Both CongressDaily and Roll Call (Steven Dennis’ article from today pasted in at bottom) have reported that House Appropriations Chairman Obey has declared that he is not going to include any House spending earmarks until the appropriations bills get into conference with the Senate. Well, he’s being open about pulling down the shades on transparency. After all the scandals and embarrassment, lawmakers are going to transparently hide the earmarks from the public. Supposedly, the idea is that this will afford the committee more time to thoroughly vet the earmarks before making them public. Taxpayers are being told to just trust the spending barons in the Capitol. That time has passed. The public should be able to judge for themselves. If making earmarks public holds up the spending bills, Congress can cancel a few summer vacations to work overtime.

Chairman Obey’s plan is treat the public like mushrooms – keep them in the dark and feed them manure. Keeping the earmarks under lock and key and out of sight is the opposite of openness and transparency.

Air dropping earmarks into conference reports was recognized problem in previous Congresses. Rep. Obey’s prescription makes the bad old days look like the golden oldies. Because of problems with air dropping in earmarks in conference, the Senate earmark and ethics bill included a provision to tighten up existing rules and end this abusive practice. I have pasted in the relevant sections from S.1 (the earmark and ethics bill the Senate passed and is languishing in the House). The existing rules meant to stop this practice are in House Rule XXII (paragraph 9) and Senate Rule XXVIII (paragraph 2).

—

From S. 1:

SEC. 102. OUT OF SCOPE MATTERS IN CONFERENCE REPORTS.

(a) IN GENERAL- A point of order may be made by any Senator against any item contained in a conference report that includes or consists of any matter not committed to the conferees by either House.

(1) For the purpose of this section `matter not committed to the conferees by either House’ shall include any item which consists of a specific provision containing a specific level of funding for any specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity, when no such specific funding was provided for such specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity in the measure originally committed to the conferees by either House.

(2) For the purpose of Rule XXVIII of the Standing Rules of the Senate `matter not committed’ shall include any item which consists of a specific provision containing a specific level of funding for any specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity, when no such specific funding was provided for such specific account, specific program, specific project, or specific activity in the measure originally committed to the conferees by either House.

The point of order may be made and disposed of separately for each item in violation of this section.

(b) DISPOSITION- If the point of order raised against an item in a conference report under subsection (a) is sustained, then–

(1) the matter in such conference report shall be stricken;

(2) when all other points of order under this section have been disposed of–

(A) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the House, and concur with a further amendment, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report that has not been stricken (any modification of total amounts appropriated necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from the conference report shall be made);

(B) the question shall be debatable; and

(C) no further amendment shall be in order.

(c) Supermajority Waiver and Appeal- This section may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of 3/5 of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of 3/5 of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

Obey to Hold Earmarks Until Conference

By Steven T. Dennis,
Roll Call Staff

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Tuesday he would not include earmarks in appropriations bills until they reach conference, angering some of his Republican counterparts and prompting accusations that Democrats were going against their pledge to reform and bring transparency to the earmarking process.

Obey said because of the delay of the deadline for earmark requests Appropriations ranking member Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) had sought, along with the crush of business the committee has dealt with since the beginning of the year, the spending panel has not had time to fully vet each earmark.

“We’ve been a little busy, first off, dealing with last year’s mess” and with the war, Obey said.

Obey said by waiting until conference reports, he will have more time to make sure abusive, embarrassing earmarks do not make the final cut.

“It’s my job to protect the committee,” he said.

Any such earmarks dropped into the conference report will comply with House disclosure rules, Obey promised.

“If we choose to insert earmarks in conference, it will be under the rules that require every one to be inserted by name,” he said.

But Republicans complain that Obey’s decision effectively bars Members from attempting to strike individual earmarks on the House floor, and they fear Democrats could use the threat of losing earmarks as a club over Republicans.

Lewis himself ripped Obey’s plan. He said he did not seek as long an extension on earmark requests as Obey granted, and he complained that consideration of Bush administration earmarks also was being delayed.

“It’s a fundamental violation of our committee, and our committee wouldn’t be around for long if we do that,” Lewis fumed, adding that under Obey’s plan, “You set aside a pool of money that just sits there,” until Obey decides in conference how to spend it.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who offered 39 amendments on the floor to strip earmarks last year, albeit with scant success, complained air-dropping earmarks into conference reports would mean none would see the light of day until it was too late to do anything about them.

“As bad as the earmark process is now, this would make it immensely worse,” Flake said. Flake noted that he had praised the Democratic earmark reforms in January as at least better than what the Republicans had managed to accomplish.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) said Obey’s plan could make sense if his real aim is to get the Senate to show its hand on earmarks first, but he said Obey needs to reassure Republicans that their earmarks will not be shortchanged.

“If Members think it’s going to be majority rules in conference, it’s going to be tough to get Republican support,” Kingston said.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Texas), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said Democrats had been running away from earmark reforms, citing the allegation that Appropriations subcommittee on Defense Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.) had threatened the earmarks of Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).

“George Orwell would be proud to hear a party say they will be at forefront of reforming the earmarking process only to do the opposite,” Hensarling said. “I think the Democrats have spoken loudly and clearly that they don’t intend to do anything about the earmark mess. They are in full retreat.”

Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), said the move “seems like another broken promise when it comes to delivering an open and deliberative Congress.” Kennedy said limiting the review of earmarks to conferences could increase the chances for mischief, not decrease them.

Obey dismissed the GOP’s complaints, specifically those of Lewis.

“I don’t know who Jerry is to lecture anyone about how to pass an appropriations bill,” Obey said, noting last year’s appropriations logjam.

Obey also said that as far as his treatment of administration earmarks are concerned, he was trying to engage in a “civics lesson that earmarks don’t start with the Congress, they start with the executive branch.” Obey said the bills will spell out the administration’s requests and earmarks in detail.

“If that offends Jerry, that’s too bad,” Obey said.