|
Updated: January 26, 2007
Links: Press Release | Pork Main Page | Congressional Pig Book| Wastewatcher
On January 4, 2007, the House of Representatives adopted an internal rules package (H. Res. 6) that places new restrictions on earmarks. Proposed by the new Democratic majority, the rules will be in effect for the duration of the 110th Congress. In an editorial and speech on January 3, President Bush outlined the earmark reforms that he favors for Congress. The Senate passed its ethics reform legislation (S. 1) on January 18.
For 23 years, CAGW has been a leading critic of pork-barrel spending. For a summary of the issue, including history, definitions, and an explanation of the budget process, see All About Pork: The Abuse of Earmarks and the Needed Reforms.
The ultimate goal of earmark reform should be the elimination of all pork-barrel projects from the federal budget. Short of that achievement, CAGW favors reforms that will restore transparency and accountability to the process and reduce the overall number and cost of projects.
The following is a comparison of the Senate legislation, new House rules, the President’s proposals, and the reforms long favored by CAGW (in bold). Both the House and Senate should address shortcomings noted below in subsequent resolutions and legislation. This guide will be updated as new proposals are debated and approved.
Disclaimer: The following analysis is based on legislative language. Because the effectiveness of budget rules depends on how Congress interprets and applies them, the final verdict on earmark reforms will not be known until the fiscal 2008 budget cycle begins.
Define “earmark” comprehensively and without loopholes.
S. 1: S.Amdt. 11 to S.Amdt. 3 to S. 1 amends rule XLIV to read: "(a) the term 'congressional earmark' means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process."
H. Res. 6: Title IV, Section 404(d) amends Rule XXI as follows: “For the purpose of this clause, the term ‘congressional earmark’ means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula driven or competitive award process.”
President’s proposal: The President does not offer a specific definition of earmark. However, he does say that Congress "needs to stop the practice of concealing earmarks in so-called report language.”
CAGW comment: It is unclear whether the House and Senate definitions for earmark cover projects earmarked for more than one state. For example, the fiscal 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill includes $6,435,000 for wood utilization research in Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Mich., Minn., Miss., N.C., Ore., Tenn., Wash., and W.Va. Taxpayers will have to wait for the fiscal 2008 appropriations process to see whether such projects are subject to disclosure requirements.
The Senate's original definition of earmark covered only projects listed in a bill's text and not those listed in report language. That definition would have exempted approximately 95 percent of all earmarks from the disclosure requirements. But on January 17, the Senate passed an amendment sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) that rectifies this shortcoming.
Require full and timely public disclosure of all requests for earmarks. Congressional committees should publish all earmark requests regardless of whether or not the projects receive funding.
S. 1: S.Amdt. 44 to S.Amdt.11 to S.Amdt 3 to Sm.Amdt 1 amends rule XLIV to require that committees publish earmark requests on the Internet no later than 48 hours after receipt of such information. However, this requirement applies only to earmarks included in measures reported by the committee. The earmark request must include the name of the member, the name and address of the intended recipient or the intended location of the activity, the purpose, and certification that the member or spouse has no financial interest.
H. Res. 6: The rules improve on existing procedures but do not provide full public disclosure of all requests prior to consideration of legislation; such disclosure occurs after the legislation has passed and only on a limited basis. Title IV, Section 402(b) amends Rule XXIII by requiring members to submit written requests for earmarks to the chairman and ranking minority member of the relevant committee that includes the members’ name; name and address of the intended recipient or location of the earmark; the purpose of the earmark; and a certification that the member or spouse has no financial interest in the earmark. The committee will keep all such requests but will only make “open for public inspection” the written disclosures for earmarks that are included in any measure reported by the committee or included in the conference report.
President’s proposal: Not included.
Require public disclosure of the sponsor, cost, recipient, and justification of earmarks. In addition to publication of all earmark requests, the bill itself should include a list of approved earmarks.
S. 1: Section 103 requires disclosure of sponsors and explanations for earmarks on the Internet 48 hours prior to consideration of any bill or amendment.
H. Res. 6: Requires committees of jurisdiction and conference committees to publish lists of earmarks contained in all reported bills, unreported bills, manager’s amendments, and conference reports that come to the House floor.
President’s proposal: For every earmark, calls for disclosure of the sponsor, cost, recipient, and a justification.
Prohibit House and Senate conferees from adding projects to bills during conference negotiations. After the House and Senate pass their respective versions of legislation, conference negotiators often "air drop" into the final version new projects that have not been seen or voted on by either the House or Senate membership.
S. 1: Section 102 prohibits consideration of a conference report that includes any matter not included in the House or Senate versions of a bill. Furthermore, this section can only be waived or suspended by a supermajority (3/5) vote of the Senate. Although this provision would appear to prohibit “air dropping,” Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) has said that it will not apply to earmarks so long as they are not “out of scope” with regard to the underlying bill.
H. Res. 6: Not included. This is the most glaring deficiency in the House-passed rules package. As it stands, members cannot propose amendments or raise points of order to challenge projects added to conference reports.
President’s proposal: Not included in original proposal, but in State of the Union address: “In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice.”
Limit the number and cost of projects in legislation.
S.1: Not included. However, Sen. Judd Gregg’s (R-N.H.) has proposed an amendment, called “A Second Look at Wasteful Spending,” that would give the President a modified form of the line-item veto. Of all the budget reforms now being debated in Congress, the line-item veto is the only proposal that has the potential to actually reduce the number and cost of earmarks. According to press reports, it was Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) that blocked an agreement between Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to allow a vote on lobbying reform to go forward in return for a vote on Sen. Gregg's amendment.
Update: Sen. Gregg reached an agreement with Sen. Reid to have his amendment voted on with minimum wage legislation. The amendment lost a vote to invoke cloture, or end debate, 49-48 with 60 votes needed.
H. Res. 6: Not included. Republicans in the House are expected to introduce a line-item veto bill soon.
President’s proposal: Calls for cutting the number and cost of projects in half, line-item veto.
Require that conference reports be made available 48 hours prior to floor consideration.
S. 1: Section 104 says that, “It shall not be in order to consider a conference report unless such report is available to all Members and made available to the general public by means of Internet for at least 48 hours before its consideration.”
H. Res. 6: Not included.
President’s proposal: Not included.
Require recipients of earmarks to disclose the amount of money that they spent on lobbyists to obtain the earmark and to identify their lobbyists. This would make it less attractive to game the system by making interactions between lobbyists and public officials more transparent.
S.1: Not included.
H. Res. 6: Not included.
President’s plan: Not included.
Enforce the 15-minute House voting rule and stop endless roll-call votes so promises of earmarks can not be used to bait members’ votes on legislation.
S.1: Does not address voting time limits or the use of earmarks to influence votes.
H. Res. 6: Democrats appear to address this matter in two provisions. Title III, Section 302 amends Rule XX by stating that votes “…shall not be held open for the sole purpose of reversing the outcome of such vote.” Title IV, Section 404(b) amends Rule XXIII by stating that members “may not condition the inclusion of … a congressional earmark … on any vote cast by another Member…”
President’s plan: Not included.
Limit the amount of tax dollars that states, local governments, and Indian tribes can spend to lobby the federal government for federal earmarks and subject them to the same registration requirements as non-government lobbyists.
S.1: Not included.
H. Res. 6: Not included.
President’s plan: Not included.
Prohibit funding for earmarks that have not been the subject of a congressional hearing.
S.1: Not included
H. Res. 6: Not included.
President’s proposal: Not included.
|
