Rules? What Rules? Thank Murtha And Pelosi For The $226 Million That They Racked Up!

Open and honest huh? “So far this year, House lawmakers have put together spending bills that include almost 6,500 earmarks for almost $11 billion in local projects.”

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has obtained about $63 million worth of projects, most of them in or near her district in San Francisco. But Ms. Pelosi was overshadowed by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who obtained $163 million in pet projects — more than anyone else in Congress and more than his own previous record of about $100 million.

Michelle Malkin:

Jeff Flake is on the floor lambasting the 1,300 earmarks in the bill: “There’s an earmark in here for a ‘cold-weather hand protection system.’ We’re givin’ an earmark to a private company to sell gloves!”

The first one Flake is challenging is an amendment to restore the parade ground at the Presidio. Jack Murtha, of course, opposes Flake’s move.

Flake challenges Murtha to identify the sponsor of the Presidio earmark. Murtha won’t say. Flake names the sponsor: It’s the Speaker of the House.

“Why are we earmarking defense money for this? The taxpayers deserve a little better than this…It just seems wrong.” Flake mocks the euphemisms used in earmarks. Holds up a pen and says it would be referred to as a “stenographic polymer communications device” (or something like that) if it were in an earmark.

11:22pm Eastern. GOP Rep. John Campbell goes after two earmarks–one sponsored by Jack Murtha for the Sherwin Williams paint company and another for something called the “Swimmer Detection Sonar Network.” Campbell recounts when a military contractor approached him for an earmark. Campbell asked the contractor: “Does the military really want this? How do I know you’re the best supplier? How do I know the millions you are asking for is the right price?”

Murtha defends the sonar network earmark and invokes the Cole bombing. Campbell points out there are three other systems in place already. The new earmark hasn’t had the proper scrutiny.

Jeff Flake debunks Murtha’s claims that earmarks are competitively bid and that taxpayers have rights to technology developed/funded by earmarks. An earmark by definition is a sole-source contract.

Flake challenges another earmark for the “Atmospheric Water Harvesting Project.” Why are we singling out one company?

And Flake goes after a multi-million-dollar earmark for Concurrent Technology Corporation (CTC), a nonprofit technology innovation center that Murtha created years ago with tens of millions of dollars worth of earmarks. Murtha blusters in defense.

See here for background.

11:50pm Eastern. Flake blows the whistle on a $3 million earmark for a charter school, “Lewis Center for Educational Research.” The school has tons of corporate support. Why is this in the defense appropriations bill? GOP Rep. Jerry Lewis, a king of earmarks, defends the charter school earmark without giving any good reason for siphoning off defense appropriations funding for it. More here.

The anti-earmarkers are losing, but it is educational and useful to see each one of these brought to light and put on the record.

Rise and be counted: Get behind Porkbusters here.

Only the NYT’s can take it from:

It was not supposed to turn out this way. Last year, Democrats denounced the explosive growth of earmarks as a central part of what they called the “culture of corruption” under the Republican-led Congress. They skewered the infamous $200 million “bridge to nowhere” that Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, had tried to finance.

To:

But even critics acknowledge that the Democrats have made the system less secretive and slightly less of a free-for-all.

Under rules the House adopted this year, all earmarks in a bill are supposed to be collected onto a single list in the report that accompanies the bill. Lawmakers must also file a “certification” that attaches their name to a proposed project, discloses the organization that will receive the money and declares that neither the lawmakers nor their spouses has a financial stake in it.

In practice, the disclosures can be difficult to read and incomplete. In addition, the certifications only declare that lawmakers and their spouses have no financial conflict; they are silent about financial ties that other relatives may have.

And ending with this:

Many lawmakers say the increased openness has put the cardinals, like Mr. Murtha, in an awkward position. Because everyone can see who is receiving what, rank-and-file members are clamoring for their districts to obtain a bigger share of the goodies. Similarly, constituents in home districts are becoming bolder as the earmarking process becomes less mysterious.