From Cows to Congress: Earmarks Evolve

What the heck is an earmark? Aren’t our representatives supposed to bring home the bacon, meaning federal money for state projects? Where does good representation end and corruption begin?

What’s an earmark?

Technically, an earmark is a tag on a farm animal’s ear that is meant to show who owns the livestock.

But in Congress, an earmark is a chunk of federal money that is reserved for a state or local project. Sounds ok, right? No Congresswoman ever lost an election because she brought some money home to her community.

But here’s the debatable part: instead of introducing the money appropriation as a separate bill or amendment that can be openly debated, legislators often reserve the money needed through a line item in a large funding bill. That way, no one debates the appropriation, and most don’t even see it. Led by Nancy Pelosi, Democrats made earmark reform a priority of their first 100 hours in Congress.

The debate – more than one issue

Opponents of earmarks say that working for constituents is one thing, but unabashed spending on local projects is something else. They say the process needs to be more transparent and honest.

But some feel that the attempt to end earmarks is a waste of time. Republican Representative Henry Bonilla says that lawmakers should go after wasteful entitlement spending instead. Bonilla further contends that money that isn’t spent on earmarks will simply go to bureaucrats who will dole it out instead. He prefers that elected representatives decide where the money goes.

But other Republicans disagree. They feel that the money saved on earmarks could help to pay down the deficit or better fund other projects.

Earmarks & Party Strategy

Individual legislators use earmarks

to secure funding for their own state or district – but the political parties use them too, as part of a coordinated political or electoral strategy. The coordinated use of earmarks is one way for Congress to limit the administration's discretionary spending and control over government agencies. Plus, earmarks can be used not only to keep individual seats, but also as part of a party-wide plan to maintain a majority in Congress. In this case, trading earmarks for votes looks more like a smart strategy than corruption. But of course, there is a fine line- which is exactly what makes the issue so interesting.

Republican strategy

Republicans, in the minority since November’s election, have been fighting to make earmarks public and accused Democrats of reneging on a promise to publicly list them.

Instead of enumerating earmarks when a bill comes to the floor, as Republicans suggested, Democrats said they would instead list earmarks with House-Senate conference reports. Since conference reports are the last step in the lawmaking process and no longer allow for debate, this plan was unacceptable to Republicans. House Republicans want to be able to challenge earmarks on the floor, before they become part of the bill. To fight for their cause, House Republicans stalled a $36.3 billion homeland security spending measure by proposing more than 100 amendments for it. Republicans promised they would stop clogging the legislative process if Democrats agreed to the earmark plan.

Earmarks in Action: Homeland Security

On June 14, the two parties compromised, and the plan moved to the Senate. Democrat Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, chairman of the Appropriations Committee, announced that earmark information will be included in the Senate’s appropriations reports, including the earmark sponsor, size, purpose, and recipient.

This new requirement has already begun with the Senate version of the fiscal 2008 Homeland Security appropriations bill. The Homeland Security legislation includes more than 20 member-requested earmarks.

Funding for national priorities like Homeland Security is approved by an open vote of all our representatives, but the money to make them happen goes to specific programs and locations. In order to get a good idea funded, representatives have to get support outside their own locale – look at some of the ideas elected officials across the country convinced their colleagues to fund:

• $97 million for the National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. Requested by Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
• $40.2 million for the expansion of the Advanced Training Center in Harpers Ferry, W.Va. The center trains Customs and Border Protection personnel. Requested by Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.
• $25 million for the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center. The center is a partnership between the Sandia and Los Alamos National laboratories, both located in New Mexico. Requested by Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M.
• $10 million for the Regional Technology Integration initiative. The program, which is intended to bring homeland security technology systems to local communities, operates in Anaheim, Calif.; Cincinnati; Seattle; and Memphis, Tenn. Requested by Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
• $15 million for construction at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Hanford, Wash. Requested by Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington.
• $6 million “to enhance detection links between seaports and railroads” at a test center at the Port of Tacoma in Tacoma, Wash. Requested by Murray.
• $5.5 million for the Noble Training Center, in Anniston, Ala. The center trains health care personnel in disaster preparedness and response. Requested by Shelby.
• $145 million for emergency preparedness and response centers in Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Nevada. Requested by Shelby; Hutchison; John Cornyn, R-Texas; Domenici; Mary L. Landrieu, D-La.; and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
• $35 million for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in Oak Ridge, Tenn., to distribute Southeast Region Research Initiative Program awards for homeland security research projects. Requested by Cochran; Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and Bob Corker, R-Tenn.
  
  

What do you think?

Do you think it’s important for earmark information to be freely available? Is reforming earmarks an important part of ethics reform? Was it right for the minority party, the Republicans, to slow the appropriations process to gain leverage on the earmark debate? What did your representatives vote for? There’s time to tell your Senators what you think!

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Article Posted on: 8/5/2006