June 29, 2007

Earmark Reform: A Brief History

By Congressman Joe Pitts

Every so often, a term normally confined to the lexicon of Washington policy wonks gets so much attention that it starts to become part of the national conversation.

The latest example is earmark spending.  At one time, earmarks were only discussed by people who spend most of their waking hours inside a Congressional committee room – not exactly a big universe.

Then earmarks went and made a name for themselves by being at the center of a scandal that sent a Congressman to jail, and a heated confrontation that brought the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to a standstill for nearly three days.

On Capitol Hill, the term earmark refers to those narrowly tailored spending requests attached to larger spending bills by individual members of Congress.  These requests normally fund projects in members’ home states or districts.  Some earmarks fund legitimate public projects, but many are widely viewed as a wasteful use of tax dollars.  At their worst, they can even serve as currency for corruption.

Former Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence for using his influence over federal earmark spending to enrich himself.  Specifically, he agreed to steer earmarks toward a defense contractor in exchange for such things as a luxury car, free use of a yacht, antique furniture and Persian rugs.

For many in Washington, the Cunningham scandal crystallized the need to reform the earmark process and make it more open to public scrutiny and accountability.

Republicans took historic action on this issue in 2006 by changing House rules to require greater transparency in the earmark spending process.  Under the rule change, all earmarks were required to be publicly listed along with their sponsors.  And for the first time ever, House members were given the power to demand votes on individual earmarks on the House floor.

In the months leading up to the 2006 election, Democrats repeatedly promised that, if given control, they would conduct the most “open and honest” Congress in history.  Part of this promise included further earmark reform.

Voters gave Democrats their wish – they now have a Congressional majority – but Democrats’ follow up on promised spending reforms is yet to materialize.  In fact, they tried to move backward on the 2006 earmark reforms passed by Republicans.

This backtracking was best displayed recently when the House began considering the first of 12 annual spending bills to fund the government.

In a move incapable of passing the laugh test, Democrats, led by Appropriations Chairman David Obey, announced that they would bring these spending bills to the House floor “earmark free” only to later add earmarks in back-room negotiations with the Senate.

In other words, spending bills wouldn’t have earmarks listed when considered publicly by the House, but Chairman Obey would personally decide which earmarks are worthy of adding to the bills once the process moved on to a less public forum.  

When the final version of the bills emerged from House-Senate negotiations, they would include a list of earmarks, but by then it would be too late to challenge any of them since the bills can’t be amended at that point.

Republicans refused to go along with secret earmark slush funds presided over by a self-appointed earmark czar.  In protest, they used procedural motions to shut down the House floor until Democrats reconsidered.  With outrage mounting from watchdog groups, the press, and the public, Democrats finally reversed course and agreed to do the right thing by reopening earmarks to public scrutiny and challenge on the House floor.

This was a win for the American taxpayer and a win for transparency in government.  By shining light on this process, the public is able to see for itself what it’s being asked to pay for.  As a result, I’m hopeful that earmarks will remain a part of the national debate as taxpayers hold politicians accountable for the way they spend their money.

###