I posed a question in an earlier post on requesting more details on the House rule change giving more transparency to earmarks. I think I may have found my answer from the Christian Science Monitor:
The rule change requires the disclosure of earmarks - funds targeted to members' pet projects - and their sponsors. But effectively, it will mainly apply to spending bills. Thus, it will affect only one of the appropriations bills for the coming fiscal year - the sprawling Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill - because the House has already passed the other 10 spending bills.
Also, there are many loopholes in the new rule. For example: The $223 million for Alaska's proposed "bridge to nowhere," arguably the most famous earmark, might escape scrutiny because it was added to an authorization bill, not a spending bill.
In a move that particularly rankled reformers, the powerful House Ways and Means Committee changed the definition of a tax earmark from one affecting fewer than 100 entities to one affecting only one. So an earmark targeted at two companies, instead of one, wouldn't have to be disclosed. The move excludes many of the most controversial targeted tax breaks from the new rule.
Finally, the earmark-reform rule changes expire at the end of the 109th Congress this year, along with other House rules. Still, supporters say they expect that these rules will be renewed: Not to do so would require a risky vote opposing openness and accountability in government.
In summary, it means a) that only a few earmarks will have transparency, and b) it will end with the 109th Congress unless the rule is voted in again at the beginning of the 110th Congress in January 2007.
I'm with Steve Ellis of the Taxpayers for Common Sense who states "Next year, we will be calling on Congress to enact a 'Leave No Earmark Behind' bill that provides taxpayers complete transparency." Stay on it, Steve!
-Colonel Steve
Recent Comments