Coburn, Flake; Disclosure isn’t enough
By David Baumann
The Politico
May 23, 2007
If Sen. Tom Coburn had his way, this year's appropriations bills would be as kosher as Hebrew National Hot Dogs.
No pork.
But the Oklahoma Republican knows he's going to lose battles to eliminate earmarks from the fiscal 2008 funding measures. So he's seeking some level of accountability for those getting the bacon.
"It's going to be painful," he warned in an interview. People "may think it's over on earmarks, but it's not. I want to highlight again the lack of priority setting."
The scandal that engulfed now-imprisoned former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) brought increased attention to earmarking.
To many, pork projects involved funding for a bridge back home. But the Cunningham case made clear it was much more than that, with the former fighter pilot admitting -- among other things -- that he accepted bribes from defense contractors in exchange for special projects.
The Cunningham scandal and investigations involving former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and other appropriators have demonstrated that huge amounts of money are at stake in the pork barrel process.
Democrats decided to strip earmarks from many of the fiscal 2007 appropriations bills while they attempted to reform the system by making sure that members who sought projects were identified and certified that they had no financial interest in the projects.
The new House Appropriations Committee chairman, Dave Obey (D-Wis.) -- never a big fan of earmarks -- has vowed to cut in half the number of projects in many bills. "By reducing the number of earmarks we can ensure that these projects are adequately vetted and evaluated," Obey said in a February letter to his House colleagues.
But the disclosure requirements aren't enough for Coburn and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a leading House anti-earmark crusader. "You're going to see some fireworks," Flake predicted in an interview.
In the Senate, Coburn will use piles of documents he gathered during an investigation last year when he was chairman of the Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security Subcommittee.
He sent letters to colleges and universities asking about earmarks they had received, their earmark policies and whether they hired outside lobbyists to push their projects. The answers varied, with some well-endowed colleges saying they obtained no earmarks and others saying they worked through their congressional delegations to get what they could.
Then Republicans lost the majority. "I'm limited because I can't follow it (up) because I'm not a chairman anymore," Coburn lamented.
Still, he said he will attempt to require that earmark recipients file reports detailing how the funding was used, including how much money went toward administrative costs.
"In 2008, if a university gets a grant, they're going to have to tell the American people where the money went," he declared.
Coburn said he is not certain how he will offer his plan, but he said it would require grant recipients to report back after they use the federal funds.
Flake isn't sure that the new rule requiring that earmark sponsors be identified will work, adding that a committee conceivably could simply certify that there are no earmarks in a bill and no projects would have to be identified. "I call it the 'Alice in Wonderland' rule," he quipped. "It's pretty easy to get around … if you're determined."
Flake said he is concerned that the House Appropriations Committee might not add its earmarks until a House-Senate conference committee, a move that would make it extremely difficult for him to fight any projects. "This is a huge step backwards on earmark reform," he said.
"Typically, appropriations bills come to the floor with an open rule," Flake continued, adding that he would then have an opportunity to try to eliminate projects. "If they're not scrutinizing the earmarks in committee, that's all we've got. I haven't decided what the selection criteria or the process will be yet."
And that would become even more difficult if earmarks aren't added until conference.
Since there were few earmarks in this year's funding bills, Flake suggested the demand for projects next year will be intense.
"People who didn't get them last time are going to be working overtime," he said. "The lobbyists are going to be working overtime."
Flake could be in for a bit of a surprise, though. While the first appropriations bill has not yet been released, Democrats have promised to drastically decrease the number of earmarks.
For his part, Coburn said he believes that the scandals will have an effect on the process.
"You'll see far fewer earmarks that are appropriations requests because people are vulnerable on them," he said. "The American people are sick of it."
|
