Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) escalated his anti-earmark crusade yesterday by attempting to strip a request by Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) out of a defense appropriations bill.

Flake offered an amendment designed to kill a $2.5 million provision intended for a technology organization created by one of Hastert’s former aides. The amendment, one of about 10 he offered, was expected to fail miserably as of press time.

The earmark is for the Illinois Technology Transition Center, a program established late last year through a partnership between the Pentagon and a private outfit run by Thomas V. Thornton, a former policy director for Hastert in the early ’90s. Neither Thornton nor Hastert’s office replied to requests for comment on the earmark.

The center was designed to find technology companies in Illinois that could fulfill the needs of the Defense Department’s Office of Naval Research (ONR).

“This is a win-win for entrepreneurs and ONR,” Thornton said when the center won its initial $1.3 million in funding last October.

Flake said yesterday that he did not realize the earmark was one of Hastert’s when he decided to fight it on the floor, but knowing that the top House GOP leader had requested the funding didn’t change Flake’s plans.

“I don’t want to avoid someone just because they’re in a leadership position,” Flake said yesterday.

Hastert’s earmarking record has come under scrutiny in the past week. The Sunlight Foundation and several media outlets reported that Hastert turned a profit of at least $1.5 million on a land deal several miles from a proposed highway he secured more than $200 million for last year.

The amendment demonstrated a new height of boldness on Flake’s part, and it served to fan the flames of those determined to crack down on lawmakers’ propensity to load bills with millions in federal money directly to their home states and districts for pet projects.

Flake has riled some colleagues this year by forcing recorded votes on appropriations earmarks, but this is the first time he has taken his fight to the top elected leader in the chamber.

Even critics of the amendment conceded that Flake demonstrated devotion to principle by treating Hastert’s earmark like any others; yesterday he offered several amendments to prohibit the use of funds for various provisions.

Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), an appropriator who supported Hastert’s request on the floor yesterday, said Flake’s effort could be characterized as either a “principled approach” or “a strong showing of stupidity.”

“I think he’s doing it on principle,” LaHood said.

He defended the earmark as a necessary link between the Pentagon and local technology companies that would benefit the country’s national defense and said the debate would demonstrate that many earmarks are vetted well.

“It shows that these earmarks have value,” LaHood said. “It gives an opportunity to justify a program.”

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), another appropriator, agreed.

“I don’t think it’s necessarily very smart politically,” Simpson remarked.

Earmark defenders, including Hastert, say that lawmakers, not civil servants, should determine where federal funds are spent in their home states and districts.

Some lawmakers and aides were shocked by Flake’s decision to go forward with an amendment targeting one of Hastert’s earmark requests.

“I’ve never seen that before,” said Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the senior Democratic defense appropriator and another Flake target. “I can’t imagine what he’s doing.”

Flake’s allies praise him for picking earmarks regardless of the sponsor’s status. His anti-earmark battle has targeted backbenchers and committee chairmen alike.

“I would be more worried if no leadership earmarks were” targeted, said Keith Ashdown, vice president for policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, which tracks and often criticizes congressional earmarks.

But some lawmakers said Flake could pay a political price for his earmark-striking crusade, even if he does not suffer direct punishment from GOP leaders.

“The retribution comes not in terms of sanctions,” Simpson said. “It comes in terms of your own credibility. People walk in and see ‘Flake amendment’ and say no. They don’t even ask what it is.”
But longtime critics of congressional earmarks say Flake is making a courageous stand.

“Representative Flake is doing the Lord’s work,” Ashdown said. “He’s doing what millions of people want.”

Lawmakers who oppose Flake’s effort pointed out early in the day that he would not be successful.

“It’s a dead end. It’s not going anywhere,” LaHood said. “It’s on a collision course with defeat.”

As for Hastert, Flake said he would prefer not to know whose earmarks he is targeting.

“I’ve told my staff, ‘Please don’t tell me.’ It might dissuade me,” he said.