Intel Bill: Pork & Hypocrisy

My colleague Mike Goldfarb noted yesterday that House Democrats were preparing to pass an intelligence authorization bill that directs the CIA not to get bogged down on things like the war on terror, but instead to focus on global warming. It was only later that we–and opponents of pork-barrel spending in Congress–became aware that the legislation had also been loaded up with 26 earmarks with a total cost of $100 million. It’s troubling that some of the earmarks were included at the request of Republicans, but it’s also worth noting that the only effort to strip them was mounted by Republican reformers. Those include Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who went to the committee offices days before the vote to examine the pork-barrel items, but was unable to get explanations. Some earmarks were not properly disclosed (due to a GPO printing error, according to committee Democrats) and others were not on the list of earmarks included in the report accompanying the bill. When Congressman Flake moved to begin a secret session to discuss the matter, the majority voted him down. Attracting the most attention was an earmark proposed by Congressman Murtha–$23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, conveniently located in his district. Murtha argued that this would only bring the authorization for the project in line with its previously-approved $39 million appropriation. But, of course, Murtha is one of the most powerful Democrats on the Appropriations Committee. The president’s request for the center was $16 million–the amount required to shut it down. A highlight of this kerfuffle was an attempt by Republicans to raise a point of order, since not all earmarks were listed as required (under the new House rules enacted by Democrats). In this dense exchange, Democrats explain that a committee report need only claim to list all earmarks–not actually list them–in order to satisfy House rules. The relevant portion of the debate is around the 4:20 mark: