Earmarks Prove Popular, Dangerous
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press
August 2, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Critics say the disclosure requirements could be dodged. They note, for example, that the Senate majority leader could declare that a large spending bill has met all disclosure requirements, and senators would have no means to challenge the conclusion directly from the floor.
Moreover, critics say, recent promises by House leaders to disclose earmarks have proven leaky.
In May, Flake noted that House leaders declared that an emergency supplemental spending bill ''does not contain any congressional earmarks.'' In a House floor speech, he pointed out that Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., had issued a press release the day before headlined: ''Lowey inserts funds in emergency supplemental appropriations bill for critical flood mitigation projects'' in New York, to the tune of $8.6 million.
''I claim no responsibility for any statement made by any member,'' said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis.
Even the imprisonment of lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Duke Cunningham, R-Calif., on corruption charges that included earmark abuses has not dulled lawmakers' appetite for pet projects. One recent study found that earmarks in House legislation went from 3,000 in 1996 to 15,000 in 2005.
And Obey said earlier this year that House members had requested 32,000 earmarks in spending bills for fiscal 2007.
Even those who say the House-passed ethics bill should do more to disclose earmarks stop short of calling for their elimination.
''This is a pivotal moment for Congress, particularly in light of the concerns about mishandling earmarks,'' said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. He will push for greater disclosure requirements, he said, ''but I don't think there's any sense that we ought to do away with earmarks, because then you just relinquish all the power to the bureaucrats.''
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., acknowledged in an interview Wednesday that he may not find enough support to back his demand for greater disclosure of earmarks in the lobbying bill.
That's too bad, DeMint said, because ''earmarks are really where most of the corruption has come from. It is us directing money in return for some favor.''
---
EDITOR'S NOTE -- Charles Babington covers Capitol Hill for the AP.
>> Back -- Page 1 2
Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
++ Discuss this topic in The Forum
Current rating:  4.8 out of 5.0 (15 total votes)
| 
