Posted July 5, 2006 by Meredith McGehee

A Litmus Test for Earmark Reform

The infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” raised the profile of earmarks to the point that Congress felt compelled to at least give the appearance that it was going to do something about them. The $315 million bridge-span to connect an Alaskan town of fewer than 8,000 people to an island with only fifty residents drew national attention to the practice of earmarking that allows Members to funnel taxpayer dollars to personally selected pet projects.

The substantial public outcry over this undemocratic practice means that in one form or another, “earmark reform” will be coming soon to a Congressional press conference near you. An attempt may even appear in the “lobbying reform” bill that Congress hopes to pass this summer. But we can only hope that “earmark reform” will be more than the mere window dressing and rhetoric that have constituted the Congressional “lobbying reform” proposals.

Caveat emptor should be the watchwords whenever Congress seeks to reform itself. Certainly there is a need to change the earmark system. After all, what kind of integrity does a legislative process have when legislators are permitted to insert language directly into spending bills to fund their pet projects, thereby circumventing the ordinary legislative process and shielding such measures from public scrutiny and congressional debate?

Both the number and funding of earmarks has exploded over the past decade. According to information compiled from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal year 1994, to 15,877 in fiscal year 2002 – an increase of nearly 400 percent. And in terms of the funding associated with those earmarks, the amount of earmarked funding increased from $23.2 billion in 1994 to $64 billion in fiscal year 2006. Earmarked dollars have doubled since 2000, and come close to tripling in the last 10 years.

So reform in this area is clearly needed, but how should real earmark reform be measured? Here are some of the questions that should be asked when looking at the issue of congressional earmark reform:

Do the new rules apply only to appropriations bills or do they also cover earmarks inserted by other committees with earmarking powers, especially the tax-writing committees (House Ways & Means and Senate Finance) and by the public works committees (House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee)?

Do the new rules cover not only earmarks in measures passing on the floor but also conference reports and joint explanatory statements?

Do the new rules require the sponsors of earmarks to be publicly disclosed before the bill is voted on? Will the rules require the committee to include in appropriations bills an explanation of any earmark that was not included in the authorizing legislation?

Do the new rules provide a procedure for Members to follow in bringing a “point of order” against a special-interest earmark without derailing the entire bill in which the provision has been inserted?

If an earmark exceeds the amount provided in the authorizing legislation, do the new rules provide a point of order against the additional amount?

Do the new rules apply to earmarks benefiting federal entities which Taxpayers for Common Sense says account for 42 percent of all earmarks?

These are not all the questions that should be asked of any proposed earmark “reform,” but they are a good starting point. If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the bill being put forward is a phony, and yet another shameful election year attempt to put one over on the American people.

Many Members of Congress have made earmarking into an art form and they will not part with the practice easily. Unnecessary and wasteful projects costing taxpayers millions of dollars mean high profile ribbon cutting ceremonies and the gratitude of campaign donors back in the district. If lawmakers claim they are going to kick the habit of earmarking, watch them closely because it won’t be easy to leave the trough at which they have been feeding so long and so lavishly.

This piece ran as an opinion column in Roll Call June 22, 2006.