Republicans Packed Defense Spending Bill With Earmarks, Says Sen. Claire McCaskill

By Colin Clark
Editor, AOL Defense

WASHINGTON -- One of the Senate's top campaigners for good government is charging House Republicans with quietly loading their new defense policy bill with earmarks that are currently banned by the GOP's own rules.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has pledged to keep all earmarks out of the Republican version of the Defense Authorization Act. In a letter to Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), the new chairman of the House committee, and its top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.), the Missouri senator claims the proposed bill "has obviously been structured to circumvent the earmark ban adopted by the House of Representatives." And McCaskill writes that if she can't keep those earmarks out of the bill, she'll make each one public.

But the McKeon is having none of McCaskill's scorn.

"Her letter is more politics than substance," HASC spokesman Josh Holly wrote in an email to AOL Defense.

McKeon instituted changes to the traditional markup process for the policy bill: The draft bill from each subcommittee was made public 24 hours before the subcommittees met. And the draft of the final bill was also put online before the full committee met.

"In the words of the former Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), we would encourage the good Senator from the former chairman's home state to 'read the bill,'" Holly said. "All of the information which she claims was not provided to the public has been available on the committee's website throughout the process. In fact, this is the first time in decades that copies of the legislation were provided to the public ahead of the subcommittee and full committee markups."

"Neither exact dollar amounts nor intended recipients of the earmarks can be clearly discerned," McCaskill said in her letter. "Under the pre-moratorium rules, earmark requests were publicly posted and funded earmarks were listed in reports accompanying bills with the sponsor, amount and intended recipient all clearly detailed."

Holly's response: "It appears that Senator McCaskill was also unaware that all of the amendments in which she has issues were adopted in a public session of the Armed Services Committee. Additionally, every amendment that was considered by the committee -- not just those that were adopted -- were posted on our website within 24 hours of the conclusion of the full committee markup and made available to reporters at the time of the markup."

But McCaskill claims the House committee has proposed a billion dollar "slush fund" called the Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund, that would take money cut from other programs and consolidate it in the fund to pay for the "pet projects" inserted into the House defense policy bill.

Comments

[Harvee Wallbanger]

12:34 PM on 05/27/2011

Just another good reason for them to kill Medicare - so they can keep the pork coming their way...

[rwextthoughts]

11:16 AM on 05/27/2011

if she is right , she is right ,,,,, and all the pork has to go,,,,

And yet isn't she the one who scammed us with her plane ala Bela Pelsosi and the air force jets

[Jacquie Hamilton]

11:39 AM on 05/27/2011

The House Sergeant at Arms, not Nancy Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft and a larger plane was requested because Hastert’s (former Speaker - R) plane required refueling to travel cross-country.

[TFlint]

09:06 AM on 05/28/2011

Twist the truth. The Speaker of the House is required to travel according to Secret Service rules. Hide the fact that Boehner is under the same rules.

[AveragePatriot]

10:46 AM on 05/27/2011

The GOP politicians are usually against the actions they perform on a daily basis.

Also, sure they put it online, buthow many people actually go online and read the bills? It isn't really public until it hits the media. Turnabout IS fair play, right?

[open2facts]

10:19 AM on 05/27/2011

It'll be interesting to see where this goes. Both sides need to do some more explaining. One side claims everything the public needs to know is there, the other claims the everything is dressed in cammo that makes it difficult to actually see. Guess it's up to us, folks, to get to the bottom of this.

[mtrem]

09:56 AM on 05/27/2011

Where there's smoke there's fire....anyone that trusts a Republican further than they can throw em needs their head examined....

[rwextthoughts]

11:27 AM on 05/27/2011

as in :closing gitmo, debt ceiling, patriot act, unemployment that was at 4.6% in Jan 2007 , gas prices that were at $1.75 in Jan 2009, Libya only days, getting out of wars , Fannie and Freddie ...OH WAIT

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

03:17 PM on 05/27/2011

Pretty small potatoes to using WMD as an excuse to invade a country that hasn't attacked us.

[ardvark1a]

10:09 PM on 05/27/2011

Yea,.....and as in.....a War created with the Administrations fabcrated facts of WMD in Iraq. To start a unneeded war costing "US" over $10.5 Billion a month
American Deaths in Iraq. over 4,454 American lives.
Since war began (3/19/03): Total 4454 Combat 3511
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) Total 4313 Combat 3403
Since Handover (6/29/04): Total 3595 Combat 2878
Since Obama Inauguration (1/20/09): Total 226 Combat 107
Since Operation New Dawn: Total 36 Combat 17

http://antiwar.com/casualties/

[Andrew Wojtkowski]

09:52 AM on 05/27/2011

They're right. All people need to do is read the huge bill in between the lines and they'll see it's all public knowledge.

Aren't these the same people who complained that Bills were too long, and now they're saying that the public should read the whole thing to find these earmarks?

I just hope McCaskill doesn't renig and she actually releases info about these earmarks instead of just threatening to.

[William K]

10:13 AM on 05/27/2011

Correct spelling is "renege".

[Andy Williams 1]

10:21 AM on 05/27/2011

She doesn't have any info, that much is clear. But she has gotten you duly outraged over the potential that she might actually have proof! Good for her!

[Basil08]

09:39 AM on 05/27/2011

These hypocrits ran and were elected due to an Anti-Earmark, decrease-in-spending platform...and are now spending like Gingrich at Tiffany's.

Why am I not surprised?

[Andy Williams 1]

09:52 AM on 05/27/2011

They're spending their own money? Oh and btw, where are the House democrats on this? Crickets?

[Basil08]

10:00 AM on 05/27/2011

If they are taxpayers (and I believe Congress members DO pay taxes)...then YES, they are spending their own money.

Not sure about House Dems....however most did not campaign on NO earmarks and then blatantly turn around and request hundreds of MILLIONS in....earmarks.

[achleyboy]

09:34 AM on 05/27/2011

Claire needs to get her own house in order with all these taxes she forgets to pay on her own plane. So much for villifying the rich, since she is one of them.

[lisaman]

10:05 AM on 05/27/2011

Check into it, when she found out it was a problem, she did pay it. In fact, she was very angry because she had not stayed on top of the problem because she knew that even though it was an innocent error, it would be exploited by her detractors.

Stick to the issue, do you or don't you have a problem with the earmarks?

[rwextthoughts]

11:28 AM on 05/27/2011

NO , WHEN SHE WAS CAUGHT ,,,, ala Ed Schultz,

[Gio Salerno]

09:33 AM on 05/27/2011

I'm sure the rules were structured to allow legislators to add their own earmarks in a way that they don't look like earmarks. They talk one way but don't act it.

[Nel Pineda]

09:32 AM on 05/27/2011

Bombs are good business!

[okiedemocrat]

09:15 AM on 05/27/2011

Tell Claire that her glasses are so yesterday.

[Lawyer822]

09:48 AM on 05/27/2011

Stop the personal attacks. If you can't comment on the issue don't comment at all.

[Andy Williams 1]

09:59 AM on 05/27/2011

LOLOLOLOLOL! Look out folks! It's not a lawyer, it's the comment police! Maybe you should follow your own advice!

[Basil08]

10:52 AM on 05/27/2011

They do that when they have no substance and their "arguments" are vapid.

Ignore.

[lisaman]

10:06 AM on 05/27/2011

Exactly, she should be out shopping and not working in Congress, whatever is she thinking?

[softvoice]

09:15 AM on 05/27/2011

Republicans are on a spree, passing laws that take away a woman's right to choose what to do with her own reprocuctive system and they are spending money every chance they get. They pack all these bills with demands and dare Democrats to take the blame if important matters are not dealt with, even though Republicans have made it almost impossible to conduct business in DC. Republicans are doing this so they can make their rabid base happy and when it comes time to explain they will simply say, Democrats had the White House at the time, it is all their fault.

[David Keith]

09:10 AM on 05/27/2011

Further proof the GOP is worse than the Dems.

[philko]

09:36 AM on 05/27/2011

Nah.

The GOP promised "earmark reform" and "transparency" and has repeatedly reneged (but, of course they claim they haven't). OTOH, Obama promised "transparency" and also has repeatedly reneged.

Same strategy from both sides: Say what it takes to get elected, then do what it takes to stay in office.

We get to choose between Coke

[philko]

09:37 AM on 05/27/2011

(weird - my reply was truncated by a few words. Should be:)

"We get to choose between Coke and Pepsi, folks..."

[rjlwis]

09:07 AM on 05/27/2011

They should have every earmark authored by the particular congressmen posted and available through mass media. Also, the congress member's local newspapers should be required to publish to inform their constituents. Time for a little spotlight.

[teabagflush]

09:02 AM on 05/27/2011

Judgment Day for the GOP

Tuesday, November 6, 2012