Earmarked Funding: Time for Reform?
Earmark
Cape Cod Times
Paul Crocetti
Boston University Washington News Service
December 14, 2006
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14– Bike paths on the Lower Cape got $7 million to make them longer. The Cape’s public bus line received $2.9 million. And the new park at the Bass River Marina in Dennis got $1.4 million.
Congressman William Delahunt, D-Mass., helped secure these funds over the past two years through a legislative process called earmarking, a subject of much recent debate in Congress. Earmarks are funding secured by a member of Congress for a specific project outside of the ordinary appropriations process.
Proponents say earmarks funnel needed money to legislators’ districts. Critics call this funding “pork,” arguing that the process of securing the money is wrong.
The debate figures to come to a head in the New Year when the new Congress tackles legislation overhauling the lobbying and earmarking processes.
The Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees announced Monday that they would be placing a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is overhauled.
In a press conference last week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that a draft of an ethics overhaul bill, including changes in the earmark process, will be ready by the time the new Congress arrives in Washington on January 4.
The number of earmarks has increased from about 4,000 in 1994 to nearly 16,000 in 2005, McCain said.
“This is disgraceful,” he said.
Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonpartisan group that tracks specific earmarked funding, states that pork increased from $7.8 billion in fiscal year 1994 to $29 billion in fiscal year 2006.
Earmarked funding has to meet certain criteria to be classified as pork. For example, Citizens Against Government Waste defines funding as pork if it is added during conference committee, the time when the House and Senate work out differences between their versions of a bill.
“Too often people confuse the two,” said David Williams, the vice president for policy at the group. “Pork is a project that didn’t go through the proper scrutiny. The way we define pork is a process. The most egregious way is to add funding through conference committee.”
Ninety-six percent of earmarks between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006 were added this way, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Because the conference committee is one of the last steps before a bill goes to the president, most members of Congress don’t see these earmarks before voting on the bills. And often, legislators add earmarks into spending bills that can run hundreds of pages long.
Williams said legislators should not be able to add earmarks during conference committee.
McCain wants a 48-hour period between the conference committee and the final vote, so legislators can have time to read the bills. He also wants more disclosure of earmarks, including how much recipients spent on registered lobbyists. With these rules in place, Congress may have been able to avoid the scandal of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., in which he traded earmarks for bribes.
Delahunt is pushing to require all earmarks be disclosed, along with their sponsors’ identity.
“If members are unable to defend the basis for earmarks, they would not be warranted,” he said. “I’m very confident that [our] earmarks were able to improve the quality of life [for people on the Cape]. The bridges to nowhere don’t exist.”
Delahunt referred to the $223 million in funding that U.S. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, secured to build a bridge between the city of Ketchikan and the island of Gravina (population: 50). Many earmark critics point to this case, dubbed the “Bridge to Nowhere,” as one of the reasons reform is needed.
Delahunt points to funding for Cape wetlands preservation, open space and bike paths as examples of his earmarks that would stand up to the disclosure test.
“These are issues within the district that have had a positive impact on the way of life,” he said.
The funding for the bike path will extend an existing route from Dennis out west towards Barnstable, and Robert Canevazzi, the Dennis town administrator, said this extension would not be possible without the earmarked funding.
“A tremendous amount of work needs to be done to rehabilitate the existing roads into a bike path,” he said.
The new $1.4 million park at Bass River Marina will hopefully feature a boardwalk and kayak rentals, said Margaret Kane, the project’s chairwoman.
She does not believe the funding is pork.
“I think of pork as benefiting a few people,” she said. “This is something that not only benefits West Dennis but the Cape and people who come to the Cape.”
According to Citizens Against Government Waste, the funding for the Bass River project is pork because it was secured in conference committee.
But Cape Cod is not a hotspot for pork, Williams said. He noted that states such as Alaska and West Virginia receive the “lion’s share” of pork. For example, in 2005 alone, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, brought $325 million in pork to his home state, according to the group’s Web site, cagw.org.
“The people of Cape Cod have to pay for other people’s pork,” Williams said. “They have to pay for other people’s nonsense.”
According to David King, a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, there is no such thing as a good earmark.
“It’s Congress at its worst,” he said. “It often smells of corruption, in the public view. The justification for earmarks is almost entirely political.”
But without the $2.9 million that Delahunt secured for the Cape bus line, there would not be a new facility for the buses, according to Joseph Potzka, the administrator at Cape Cod Regional Transit Authority.
“We needed a new facility,” said Potzka, adding that he hopes it will open next month. “[The old one] was way undersized.”
Delahunt’s office approached the Transit Authority about the issue, Potzka said.
“Delahunt’s Hyannis office was very active in working with the Cape Cod Transit Task Force,” he said.
Often, though, a group will hire a lobbyist to help secure funding. The lobbyist then works with the congressman from the district.
But in the wake of the Cunningham scandal, members of Congress have to be more cautious about their earmarks.
“There should be more openness and transparency,” said one former House staffer who works at a lobbying firm. He noted that the firm does not specialize in appropriations lobbies and spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss his work with the media. “Earmarks that have come under scrutiny are egregious, dark of night type of things. I think that [disclosure] will solve 99 percent of the problems.”
King does not think an earmark overhaul will happen.
“The people who benefit are the ones who change the rules,” he said.
But Democrats have pledged to take action.
One key legislator it will come down to is Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., the incoming chairman of the Appropriations Committee. In the past, Obey has been known for securing millions of dollars in earmarks for his district, something he notes on his Web site.
But in a statement released this week, he said reform is necessary.
“We will work to restore an accountable, above-board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress.”
Kirstin Brost, spokeswoman for the Democratic side of the House Appropriations Committee, predicted an overhaul of the earmarking rules will be passed in January.
She noted that funding can be misused, citing the “Bridge to Nowhere” as an example. But it can also be used for projects such as more body armor for troops.
“Funding like that is very valuable,” she said. “It is important for members to meet the needs of their constituents and not abuse the system.”
So should the number of earmarks decrease?
“We need to take each earmark by itself,” Delahunt answered. “I think each one deserves an examination. That will restore confidence [in the process].”
###
