He added that he only agreed to file the bill because work on the project had been started by his predecessor, former Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.).
Campbell said he introduced the measure before he signed the CAGW pledge. Regardless, he believes it met all of the criteria of the pledge.
“Arguably I was trying to do this the right way,” he said. “People are criticizing me for trying to do it the right way.”
Campbell contended that the scrutiny of his bill is part of a string of tactics that earmark reform opponents are launching against him.
“I’m not going to let them distract me from trying to reform the earmark process,” he said, adding that in the future he would no longer introduce similar authorizing amendments.
“Even if it’s totally right I shouldn’t do it before the process is reformed,” he said. “No bill is more important than [earmark reform].”
The Campbell bill had been cleared for a House vote earlier this year. On Feb. 12 – the same day he addressed the Heritage Foundation to discuss earmarks — Campbell formally indicated he did not want a vote on his bill.
Campbell isn’t the first earmark critic to attract criticism for pursuing legislation on local projects.
Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) was taken to task in 2003 on the House floor by Rep. Norman Dicks (D-Wash.) for inserting 11 defense projects into the Appropriation package that year.
“I just wanted to point out that it was not noted by the gentleman who spoke before me that all 11 items that I requested have a ‘DEF’ right next to them. That means defense,” Flake said at the time. “There is a difference between the National Cowgirls Hall of Fame and funding aviator night vision imaging systems for our helicopters.”
Matt Specht, a spokesman for Flake, said the exchange was actually a pivotal one for the Arizona Republican.
“It was that exchange that convinced Congressman Flake that it’s too difficult to make significant reforms to the earmark process when one is participating in it,” he said. “Unfortunately, Congress, as a body, hasn’t come to that conclusion yet and there seems to be an institutional resistance to an earmark moratorium.”
Ellis, meanwhile, emphasized that Campbell is generally regarded as a leader in the earmark reform movement and that for better or worse, anti-earmark crusaders tend to be held to a higher standard than their quieter and perhaps more pork-hungry colleagues.
“Unfortunately if you become a leader on reform, there is a sacrifice,” he said.
Campbell said he is undeterred by the criticism but maintained that every earmark should be vetted like hisbill has been.
“That’s why earmarks should go through this kind of process because [currently] there is no debate, no scrutiny, no nothing,” he said. “It’s somewhat ironic that people who live by doing these things the wrong way escape criticism.”
He added, “This whole thing has just emboldened me.”
As of Jan. 30, the other legislators who have signed the CAGW pledge are: Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.); and Reps. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), Flake, Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Tom Price (R-Ga.), Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and John Shadegg (R-Ariz.).
|
