“Still, the new House disclosure rules could threaten Murtha’s old-school way of doing business. Forced to disclose earmark sponsors and amounts this year for the first time, the subcommittee chairmen were put in a position of explaining a great deal about how the process benefits some lawmakers more that others – even if many details of the process remain in the dark. Murtha was in no mood to make transparency easy.”

“In reporting earmarks, all Appropriations subcommittees separated their list of project sponsors from information about dollar amounts. Though the information was published, the method made it impossible to quickly assess who got how much in each bill. Murtha took the extra step of marbling the projects and their dollar values throughout the committee report on the bill, rather than compiling an easy-to-read list.” …

“Lawmakers say the winners in the process thrive on their ability to keep the rest of the rank and file in the dark about the distribution of money for special projects. Murtha is no exception.”

“After a recent House vote, he stopped for a moment in the lobby adjacent to the House floor, just steps from his corner, to take a question from a reporter about the difficulty of piecing together which members got how much money for which projects in his bill.”

“Murtha answered abruptly before walking away. ‘So, you have to work,’ he said. ‘Tough [expletive].’”

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won't know for sure unless Murtha explains himself. She did not set a date for Murtha's testimony but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments.

Collyer said she was troubled by the idea the lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers.