Murtha's defense of earmarks questioned

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

Rep. John P. Murtha"s justification for some of the $3 billion in pork projects in the Defense Department spending bill only fanned criticism from House Republicans and government-watchdog groups.

Mr. Murtha, chairman of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, bristled when questioned on the House floor last week about pricey research-and-development projects doled out to businesses in districts of top Democrats — including his in Pennsylvania.

He told the chamber that the pork spending, known as earmarks, is awarded in a competitive bidding process by the Pentagon and that the technology developed with federal dollars would be the property of the U.S. government.

He"s got to know that"s not true, said Rep. John Campbell, California Republican. Clearly, the point of earmarks is they avoid the competitive bidding process.

He also doubted that an earmark could establish a contractual agreement for product ownership, as did Steve Ellis, vice president of the government-watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

I"ve looked at hundreds of thousands of earmarks over the years, and I"ve never seen one that stipulates ownership, Mr. Ellis said.

Mr. Campbell said he was seeking documentation from the Defense Department to refute Mr. Murtha"s claims and force him to retract the statements.

Mr. Murtha did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Murtha, who is one of the most prolific sponsors of earmarks in the Democrat-led Congress, defended the practice during debate Saturday night when questioned by Mr. Campbell and Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican.

I think people around the country will be appalled ... to see Mr. Murtha stand up and say these contracts are competitively bid. They are not, Mr. Flake said by telephone after returning home to Mesa, Ariz.