; it's much harder to spend your own, Ifyou set up a non-profit advocacy and they're advocating a point of view, then every citizen is advocating that view whether they’ agree with it or not.” ‘One example among Rogers’ earmarks is Operation UNITE. Crities say that while the program, which was ereated by Rogers and is poised to receive roughly $13 milion in earmarks to ramp up anti-drug initiatives, has been effective, UNITE focuses too heavily on law enforcement and arrests and doesn't channel enough money into treatment and rehabilitation. Environmentalists take issue with Rogers’ continued push for inreased coal-to-liquid fuels research funding, such as his $2 million earmark to the University of Kentucky's Center for Applied Energy Research, Instead, they say, greater funding should be sought for sueh alternative fuel sources as solar and wind power. Coal mining companies have donated heavily to the state's congressional delegation, and the mining industry is Rogers' top industry donor, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which analyzes the influence of money in polite. Rogers stands behind bis earmarks. ‘Unelected and uninformed earmark erusaders do not represent the interests of my district,” Rogers said. "And I don't know of anyone who hhas suggested that funding for any of these programs is improper.” President Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, blasted the earmark process during the 2008 presidential campaign as an unsavory ‘method of conducting government business. In an effort to create greater government transpareney, House members were instructed to post earmark requests on their Web sites in April The Senate wil follow suit in May. ‘Lawmakers must publicly disclose the amount requested and the proposed recipient, along with addresses and an explanation of the project. ‘Members also must make a written pledge that neither they nor their spouses will benefit financially from the earmark. However, such lines are often murky. Rogers! earmark requests inchude $6 milion to Somerset-based Progeny Systems to develop a biometrics-based submarine access control system, $8 million to the Outdoor Venture Corp., also in Somerset, for tents Uhat can be relocated and reconstructed by two people in 20 ‘minutes, and $16 million to the MeKee, Ky.-based Phoenix Products Ine, for aireraft drip pans. Progeny employees gave more than $13,000 to Rogers through his campaign and his politcal action committee, HALPAC. Outdoor Venture Corp. president James Egnew and his wife, Azale, contributed more than $20,000 to Rogers’ campaigns; Peggy and Thomas Wilson, owner meclatchyde.comy.../rogers-earmark-req, we3/4/2011 Rogers’ earmark requests total nearly ha. ‘and manager of Phoenix Produets, have given roughly $15,000. Rogers sces the connection as coincidental, He says he's "never been shy about working to bring jobs to southern and eastern Kentucky” merely doing what he was elected to do. ‘Our decisions on which projets and programs to sponsor have absolutely nothing to do with campaigh contributions, period,” Rogers s "Our screening process is exactly the same for every project request we receive. The companies you mention employ over 200 hard-working citizens in one of the poorest regions of the country and are working on critical programs that ultimately protect aur brave men and women in tuniform fighting for freedom overseas ‘th national impact, such as the $10 million request forthe Justige 4 states, ‘Some of Rogers’ earmarks support groups and causes with missions Department's prescription drug monitoring program, which operates Rogers helped launch the program in 2002 with the help Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., and has since worked to secure more than $48 millon to develop of enhance preseription drug monitoring, The competitive grant, supported by the Justice Department through its own budget ‘submissions, is known as the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program. "Byen the most biased activist would have to admit that providing funding for organizations that have collectively ereated over 10,000 jobs, trained over 8,500 hospitality workers, provided over 18,000 individuals with technology training, offered education grants to 1,700 teachers, Cor helped provide important tools to our rural aw enforcement and fist responder agencies nationwide is taxpayer money well spent,” Rogers said Intent is one thing, using politcal heft to mieromanage a region's economic currents at the possible expense of other congressional districts is another, Alison said. "This is a country of 435 districts, all with their needs. With him sitting on appropriations he has a greater ability to steer these funds,” Allison said, "It he is actually helping ereate the organizations and steer money to them, that's much more problematic. There's not enough distance between the member and the organization that's set up.” McClatchy Newspapers 2009 meclatchyde.comy.../rogers-earmark-req, 2p