U.S. Rep. John Murtha is making headlines. This time, it's not for his outspoken opposition to the Iraq war, but for his earmarks — better known as pork spending.

Spending on pork projects, widely decried as wasteful, is defended by many lawmakers and their constituents as important economic development investment.

Murtha, a 33-year veteran Demo-cratic lawmaker representing the Johnstown region in Congress, topped the list of directing federal tax dollars to pet projects in his district this year with $163 million. House speaker Nancy Pelosi only managed to win $63 million in federal spending in her San Francisco district.

Murtha's $160 million total not only topped all other members of Congress, it also topped his previous record of $100 million in earmarks. That reflects the fact that Democrats now control Congress, and committee chairmen are benefiting from their new powers.

Since taking control of Congress early this year, Democrats have been able to reduce the number of earmarks approved under Republican control. Still, the spending on pet projects raises eyebrows.

Last year, earmark excess made headlines with the$200 million sought by powerful Republican Sen. Ted Stevens for the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska. Then there was Rep. Randy "Duke"Cunningham, who was convicted of taking millions of dollars and luxury gifts in exchange for inserting earmarks for favored military contractors into defense spending bills.

Recently, Murtha has had some unflattering coverage of his own earmarks. A story in USA Today notes that Murtha pressed for a $23 million earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC)in Johnstown by claiming that it was scheduled to take over management of the "vitally important" terrorist no-fly list.

News reports reveal that Murtha's claims were not supported by facts. According to USAToday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence had actually recommended that NDIC be closed for poor performance.

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., is one of those trying to stem the flow of tax dollars to earmarks. He recently questioned earmarks including $100,000 for a prison museum near Leavenworth, Kansas, and $250,000 for the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Prossner, Wash. Flake also questioned $2.5 million for restoration of a military parade ground in San Francisco, submitted by Pelosi. That earmark, and nearly all the others, remained in the bill.

Though Murtha set a new record for earmarks in the recent defense bill, there is renewed attention on earmarks. Part of the attention is related to Democrats' claims that they would change the so-called "culture of corruption" that purportedly existed in Congress when Republicans were in charge. Failure by Democrats to reform the generally secretive earmark process, which grew from 3,000 projects in 1996 to 16,000 in 2005, would be hypocritical.

New House rules require some additional information about earmarks that makes it easier for the press and the public to see where the money is going. Also, House rules require that neither the lawmaker requesting the earmark nor the lawmaker's spouse have a financial stake in the organization receiving the money.

Amajor shortcoming of the new House rules is that they do not say anything about former associates and other relatives benefiting directly or indirectly from earmarks. And this is where Murtha, and likely other lawmakers, might have issues. News reports have revealed that many of Murtha's earmarks go to clients of a lobbying firm that employs a former Murtha staffer and used to employ Murtha's brother.

A similar concern over earmarks and who benefits from them surfaced recently when federal agents raided the home of Sen. Stevens in Alaska. Investigators are looking into how millions of federal tax dollars that Stevens directed to a nonprofit in Alaska were spent and if some benefits returned to Stevens or members of his family.

Federal earmarks fund many worthwhile projects, but earmarks have grown to such an extent that there is little or no oversight in Congress. The potential for abuse is huge. And because of the growing public awareness of the massive amounts of money flowing to local projects, there is increasing pressure on all lawmakers in Congress to "bring home the bacon," whether it is legitimate or not.

Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin laments that lawmakers often see themselves more as "A.T.M. machines for our districts" than as lawmakers.

Democrats have made some progress with earmarks, but they are far short of cleaning up the process. Continued public pressure and media attention on the earmarks could help bring change. But lawmkers like Murtha and others who view directing tax dollars to favored groups in their district as their right, can be expected to fight reform every step of the way.