Early in the morning on Sunday, as we were finishing up amendments on the Defense Appropriations bill, I debated an earmark challenge with the Chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, Congressman John Murtha (D-PA). The earmark allocated $2 million to Sherwin-Williams Paint Company to develop what they described as a "paint shield to protect against microbial attacks." As the sponsor of the amendment, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) did not come down to defend her earmark. The defense was left to Congressman Murtha.
Here is a link to this brief debate, now keep in mind all I wanted to know was:
1) Is this project requested by the Department of Defense? The correct answer is NO.
2) Is this a project that was competitively bid among other potential suppliers? The correct answer again is NO.
3) Will the taxpayer own the rights to any successful product developed? Again, the correct answer, according to Sherwin-Williams’ own brochure for this project is NO.
4) How do we know that this particular company is the best supplier? There are many great paint companies in America, how do we know that Sherwin-Williams is the right company to do this job? Answer never given.
5) What investigations have they done to ensure that this is the right price? Is $2 million just an arbitrary amount? Answer never given.
For those of us in Congress fighting to reform our earmark process, this video is a good example of where we need to start.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Congressman Campbell:
Keep up the good work on pointing out the “earmarks” in various Appopriation bills, including the one on Defense.
Question: Why does the Republican Conference continue to be split on the matter?
Specifically, I am referring in Jon’s Commentary today on Rep. Flake’s amendment.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I don’t like earmarks, but I do think the reasons some members in both parties support them should be pointed out.
Probably one of the best examples I can think of even though I am a Democrat came from former Speaker Newt Gingrich when he talked about the House of Representatives spending money that was meant to fund Radio Marti broadcasts into Cuba only to have State Department functionaries sidetrack the money into other places because these bureaucrats decided that funding the radio station was bad for American foreign policy. That has happened hundreds of times to things on both sides of the aisle where the unelected bureaucrats dictate policy and ignore the wishes of congress. Earmarks are/were an attempt to get around that obstructionism and unfortunately they are too often abused.