News
The House overwhelmingly defeated a measure Friday that would have created a Pentagon Internet site to publicize congressional earmarks in the annual defense bills.
The 70-330 vote ended the chances in this session of Congress for increasing transparency of unrequested spending items in the defense budget. One independent and 189 Democrats joined with 140 Republicans in voting against the measure (HR 6375).
GOP and Democratic leaders of defense panels with spending oversight said the bill would have ceded control over spending to the executive branch. The bill, however, would have required that the Pentagon post on the Internet the location, purpose and recipient of earmarks and to grade each according to its utility for national defense.
Supporters of the measure said the vote exemplified the sway that parochial defense spending has over members. It also showed, they said, how the House was tone-deaf to the message voters delivered in ejecting Republicans from power.
“This is business as usual,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a crusader against earmarks. “We didn’t get the message of the election.”
Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said, “Voters will take note that virtually all of the Democrats who campaigned on reform, including incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.], voted for secrecy. Taxpayers want to see the earmark favor factory shut down, not turned over to new management.”
Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Pelosi, replied, “Republicans have blocked any meaningful reform for two years. We hope they’ll join us in the 110th Congress as we work on the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.”
C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., outgoing chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, objected to the provision in the bill that would require the Pentagon to grade each earmark on a scale from A to F, according to its value to the Defense Department. He said the reports accompanying appropriations bills already show which items are congressional initiatives.
“We are transparent,” he said, adding that he was “offended” by the provision giving the Pentagon the right to grade the projects. He said he would be willing to include in the appropriations reports the names of members who penned spending projects not requested by the Pentagon.
“I’m very happy to do that,” he said.
Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the measure, sponsored by Mark Souder, R-Ind., “transfers legislative authority to the Pentagon. It’s terrible. That’s our job.”
Souder argued that his bill would eliminate wasteful spending. “We’re at war, and if we are spending money on defense initiatives that will not help our troops and will not increase our safety, the American people deserve to know it,” he said.
The two Democratic House members who supported the Souder bill spoke out against its defeat. “I am not opposed to being graded on earmarks,” said John Barrow of Georgia. “I am all in favor of transparency.”
Jim Cooper of Tennessee, a member of the Armed Services panel, said, “A lot of people want to get on the Armed Services Committee to bring back pork to their districts. Pork can be used for wonderful good, but sometimes there are a few turkeys that are a problem.”
The Senate adopted Coburn’s similar amendment to the fiscal 2007 Defense appropriations bill (PL 109-269) by a 96-1 vote and by unanimous consent added it to the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill (PL 109-364). But it was stripped out of both conferences.
Coburn held up final passage of the authorization measure for several hours in late September over the issue, until he received agreement from Republican leaders to bring his bill to a vote in the lame-duck session.
Michael Teitelbaum contributed to this story.
The 70-330 vote ended the chances in this session of Congress for increasing transparency of unrequested spending items in the defense budget. One independent and 189 Democrats joined with 140 Republicans in voting against the measure (HR 6375).
GOP and Democratic leaders of defense panels with spending oversight said the bill would have ceded control over spending to the executive branch. The bill, however, would have required that the Pentagon post on the Internet the location, purpose and recipient of earmarks and to grade each according to its utility for national defense.
Supporters of the measure said the vote exemplified the sway that parochial defense spending has over members. It also showed, they said, how the House was tone-deaf to the message voters delivered in ejecting Republicans from power.
“This is business as usual,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a crusader against earmarks. “We didn’t get the message of the election.”
Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who sponsored a similar measure in the Senate, said, “Voters will take note that virtually all of the Democrats who campaigned on reform, including incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi [D-Calif.], voted for secrecy. Taxpayers want to see the earmark favor factory shut down, not turned over to new management.”
Jennifer Crider, a spokeswoman for Pelosi, replied, “Republicans have blocked any meaningful reform for two years. We hope they’ll join us in the 110th Congress as we work on the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.”
C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., outgoing chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, objected to the provision in the bill that would require the Pentagon to grade each earmark on a scale from A to F, according to its value to the Defense Department. He said the reports accompanying appropriations bills already show which items are congressional initiatives.
“We are transparent,” he said, adding that he was “offended” by the provision giving the Pentagon the right to grade the projects. He said he would be willing to include in the appropriations reports the names of members who penned spending projects not requested by the Pentagon.
“I’m very happy to do that,” he said.
Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the measure, sponsored by Mark Souder, R-Ind., “transfers legislative authority to the Pentagon. It’s terrible. That’s our job.”
Souder argued that his bill would eliminate wasteful spending. “We’re at war, and if we are spending money on defense initiatives that will not help our troops and will not increase our safety, the American people deserve to know it,” he said.
The two Democratic House members who supported the Souder bill spoke out against its defeat. “I am not opposed to being graded on earmarks,” said John Barrow of Georgia. “I am all in favor of transparency.”
Jim Cooper of Tennessee, a member of the Armed Services panel, said, “A lot of people want to get on the Armed Services Committee to bring back pork to their districts. Pork can be used for wonderful good, but sometimes there are a few turkeys that are a problem.”
The Senate adopted Coburn’s similar amendment to the fiscal 2007 Defense appropriations bill (PL 109-269) by a 96-1 vote and by unanimous consent added it to the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill (PL 109-364). But it was stripped out of both conferences.
Coburn held up final passage of the authorization measure for several hours in late September over the issue, until he received agreement from Republican leaders to bring his bill to a vote in the lame-duck session.
Michael Teitelbaum contributed to this story.
