Update: Exposing Earmarks [1]
Submitted by Conor Kenny [2] on
It looks like it's close to endgame for earmark [3] reform this Congressional session [4]. Earmarks, the specific allocations of money to certain programs or organizations by Congress [5], has been a hot topic in Washington this year ever since the resignation of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham [6] (R-Calif.). The Duke, it seems, had been steering money through earmarks to defense contractors in exchange for bribes. While some members of Congress proposed various campaign finance and ethics [7] reforms in the scandal's wake, a band of conservative House [8] Republicans decided instead to go after the secretive earmark process itself.
The upshot of the effort was, ironically, the Senate Coburn [9]-Obama [10]-McCain [11]-Carper [12] bill (S.2590 [13]) to create a public database of all government spending. After "secret holds" kept it from the floor for over a month, the bill was finally considered in the Senate [14], where it passed by a voice vote [15]. The House [8] followed with its own passage one week later, and the legislation is now on President Bush's [16] desk, where the White House has indicated he will sign it [17].
On paper, the bill contains a tougher transparency standard than similar legislation passed by the House in June. That bill, sponsored by House Majority Whip Roy Blunt [18] (R-Mo.) and House Committee on Government Reform [19] Chairman Tom Davis [20] (R-Va.), would create a searchable database of all government grants; S.2590 [13], however, would expand the database to include both grants and government contracts.
The true blow to the secrecy of the earmark process, however, came a few days after the passage of the database bill, when the House approved a rules change sponsored by Rules Committee [21] Chairman David Dreier [22] (R-Calif.). Dreier's proposal requires all earmarks and their respective sponsors to be identified. The change, which was originally part of a broader ethics reform bill (H.R. 4975 [23]) passed in May, was agreed to after it became clear that the House and Senate could not reach an agreement on a broader bill.
The House rules change, in effect only through the current Congress (which is scheduled to adjourn in 16 days [24]), is considered by many to be too weak. Among the unsatisfied are Reps. Chris Van Hollen [25] (D-Md.) and Rahm Emanuel [26] (D-Ill.), who sought to strengthen it by proposing an amendment which would ban earmarks to any organization employing a spouse, family member, or former employee of the sponsor. The amendment, however, was never considered by the floor.
Rep. Dennis Moore [27] (D-Kan.) also felt as though the change was inadequate and introduced a separate measure [28] (H.R. 1008 [29]). His would require not only the identification of earmarks and their sponsors, but also a statement expressing both the earmark's purpose and whether or not the member sponsoring it has a financial interest in securing it. In addition, it would require that all earmarks be made public through the applicable committee’s website at least 48 hours prior to the release of a conference report on the bill which includes it. Despite having 17 co-sponsors [30], Moore’s measure was referred to the Rules Committee [21] and also not considered by the floor.
The Senate is also considering an internal rules change regarding earmarks, but a senior leadership aide has said that this will only be considered if Senate Rules Committee [31] Chairman Trent Lott [32] (R-Miss.) and Ranking Member Christopher Dodd [33] (D-Conn.) can propose a measure that will easily pass [34] the chamber.
To read more about specific earmark reform legislation considered by the House and Senate this year, check out Congresspedia [35]’s great page [3] on the subject.