Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

Demanding a federal budget that is fair, responsible, and meets our nation's priorities

Home :  Federal Budget & Tax : 
Federal Budget & Tax:      News     Blog     Background    



Friday, June 29, 2007

The Capuano Coma -- No Act of Commission

For several months, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) has been responsible for leading the task force charged with reporting a recommendation to Speaker Pelosi about creating an independent commission to hear and advise on ethics complaints against members of the House.

The Capuano task force has stopped meeting, according to Congressional Quarterly ($). Apparently, "some Democrats ... fear that a change in the current ethics process would leave them vulnerable to politically motivated complaints." As opposed to the status quo?

What is the prognosis for the Capuano task force? Says a top Democratic leadership aide: "It's not dead, but it's in a coma."



Posted by Dana Chasin, 04:18:54 PM



Emanuel Amendment Voted Down

The Emanuel amendment to the Financial Services/General Government appropriations bill, which would have defunded part of the Office of Vice President, failed by a vote of 209 to 217 (roll call). The amendment was an attempt to get the OVP to comply with a request for information regarding the US attorneys scandal (See this Think Progress post for more).

Correction: Vice President Cheney's claim was about classified material, which, under an executive order, a National Archives offices oversees (link).



Posted by Matt Lewis, 12:34:31 PM



Thursday, June 28, 2007

GOP Sen. on WH Earmarks: "Hypocrisy? No, Duplicity"

An article in The Hill this morning quotes GOP Sen. Larry Craig (ID), responding to a question about whether President Bush was being hypocritical for requesting hundreds of earmarks even while criticizing them and vowing to cut the number of earmarks in half this year:

"Hypocrisy? No, but one might call that duplicity."

According to the article, Rep. David Obey estimates that Bush had requested over 800 earmarks in the Energy-Water appropriations bill alone. Nevertheless, Bush has promised to veto it, on account of "the excess spending in this bill." Is that what Sen. Craig meant by 'duplicity'?



Posted by Dana Chasin, 02:04:45 PM



Wednesday, June 27, 2007

The Long and Winding Road ... to Conference

On May 24, the House adopted H.R. 2316, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (aka, the lobbying and ethics bill), in a lop-sided 396-22 vote. The Senate passed S. 1, its own version of the bill back on January 18 almost unanimously, 96-2.

The versions differed on the revolving door, or "cooling-off" period during which former lawmakers and staff are barred from lobbying Congress, with the Senate bill doubling the period from the current one-year period to two, at the behest of co-sponsors Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The House included no such provision.

In the intervening five weeks, a silent struggle has been waged over appointment of the Democratic conferees, with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) snubbing Feingold's request to serve and mute about Obama's expression of interest in serving in his place.

Now, per the New York Times this afternoon:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has blocked appointment of Senate conferees on the stalled lobbying bill, casting doubt on the future of the biggest overhaul of ethics and lobbying legislation in a dozen years. [But] according to Senate aides and outside ethics experts, this impasse could be resolved by simply bifurcating Senate and House revolving door rules. Under this proposal, the Senate would end up with stricter revolving door rules than the House.
President of the American League of Lobbying Brian Pallasch seemed perplexed by this notion and worried that the aspiring lobbyists serving as staffers in the Senate would flee: "To say the House has one set of rules and the Senate has another could sow confusion... It could create brain drain."

If conferees cannot be appointed in short order on a bill overwhelmingly supported by both Houses, it will be tempting to say that Mr. Pallasch's concerns have been realized even without this proposal.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 05:36:27 PM



Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Means-Tested Exemption from Lobbying Ban?

True or False: Whether the laws of the United States governing the cooling-off period (currently one year) restrictions for former Congressional staffers to lobby their erstwhile offices apply depends upon the salary of these staffers.

Answer: True (per Public Law 101-194).

Now -- and no cheating -- staffers are exempt from these revolving door restrictions if they:

  • A. Were at no point one of the top-two paid staffers in a Congressional office
  • B. Received a total of $200,000 or more during their tenure as Congressional staffers
  • C. Received less than 75 percent of the salary earned by the member of Congress they served
  • D. Received no compensation at all during their service

Hint: what are the chances that someone chosing an answer at random will get it wrong?



Posted by Dana Chasin, 04:46:38 PM



Tuesday, June 19, 2007

New Earmarks Procedure Approved by House

Casey Stengel, once asked about an unorthodox baseball strategy, replied, "Well, they say it couldn't be done, but it don't always work."

Yesterday, the House formally approved new earmarks rules, permitting points of order on appropriations conference reports if new earmarks have been added during conference. After only twenty mintues of debate following such a point of order, the House will vote on whether to consider the conference report.

The rule only applies to spending, not tax earmarks; it also requires earmark sponsors' disclosure of financial interest in a project. It otherwise is identical to a House rule adopted by the GOP-controled House last October.

In practical terms, the impact of the rule may be limited. Last week, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said this about how votes have gone in his past efforts to challenge earmarks on the House floor: "I get beat like a rented mule."



Posted by Dana Chasin, 10:00:01 AM



Friday, June 15, 2007

Earmark Agreement Achieved: Earmarking Credit

Rep. David Obey and the bipartisan House leadership deserve credit for arriving at an agreement yesterday regarding earmark procedures for most of the FY 2008 spending bills to come before the House floor over the next several weeks and months, providing that members will have the opportunity to review and amend such earmarks as they deem fit.

This agreement should have been unnecessary and the struggle to achieve it left many dismayed. But advocates, the media, ordinary citizens and, indubitably, members of Congress worked hard -- in some cases in the face of potential reprisal -- to restore a key measure of transparency and accountability to the budget-making process.

OMB Watch expresses particular gratitude to its partners in this effort, Americans for Prosperity, the Sunlight Foundation, and Taxpayers for Common Sense.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 05:26:35 PM



Earmarks Impasse Ends -- Obey to Permit Amendments

Late yesterday, the week-long impasse between House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-WI) and the House GOP leadership came to an end, with Obey agreeing generally to include earmarks in FY 2008 spending bills before they come to the floor. He had earlier declared that earmarks would be added in conference committee negotiations -- when bills are no longer subject to amendment -- making the removal of individual earmarks impossible.

Uncertain still are other terms of the agreement, particularly the amount of time and the degree to which these bills would be subject to amendment. The known details about the impact of the deal on specific spending bills are as follows:

  • Homeland Security and Miliatry Construction-VA: No earmarks will be included in these bills until conference, but on June 18 the House is expected to adopt a rule allowing challenges to earmarks added to bills during conference negotiations.
  • Energy-Water: No earmarks will be included in this bill, but the House will act separately on a package of earmarks to be added to the bill prior to conference.
  • The remaining nine bills: Earmarks will be included in these bills when they reach the House floor and, therefore, subject to amendment.

How and why David Obey, with a distinguished 38-year career and reputation as a reformer in Congress, insisted so long on insulating earmarks from meaningful legislative review -- particularly in view of the reform mandate the new Democratic majority rode in on after last November's elections -- has been and will continue to be the subject of speculation in Washington.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 10:39:19 AM



Thursday, June 14, 2007

House Earmarks Agreement -- Deal or Duel?

Rumors circulated throughout the day today on Capitol Hill that some kind of "deal" had been struck between House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-OH) and the GOP House leadership regarding earmarks procedure, an issue that has attracted national media scrutiny this month.

At a morning news conference, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) went so far as to announce that Obey had agreed to let 10 of the 12 FY 2008 spending bills come to the floor prior to conference (that is, while still amendable), with the bills' earmarks included.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) rained on that parade, saying through a spokeswoman during the GOP news conference that "the deal to proceed with the appropriations bills ... is not final."

The deal appears to be hung up over how much floor time should be permitted on a couple of bills pending in the House.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 06:32:10 PM



Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Doan Headlines at Three Ring Circus on Capitol Hill

Embattled GSA Administrator Lurita Doan returned to Capitol Hill today for a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) invited Doan to testify in the continuing saga of her tenure - this time to examine statements made by Doan that impugn the reputation of federal officials who cooperated with a Committee investigation into Ms. Doan's conduct at the General Services Administration. There was plenty of fireworks at the hearing, particularly because of the release one week earlier of a report by the White House's Office of Special Counsel that found Doan had broken the law by violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits the use of government resources for political activity.



Get the full details of the hearing...

Posted by Adam Hughes, 03:46:33 PM



Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Who Says Obey Must Sign Off on 32,684 Earmarks (besides Obey)?

An article in today's Roll Call ($) appears to resolve the central mystery behind Obey's earmarks antics: why in the world must poor Obey himself review each and every one of this year's 32,684 earmark requests, which in turn forces him to wait to include earmarks in spending bills until they are in conference -- after it's too late to remove any earmarks by amendment?

This is the sentence in the article that explains it all:

Obey, under new House rules, must sign off on every earmark.

I didn't recall reading anything about that, so I asked the reporter in question what rule thrusts such a flatly unreasonable task upon Obey. I was directed to this provision of the new House rules on earmarks, H. Res. 6:

SEC. 404. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK REFORM.

"9. (a) It shall not be in order to consider ... a bill or joint resolution not reported by a committee unless the chairman of each committee of initial referral has caused a list of congressional earmarks ... in the bill (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who submitted a request to the committee for each respective item included in such list) or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks.

OK, so Obey has to make sure any earmarks in a bill and the earmarks' sponsor are listed in the bill. That's not so bad. At least he doesn't actually have to read them.

But wait -- Obey's out there convincing reporters that "under new House rules, [he] must sign off on every earmark." Why would Obey make up this authority out of whole cloth?

Could it be that claiming to have to sign off on each of 32,684 earmarks proves a colorable excuse to wait to include earmarks in spending bills until they are in conference -- and therefore unremovable? And that arrogating such a fictitious authority, excuse me, requirement, gives Obey cover to claim unilateral and final discretion to decide the fate of every last earmark? A tempting thought.

Let's get a reporter on this one.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 05:12:02 PM



Thursday, June 07, 2007

Obey's Earmarks Antics Attracting Attention

Once again, House Appropriations chair Rep. David Obey has moved the goalpost on earmarks. Last week, Obey announced that he would ignore reforms adopted by the House on Jan. 5 requiring that earmarks and their sponsors be identified in spending bills when they are introduced. Instead, he said he would delay the inclusion of earmarks into spending bills until they are in conference, when they can no longer be removed from the bill by amendment.

Yesterday, Obey shifted his position. His new rule:

Members will be able to write this committee [Appropriations] if they have any objection to an earmark the conference committee is putting in, and the sponsor of that earmark will have an opportunity to respond to any criticism.

This is a feeble effort, conferring no legislative authority to debate and vote on earmarks. Nothing about this rule permits anyone to remove untoward earmarks that appropriators slip into conference reports, since conference reports are not subject to amendment.

Obey's earmarks antics have earned him bad home-state press, renewed advocates' (including OMB Watch) calls for reform, and, ironically are attracting almost as much attention to earmarks again as someone named Jack Abramoff.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 06:04:59 PM



Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Are House Leaders Slipping on their Ear[mark]s?

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released yesterday shows a 15-point reversal in Americans' approval rate for the Democrats' performance in leading Congress over the last six weeks. On the question of who is "taking a stronger leadership role in the government in Washington these days, (Bush) or (the Democrats in Congress)?" the loss over the same time period is even worse, 22 points.

Meanwhile, the poll showed congressional Democrats losing only seven points on whom Americans trust more to handle the war in Iraq. Something is afoot here.

It's probably hard to pin-point, but maybe editorials like today's from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the St. Petersburg Times (a New York Times subsidiary) are giving citizens the sense that it's same 'ol same 'ol under the Democrats in Congress, for example, regarding earmarks.

House Appropriations chair David Obey (D-WI) defends his "new" earmarks rule -- delaying the addition of earmarks until a bill is in conference, when they can no longer be removed from the bill by amendment -- as follows:

It's going to take weeks to get that screening [of earmarks] done and I'm the person that has to sign off ... As long as I'm in charge, I'm going to make doggone sure that we do everything possible to screen every project.

OK, if you say so, but don't be surprised if you lose Americans whom House leaders promised "the cleanest House in history."



Posted by Dana Chasin, 06:04:42 PM



Rash Report of Reformers' Retreat on Revolving Door

A story by Jeanne Cummings in today's Politico on the status of the lobbying and ethics bill now headed for conference includes this sentence:

The reform community has all but given up on extending from one year to two the so-called revolving-door component that would bar former lawmakers from lobbying their old colleagues.

Ms. Cummings has solid credentials as one of the nation's top political reporters. But she apparenly failed to consult Craig Holman, legislative representative of Public Citizen and founder of the Revolving Door Working Group, who described Cummings' report as "completely inaccurate."

Speaking as a principal member of the reform community, Mr. Holman said, regarding the extension of the bill's revolving-door provision, "we're going full-steam ahead."



Posted by Dana Chasin, 12:04:48 PM



Friday, June 01, 2007

OMB Sets Standard for Tracking FY08 Earmarks

In a memo to "heads of departments and agencies" entitled "Tracking Earmarks in the 2008 Appropriations Process," OMB Director Rob Portman announced yesterday the requirements and timeline for the 2008 earmark tracking and internet disclosure process:

Agencies should report to OMB the number and dollar value of earmarks in each account within seven days after an appropriations bill is reported by the House or Senate Appropriations committee or passes the House or Senate Floor... For Conference committee reports, which are often considered quickly, agencies should expedite their analysis and provide it as soon as possible, but also within no more than seven days.

It is hard to imagine another instance in which the administration has demonstrated a similar commitment to transparency and accountability regarding government spending. Would that additional disclosures -- earmarks' sponsors' names comes to mind -- were also required. And enough with the fixation on cutting earmarks by 50 percent -- the issue with earmarks is quality, not quantity. The Iraq Study Group came into being via an earmark.

But plaudits to Portman who, wholly unexpectedly, is disrupting business as usual for his former colleagues in Congress and doing the public a significant service.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 04:57:11 PM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Appropriations & Spending

Federal Tax Policy

Income/Wealth Inequality

Budget Projections

Government Performance

Estate Tax

State Fiscal Policy

Watcher

Entitlements

Budget Process

Debt & Deficit

Oversight & Enforcement

Transparency

Privatization

Contact Us

Most Recent Entries for Federal Budget & Tax

A Bridge for Sale: Contracting Problems Continue

Notes from the Economy: GDP, Jobless Claims

Steven Pearlstein Wants to be Shown the Money

Splitting Hairs at the Chamber of Commerce

Corporate Taxation: Only on Occasion

Annual Census Report on Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage Released

The Search Engine That Couldn't

CBO: Updated Social Security Projections

Taxing and Spending

A Billion Here, A Billion There

Archived Entries for Transparency

August

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

July, 2006

June, 2006

May, 2006

March, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006