Congress Daily (via GovExec.com) reports:

The House on Friday overwhelmingly defeated legislation backed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., that would establish a Pentagon “report card” system of grading congressional defense earmarks on their individual merits.

[…]

Opponents argued the measure would undermine congressional prerogatives in determining where the money goes and would cost Pentagon staff countless hours of work preparing their evaluations of defense spending.

Voting no, of course, was Rep. LaHood, which is surprising (sarcasm) because he’s supposedly in favor of transparency in the earmarks process. The Bill was HR6375, “Requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress an annual report and to provide notice to the public on congressional initiatives in funds authorized or made available to the Department of Defense.”

The so-called “report card” would have been required to be posted on a public website and include the following information:

Content.—Each report under subsection (a) shall include, for each congressional initiative applicable to funds that were authorized or made available to the Department of Defense for the fiscal year covered by the report, the following:

“(1) A description of each such congressional initiative, including—

“(A) the geographic location (by city, State, country, and congressional district, if relevant) in which the funds covered by such congressional initiative are to be used;

“(B) the purpose of such congressional initiative (if known); and

“(C) the recipient of the funding covered by such congressional initiative.

“(2) For each such congressional initiative, an assessment of the utility of the congressional initiative in meeting the goals of the Department, set forth using a rating system as follows:

“(A) A rating of ‘A’ for a congressional initiative that directly advances the primary goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component of the Department.

“(B) A rating of ‘B’ for a congressional initiative that advances many of the primary goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component of the Department.

“(C) A rating of ‘C’ for a congressional initiative that may advance some of the primary goals of the Department or an agency, element, or component of the Department.

“(D) A rating of ‘D’ for a congressional initiative that cannot be demonstrated as being cost-effective in advancing the primary goals of the Department or any agency, element, or component of the Department.

“(E) A rating of ‘F’ for a congressional initiative that distracts from or otherwise impedes that capacity of the Department to meet the primary goals of the Department.

Not only is it transparent, it would have given the public an independent expert opinion on whether the earmarks are cost-effective and advance the nation’s primary defense goals.

Don’t you just love the justification for defeating this? It would “undermine congressional prerogatives on where the money goes.” Yes, we don’t want those pesky voters undermining their elected representatives’ prerogatives. God help us if the voters knew what their representatives were actually doing in Congress! *Gasp* The voters might actually start holding them accountable for passing legislation that furthers the nation’s primary goals instead of giving sweetheart deals to campaign contributors! Horrors!

And, don’t you feel just awful for all the extra work it would load on those poor Pentagon staffers? I’m sure the Pentagon would much rather implement the whims of congressmen than engage in any pesky planning or evaluation of the efficacy of the programs Congress chooses to fund. What a headache!

Yes, once again Mr. LaHood and 329 other representatives voted to keep the earmarks system shrouded in secrecy so they can continue bringing home the pork without accountability.