WASHINGTON — Though freshman Sen. Jeff Merkley snagged a spot on the coveted Senate Appropriations Committee, he won’t have a perk that previous panel members used to gain political mileage back home.
The Oregon Democrat won’t be able to include “earmarks” in spending bills to benefit Oregon specifically — something that the last Oregonian to sit on the appropriations committee, the late GOP Sen. Mark Hatfield, did well for 16 years.
Analysts agree that Merkley, who’s up for reelection in 2014, still is likely to have more clout than many of his colleagues because the Senate and House appropriators decide how to spend federal tax dollars.
But they note that the competition to fill appropriations openings has eased somewhat since earmarks were banned in 2011. The heightened ability to bring home the pork was why many lawmakers wanted to get on the appropriations committees, said Steve Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Merkley said that he’s well positioned to take care of Oregon’s needs despite the ban on special funding requests, or earmarks.
“The appropriations committee is about far more than simply earmarks,” he said in a recent interview. “It’s about what programs will address the issues that the country faces. And then you get a special chance to advocate for those issues that are (important) in your own state.”
Merkley said he talked to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., about getting on the appropriations panel before even he entered the 2008 Senate race. He will be the only Oregonian on either the House or the Senate appropriations committees.
Hatfield, Merkley’s mentor, secured billions of dollars worth of earmarks for Oregon when he was a member and then chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee from 1980 until 1996, the year he retired. The money helped Oregon Health & Sciences University become a nationally recognized institution and financed Portland’s light rail system, to cite two of many examples.
Merkley and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., requested earmarks as a team in 2009 and 2010. Congressional leaders could revive the practice in the future.
Oregonians accept that earmarks are a thing of the past, but also understand that the state has gained a seat at the table where a few lawmakers make important decisions about how much to spend and on what program or service, Merkley said.
“It gives Oregon a stronger voice and people are very excited about that,” Merkley said. “This is a very different appropriations committee conversation than one you would’ve had 10 years ago, when you were looking at a specific list of earmarks. Of course, that’s not the conversation we’ll be having.”
Controlling the size of the federal purse is a powerful responsibility even without earmarking authority, said Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, which pushed for the earmark ban.
Merkley could demonstrate his clout by increasing funding levels for federal programs that align with Oregon’s priorities. That way, he doesn’t have to submit earmarks, although it’s a more indirect approach, analysts say.
Merkley has been assigned to appropriations subcommittees that oversee the Interior, Health and Human Services, Commerce, Agriculture and Education departments. That means he will have a say in setting spending levels for federal programs dealing with timber, ocean science, medical research, international trade and agriculture — all issues Oregon cares about.
“Earmarks were small bore. There are certainly larger funding decisions that would benefit Oregon that he will be able to have some effect on,” Ellis said. “But clearly one of the big perks of being on appropriations in the past was you’re going to get the lion share of the earmarks. And that is gone.”
Georgetown University political scientist John Haskell said the earmark ban isn’t the only reason why appropriators are less powerful now. The difficulty in getting spending bills through the bitterly divided Congress also isto blame, he said.
As Republicans often point out, the Democratic-majority Senate hasn’t passed a budget since before the previous Congress. The last time senators approved a spending framework — the precursor to a budget bill — was in 2009.
Unable to resolve partisan spending battles, Congress has resorted to passing of late “omnibus” spending bills or “continuing resolutions” that keep the government running for a few months at a time.
The usual process is for the House and Senate appropriations committees to write and approve 12 spending bills to provide money for all federal agencies and discretionary programs such as defense, education and environmental protection. Then, a small group of negotiators from the House and Senate hammer out compromises for those spending bills, which Congress approves and the president signs into law.
If that procedure isn’t followed, appropriators become less relevant, Haskell said.
“The problem for appropriators is they are they are very important, they do more to direct the work of the federal government than any other committee. But that’s when they finish (funding) bills,” he said. “Appropriators are pulling out their hair right now. … They’re going crazy because they’re finished with all the bills but they can’t get them passed.”
Written by: Raju Chebium, Statesman Journal, Washington Bureau
Original Publication URL: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20130304/NEWS/303040024/Even-without-earmarks-Merkley-s-Senate-Appropriations-Committee-post-still-plum-position?gcheck=1
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
