Tapscott's Copy Desk - House defense bill puts pork above national security, nullifies Bush anti-earmark executive order

Home Examiners News Politics Entertainment Sports Business Health

classifieds autos jobs real estate

- Congress (5)
- White House (5)

House defense bill puts pork above national security, nullifies Bush anti-earmark executive order

POSTED May 20, 6:01 PM

Have these people no shame? Is there no depth to which Members of Congress like Rep. John Murtha won't stoop in order to protect their place at the hog trough? Rep. Jeff Flake is circulating the following Dear Colleague letter concerning the defense bill likely to be voted on later this week in the House:

May 19, 2008

THE EARMARK TWO-STEP:
ONE STEP FORWARD; TWO STEPS BACK

FY09 Defense Authorization Seeks to Protect Earmarks in Report Language

Dear Colleague:

The House of Representatives is likely to consider H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, later this week. Unfortunately, a provision was included in the bill that would protect defense authorization pork in the joint explanatory report or committee reports from President Bush’s recent earmark executive order. Section 1431 of the bill would make Executive Order 13457 “inapplicable” to this specific act alone.

Issued in January 2008, Executive Order 13457 requires that “the number and cost of earmarks be reduced, that their origin and purposes be transparent, and that they be included in the text of the bills voted upon by the Congress.” Specifically, the executive order makes clear that “executive agencies should not commit, obligate, or expend funds on the basis of earmarks included in any non-statutory source, including requests in reports of committees of the Congress or other congressional documents.”

It is unfortunate that, instead of considering the defense earmarks in the actual text of the bill, Congress will be asked to take the rather unique approach of prohibiting the application of an executive order to a single, particular bill. Section 1431 shows just how far some will go to protect their earmarks. This is an unfortunate step backward in the earmark reform process.

I intend on offering an amendment to strike Section 1431. If my amendment is ruled in order, I urge you to support it during the consideration of the Defense Authorization bill.

Sincerely,

JEFF FLAKE
Member of Congress