As earmark moratoria fever swept across the Capitol a few months ago, we applauded , and promised to keep a watchful eye on what transpired. Trust but verify. The initial results are in and… it doesn’t look pretty. It looks like we have a lot further to go down the road to meritorious spending nirvana than we hoped.

The first true test of the new regime was the formerly earmarked Defense authorization bills (The continuing resolutions were relatively easy to rid of earmarks). The Defense authorization sets the framework for the Department of Defense budget that will later get filled in by the Defense and Military Construction spending bills (also former earmark laden behemoths – especially Defense). Weeks ago, the House Armed Services Committee outlined a system where lawmakers would have proposals vetted by staff and be able to add funding to larger project categories, but not earmark to specific projects or companies. In addition, all of these amendments would be voted on with the stipulation that the funding would be competitively awarded. Well, the last part was technically accurate, although history shows the Pentagon considers a one-runner race competition. As for the rest – well, you be the judge.

First off, the amendments were adopted “en bloc” – in packages of dozens –rather than individually. In addition, they were passed on voice vote, so we don’t know exactly which lawmaker was for or against each package of amendments. And as far as not earmarking to specific projects or companies, history and chest-thumping seems to tell a different tale.

In the FY12 Defense authorization , Rep. Hunter (R-CA) added $5 million to the $42.4 million budgeted for night vision advanced technology. This was for “development and fielding of a solution for helicopter ‘brownout’ situational awareness.” Guess the $2.4 million earmark he got for Trex Enterprises in the FY10 defense spending bill for “Brownout Situational Awareness Sensors” wasn’t enough. But he was just following the lead of his predecessor (former Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, aka Dad) who earmarked $1.6 million and $1.2 million in FY09 and FY08 respectively, for the same company to do the same thing.

Then there's Rep. Brady (D-PA), who got $3.5 million added to the $77 million budgeted for Combating Terrorism Technology Support so it would include “risk assessment and resource allocation.” Sounds familiar. That’s right, we found a  $2 million  earmark in our FY10 database he got for the Foreign Research Institute’s Center on Terrorism & Counter-Terrorism in Philadelphia for – you guessed it – “Comprehensive and Integrated Procedures for Risk Assessment and Resource Allocation.”

There are more examples, but to be fair there appears to be fewer than in years past. It is troubling nonetheless because bills that were even more heavily earmarked in the past are waiting in the wings.

One of the things that was supposedly going to restrain all the amendments was the fact that any additional funding had to be offset. But, conveniently enough after cutting and trimming (and adding) there was $1 billion left over that got dumped into a vague slush fund entitled Mission Force Enhancement Transfer Fund. Well transfer they did, cracking that piggy bank open and sending $700 million to their pet projects. We don’t think it enhanced the bill one bit. But at least Rep. Flake’s (R-AZ) amendment getting rid of the $300 million still in the pot was adopted on the House floor.

When Chairman McKeon (R-CA) announced the new rules we were cautiously optimistic. Now we would have to say we are cautiously pessimistic. To be sure, we aren’t yet back in the bad old go-go years of earmarking. But instead of moving the country to a system where every dollar spending decision is based on merit, we are seeing some of Congress’ bad habits creeping back. We hope House leadership squashes that once and for all before our hard-earned reforms all unravel.

###

TCS QUOTE OF THE WEEK:

“As someone who has worked tirelessly to end the non-competitive, arbitrary process of earmarking, I celebrated the decision, first made by House Republicans, to put a moratorium on earmarks. However, you have now instituted a process that allows members of your committee to circumvent the ban through the use of non-transparent amendments that effectively act as traditional earmarks. This is disappointing and disingenuous.”

– Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) in a letter to House Armed Services Committee Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith. Press Release