The Glade 4.0

By BRODY MULLINS And COREY BOLES

A $1.1 trillion Senate Democratic plan to fund the federal government—a nearly 2,000-page document that includes about 6,700 earmarks—is drawing fire from conservative groups and some Republicans, setting up a test of GOP resolve to cut spending.

Republican Sens. John Cornyn, left, and John Thune oppose the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.

The proposal, made public Tuesday by Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D., Hawaii), contains billions of dollars of earmarks requested by lawmakers from both parties, challenging GOP vows to rein in federal spending.

Some of the conservative groups that fueled GOP gains in the midterm elections expressed outrage Wednesday at the Democratic bill, and some Republican lawmakers joined the chorus.

"Americans told Democrats last month to stop what they've been doing: bigger government, 2,000-page bills jammed through on Christmas Eve, wasteful spending," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.). "This bill is a monument to all three."

Mr. McConnell is one of the lawmakers who requested earmark spending, including $650,000 for a genetic research center at the University of Kentucky, according to information compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a fiscally conservative group. Mr. McConnell has defended the requests, saying they were made before it became clear the appropriations process would end in a huge, end-of-the-year omnibus bill.

Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah), a retiring member of the appropriations panel, said he would support the bill. In doing so, he defended the earmarks process, arguing it was Congress invoking its prerogative to direct how government agencies should spend money allocated to them.

"If the Congress doesn't say 'spend it here,' the president says, 'OK, I get to decide where to spend it,' " Mr. Bennett said.

Senate GOP leaders have pledged to fight the measure when it comes up for a vote, possibly over the weekend. While some Senate Republicans have said they would support the bill, it wasn't clear whether Democratic leaders had the 60 votes needed to push it through.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) said she planned to vote against the bill because it didn't include a three-year cap on discretionary spending that she and others have pushed for.

In the House, GOP leaders have said they would oppose the Senate bill if it reached them. Democrats hold the majority in both houses until January. Passage would require a simple majority in the House.

Congress needs to approve the measure or an earlier spending bill passed by the House by Dec. 18, otherwise the federal government could be forced to shut down.

The bill contains an array of earmarks—directing money to home-state projects backed by Democrats and Republicans. The proposal also contains funding for many projects backed by corporate lobbyists over the opposition of the Obama administration, including $450 million for General Electric Co. to build a second version of a jet engine for the Pentagon's next-generation fight jet, called the Joint Strike Fighter.

The fighter-jet engine issue could be crucial to some lawmakers' votes. Connecticut Sens. Joseph Lieberman, an independent, and Democrat Christopher Dodd both expressed opposition to the GE engine appropriation.

Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on Congress to pass an omnibus spending bill rather than continuing current levels of spending, which would happen under the House bill.

Among the earmarks in the bill: A $10 million earmark from House Democrats to help establish the John P. Murtha Foundation in honor of the late House member and $8 million for an institute named after the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.).

Some earmarks in the bill were sponsored by Republican lawmakers who voted recently for a moratorium on earmarks, including Mr. McConnell.

House Republicans have adopted a ban on earmarks for the coming legislative session. But some Republicans say the earmark ban covered future spending bills, while the bill under debate funds the government for the current fiscal year.

Tea-party activists, fiscally conservative organizations and some GOP lawmakers say the earmark spending should stop now, and are rallying opposition to the measure. "This is absolutely outrageous. Did these people forget Nov. 2 already?" asked Amy Kremer, the chairman of the Tea Party Express. Mrs. Kremer said her group was organizing an event Thursday outside the U.S. Capitol where opponents will read the bill aloud.

The fiscally conservative Club for Growth predicted that primary challengers will emerge for Republican lawmaker who votes for the legislation. A Club for Growth backed candidate derailed Utah Republican Sen. Robert Bennett's re-election bid this year.

Rep.-elect Kristi Noem, a South Dakota Republican, said voters "kept telling me two things on the campaign trail this year, first, stop spending money we don't have, and second, stop passing these large omnibus spending bills that have something for everyone."

Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com and Corey Boles at corey.boles@dowjones.com

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Don't worry the President will veto it because it contains earmarks. He promised me so 34 days ago.

Whats to talk about? Big bill thats a gift to lobbyists, special interests, and that attempts to dictate the budget for next congress. But the Republicans will be painted as bad guys somehow on this.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Wow, the partisan blinders here really do amaze me sometimes. Omnibus spending bills aren't unusual; about $24 billion of the earmark requests for this one are from Republicans; overall earmark spending has decreased since the Dems took control of Congress; etc., etc. The simple fact is, Republican political leaders are complete and total hypocrites and frauds when it comes to fiscal issues. Why conservative voters continue to buy their b.s. and view the Dems as the party of deficits and pork is beyond me.

Wow, the partisan blinders here really do amaze me sometimes. Omnibus spending bills aren't unusual; about $24 billion of the earmark requests for this one are from Republicans; overall earmark spending has decreased since the Dems took control of Congress; etc., etc. The simple fact is, Republican political leaders are complete and total hypocrites and frauds when it comes to fiscal issues. Why conservative voters continue to buy their b.s. and view the Dems as the party of deficits and pork is beyond me.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

FFFFFUUUUU-

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Wow, the partisan blinders here really do amaze me sometimes. Omnibus spending bills aren't unusual; about $24 billion of the earmark requests for this one are from Republicans; overall earmark spending has decreased since the Dems took control of Congress; etc., etc. The simple fact is, Republican political leaders are complete and total hypocrites and frauds when it comes to fiscal issues. Why conservative voters continue to buy their b.s. and view the Dems as the party of deficits and pork is beyond me.

The 1,924-page bill collapsed of its own weight after an outcry from conservatives who complained it was stuffed with more than $8 billion in homestate pet projects known as earmarks.

Earmark spending hasn't declined under Democrats in any meaningful way, if at all.

I fully expect some wondrous equivocation and rationalization over this behavior by the recently deposed House majority. That said, I wonder how the supporters of the Democratic Party of the United States are going to swallow this one and regurgitate it to the rest of us.

Earmark spending during Republican controlled congresses of recent history had more to do with buying obstructionist Democrat votes, because the Republicans didn't have a majority capable of passing said legislation.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact this spending bill has been shot down every time it's come up for a vote since it was drafted....Nancy Pelosi's little procedural rules changes that requires a 60% vote to actually pass House bills is the biggest reason it's **** failed to pass since inception.

Okay, some writer in McConnell's office is getting a helluva Christmas bonus. That visual prop was visionary.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

You're still assuming I support the Republicans and buying into false dilemma politics.

As for your first links, their both demonstrably wrong and presented by horribly biased sources that have less credibility on the issue of politics than Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow. I guess you're also forgetting the big shenanigans about earmarks in 2009 and earlier this year where earmarks were redefined by Pelosi and Reid so as to minimize the appearance of Democratic use of the mechanism.

And, yes, they are trying to ram this down the people's throats, because the full spending bill in question contained the DREAM Act, the originally tabled components of the Health Care Reform Act, the Cap and Trade Tax, and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal. And all of it was bundled up into the Tax Cut and Unemployment Benefits extension. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too; Pelosi and Reid tried to get every failed agenda issue rammed through in this little debacle....{Y}ou take one part of the truth: the spending bill and all the bundled legislation have been failing to pass largely because Pelosi got overconfident and made a 60% vote a requirement in the House to actually pass legislation, but ignoring the fact that all these failed agenda measures were being tacked on something the majority of people support in a special, super late session of a lame duck Congress.

But, I'm supremely tired of your obvious partisanship and lack of critical thinking. You only speak of politics as the most dubious and obnoxious of leftist blogs post stuff of late. You don't actually think of it as a continuum of events and behavior anymore, as demonstrated by the fact you're last post ignores what's been going on and buys into very obvious lies and myths perpetrated by the douchenozzles in power....Like I said, stop being a lawyer and think for a while, because you're obviously just regurgitating the same slop I hear from MSNBC every night.