Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) teamed up again with controversial conservative Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) last week to fight for defense industry money. This time, the seemingly-mismatched pair added a pro-industry amendment to a bill that aims to overhaul the process governing the way the Defense Department buys weapons systems from private contractors.



Sen. Murray and Sen. Chambliss joined forces back in January in an ultimately fruitless effort to save the F-22 from the Defense Department budget axe. They're certainly an unlikely duo, voting the same way no more than four times in the last five years on key issues, according the Washington Post's votes database . But they have one thing they have in common—Murray has received $40,559 from Boeing since 2003; Chambliss received $47,400 from Lockheed Martin. Their respective local defense industry interests keeps bringing them together.

The defense bill, which passed with unanimous consent in the Senate, is aimed at tightening the spending habits and increasing the transparency of the DOD's procurement process. When the Defense Department discontinues an order for a particular project (the way it did with the Boeing/Lockheed Martin F-22 earlier this year), the Defense Department must present the reasons for its decision to terminate or not terminate a project with significant cost overruns.

The Murray/Chambliss amendment mandates that the Defense Department inform Congress of any effects a deleted program will have on defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed.

"I strongly believe that we also need to begin a national conversation on how procurement decisions affect our nation's industrial base, including the aerospace workers that help our military meet their needs," Murray said in a statement provided by her office. "At a time of economic recession, we can't forget that the Pentagon's decision[s] are often make or break for a workforce that we must keep strong."

The Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a non-profit that focuses on Defense spending accountability, said they hoped the amendment would be erased in final bill negotiations with the House (Murray will likely be one of the negotiators in those talks). POGO says they're concerned the amendment will allow regional economic concerns, like Murray and Chambliss', to hold too much sway over whether inefficient projects are exiled from the Defense budget.

The House version of the bill is still being debated.