Just a quick observation on the DoD Approps. debate.

Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA-12) appears to be successfully flustering almost everyone who's bringing amendments to cut funding from the bill, by claiming the opposition time on the amendments, but reserving all his time for the end of the debate.

Under the rule, when a Member rises to offer an amendment, he's recognized for the designated amount of time, and then launches into his argument for the amendment. This usually takes about two or three of the five minutes they're allotted. Then they reserve the balance of their time, and Murtha, as the bill manager, is recognized to speak in opposition. But he refuses to engage at that point, and just tells the chair he'd like to reserve his time.

That throws it back to the amendment's proponent, and so far today, they all seem to be somewhat taken aback, and are somehow unprepared to take up their arguments again, having pretty much said all they wanted to say the first time.

This generally has the effect of making them look a little silly, repeating themselves, flailing around in search of more words to say the same thing. Then, after they've eaten up all the time they can, the floor goes back to Murtha, who then makes his argument unrebutted.

It actually just kind of pissed off Rep. John Tierney (D-MA-06), who responded to it this way:

I'm happy, I guess, to keep on talking. I think that the desire to have the final word, without any rebuttal, is somewhat indicative of the strength of an argument. But, that's the gentleman's choice, and certainly you're able to do that.

Awkward. Seems to be working. Let's see how it works against cool customer Jeff Flake.

UPDATE: It even got under Flake's skin! Here's how he began his remarks on his next amendment:

Let me just state, since the gentleman wouldn't yield time at the end of his statement for me to ask. The last earmark amendment I had [about which I will write more later], the only information we have from the committee says that the money is to go to Mexico, for a program in Mexico. For radios for Mexico. Afghanistan was never mentioned. If it is covered, we don't know that. But when the Appropriations Committee takes 18 minutes to mark up the bill, then brings it to the floor, then the chairman of the subcommittee won't answer a question about it, and just says, "Well, it's for Afghanistan as well," that doesn't help with this process at all. And I think that'll be the pattern today, where he'll simply reserve time and then not yield any so we could have any kind of colloquy to find out what, really, is at the heart of these earmarks, or what these are really for. So I hope that changes. I hope we have a real discussion here, because we didn't get it in the Appropriations Committee. Remember, 18 minutes to approve a bill, unanimously, with more than a thousand earmarks in it that nobody in the full body had seen. And we only got a couple of days before the bill came out.

That's about as irritated as I've seen Flake get. By no means out of control, but for him, that was clearly some raised temperature stuff. He's usually the one coolly chuckling at the other guy's bluster.

UPDATE 2: Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA-06) is using the very same tactic. Flake outlined the well-known pattern in which lawmakers earmark funds for a project being conducted under contract by a private sector company, and the company PAC, lobbyists and executives in turn make big contributions to the lawmakers' reelection fund. That's the open secret behind a lot of government spending, and Flake just put this question directly to Dicks:

I would ask the gentleman, the sponsor of the earmark if he can make this same statement [referencing an earlier denial regarding a different earmark] with regard to this earmark: Have monies come back from the recipient of the earmark? And I would yield him time to do so.

Dicks refused to answer the question on Flake's time, saying he'd respond on his own time, which he continued to reserve.

UPDATE 3: The tables turn. Murtha lets his anger get the better of him, and he's gently admonished by the chair that the Rules require him to address his remarks to the chair and not to other members. He had begun to make some heated comments directly to Flake, and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-03) warned him about it from the Speaker's rostrum.