Tough Reform for Congress

I'm fairly happy to report that some tough reform bills have been passed by both chambers of Congress. These are a couple of things that I've harped on for some time now and finally we have some action.

In the end this Senate reform bill (S.1) passed 96-2 with 2 not voting. But it was a bit of a rocky journey getting there.

One of the provisions of the bill is a definition of an "earmark". An earmark is an appropriation of money by the Congress to be used for a specific project. Earmarks are often used by Congress to give business to their constituents or certain businesses in their district. Earmarks can total a fairly sizable amount of money during the course of an entire session of Congress. They can be a considerable problem for balancing the budget and controlling the deficit.

The original version of the Senate reform bill, as proposed by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), provided a very tight definition for earmarks that would have only included about 5% of earmarks in Congress. Sen. James DeMint (R-S.C.) sponsored an amendment to the bill that would broaden the definition of "earmarks" which would include closer to 95% of earmarks. DeMint's modification of this language brought the bill very close in line with a similar bill recently passed by the House. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) made a motion to table (kill) the amendment but that motion was struck down 46-51.

The section in this bill covering earmarks basically ensures that the names of the Senators proposing them is attached to the bill and that information will be made publicly available on the Internet 48 hours prior to the final vote on the bill. The bill however does not place limits on the number or costs of earmarks. So I believe there is still room for further reform but this is still a much needed step in the right direction.

The also bill includes many ethics and lobbying reforms. These reforms include requirements for disclosure of lobbying activities, travel restrictions, bans on gifts from lobbyists, and disclosure of travel. Certainly these are all positive things for the American public. I'd like to see further efforts made to reform the ways in which members of Congress interact with lobbyists and special interest groups. I'd also like to see more work done on ethics in Congress. But these steps are a welcome sight indeed.

At one point there was a measure that would have a negative effect on grassroots lobbying groups. The measure would have discouraged groups from organizing drives to contact Congress members about certain bills or issues. Sen. Robert Bennett (R-UT) proposed an amendment that would strip this provision from the bill. His amendment was passed 55-43 and the measure was removed.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CN) proposed an amendment that would add an Office of Public Integrity. This new office would take some of the work of investigating Congress members and put it in the hands of members of the public instead of having Congress watch itself through the ethics committee. Recent scandals helped fuel the request for such an office. Ultimately the Senate rejected this measure for the second year in a row, 71-27.

Republicans tried to have a provision added that would grant the President a sort of virtual "line-item" veto power with regard to finance bills. The measure would provide the ability for the President to strike out specific items from large finance bills without having to veto the entire bill. Congress would then have the ability to approve or deny the President's changes. I have been a supporter of this type of legislation since I first heard of it in the mid 90's. I believe it would make Congress more accountable to their spending instead of being able to slip earmarks for their district into larger spending bills. The larger bills are normally destined to pass Congress and be signed by the President to appropriate money for normal government function. The addition of these other earmarks to the bill is a bit underhanded. Congress people aren't likely to vote down the bill due to a few earmarks within it as they would be accused of trying to undermine the bill as a whole. The same goes for the President. It's hard to veto an entire bill that is necessary to fund certain government programs for the sake of a few smaller earmarks. If the President were allowed to line-item veto the earmarks and sign the bill, that would give Congress the opportunity to debate the earmarks themselves and decide if they are necessary or not. They could either vote to accept the President's veto of those items or deny his vetoes and the bill would be enacted accordingly.

The bill stood at a stalemate due to Republican insistence on this veto measure until Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) offered a compromise to the Republicans allowing them to bring the line-item veto measure to the minimum wage bill which would be debated next week. The Republicans accepted this compromise and the bill was passed with nearly unanimous support from both parties.