Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Earmark rule adds accountability to 'pork'

The House decides to make it tougher to fund pet projects ... but not much harder, some say.

By BILL ADAIR
Published September 14, 2006

WASHINGTON — The House passed a bill to reveal lawmakers who request political pork, but the rule has so many loopholes that sponsors of thousands of projects still won’t be identified.

The rule change, known as “earmark reform,” is supposed to make lawmakers think twice about asking for pork. Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, calls it “a little bit of accountability that we think will go a long way.”

David Dreier, a California Republican who drafted the rule change, said it would “pull back the curtain on earmarks for the public, because I believe they have a right to know.”

But you could drive a hog truck through the rule’s loopholes.

It would allow thousands of earmarks, as the pet projects are known, without the sponsors being revealed. Tax bills would be subject to relatively little disclosure. And crafty lawmakers would still have many opportunities to hide their legislative handiwork.

“I just view this as a feeble attempt to make it look like we’re doing something significant — which we’re not,” said Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, one of only 24 Republicans to vote against the measure. “If we’re going to claim we’re doing something to the process, we ought to really reform it.”

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., called it a “fig leaf” and said it shows the Republican leadership “was never serious about ethics reform.”

Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks congressional spending, estimated that more than one-third of the 10,000-plus earmarks each year would not be subject to the disclosure requirement.

Countless more tax breaks and projects in other types of bills would also escape scrutiny.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning group that follows budget issues in Congress, said authors of many corporate tax breaks could still hide their identities. For example, a tax change that would benefit only ExxonMobil and Amoco would not be considered a tax earmark.

The bill passed 245-171, largely along party lines. Reps. Michael Bilirakis, R-Tarpon Springs, Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, and Adam Putnam, R-Bartow, voted for the bill. Rep. Jim Davis, D-Tampa, did not vote.

The rule change is a remnant of the House’s attempt at ethics reforms in the wake of the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals. When the scandals were in the news last winter, Republican leaders vowed to pass a comprehensive bill to restrict gifts to lawmakers, ban privately sponsored travel and require more accountability for lobbyists.

Both houses passed different ethics bills, but the two chambers have not been able to agree on the proposals. With Thursday’s vote, the House changed its rules for earmarks rather than passing a law, so Senate approval is not needed.

Many members of the House Appropriations Committee — who often are criticized for their pork — opposed the rule change because they said it did not require enough disclosure for tax bills and legislation that authorizes federal programs. The committee members said those bills contain some of the most egregious earmarks, such as the famous “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska and a tariff change on ceiling fans sold by Home Depot.

Earmarks have traditionally been cloaked in vague language and had no names attached. Some members release lists of earmarks they obtain to show they are bringing home the bacon. But they may not reveal all of their earmarks.

Conservative Republicans, who led the effort for the rule change, said the proposal is not perfect but that it should force many members to reduce their requests for frivolous federal spending.

“The most important element is shame,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., adding that the bill “would make it tougher for a Duke Cunningham to enrich himself.”

Flake acknowledged the proposal had loopholes that would allow his colleagues to insert earmarks after a bill has passed a committee without revealing their identity. But he said the bill is “better than nothing.”

Ellis, of the taxpayer group, said the bill had many shortcomings.

“After all the scandal and all the waste, the earmark reform package the House just passed falls far short of real reform,” he said. But he called it an important first step.

“I think we are getting half a loaf,” Ellis said. “But I fully intend to come back for the other half.”

Washington bureau chief Bill Adair can be reached at adair@sptimes.com or (202) 463-0575.
.

[Last modified September 14, 2006, 23:14:20]