posted November 15, 2006 09:23 PM            

Every year, members of Congress are approached by dozens of constituent groups ranging from schools, hospitals, non-profits, city and state governments to the private sector requesting funding for projects or programs. Because members have a strong grasp on the needs of their districts, it is safe to assume they know which projects deserve federal support. Without earmarks, thousands of groundbreaking medical, science, energy and defense projects, along with critical infrastructure investments for flood control and highways, would go unfunded.

As elected and accountable representatives of the American people, members should set high standards for carefully selecting which projects receive federal funding. Personally, my starting answer is "no" on all spending requests, and "yes" has to be earned. I will approve an earmark only if it is absolutely essential and fits within the federal government's limited responsibilities. I proudly publish all my earmarks and my request letters to the Appropriations Committee on my website.

Eliminating earmarks will not save taxpayers money because the invisible bureaucracy will simply spend it. Earmarks are simply a way of directing budgeted money to specific projects. Instead of concentrating solely on earmarks, which account for about 1% of all federal spending, Congress must reform entitlement programs, which are the real source of annual deficits.

Any debate over meaningful budget reform should start with a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Forty-nine states already have some form of a constitutional requirement for a balanced budget. We also need to create a deficit reduction account where all spending cuts can be deposited to help balance the budget.

"Earmark" has become a bad word because a few members have abused the system, but that does not mean Congress should surrender its constitutional authority to direct federal spending to unelected bureaucrats who rarely step foot outside of Washington.

Rep. John Culberson (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, serves on the House Appropriations Committee.

Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

posted November 15, 2006 09:25 PM            

"Earmarks" - also known as "spending with a Zip Code" - are provisions stuck in bills by members of Congress to direct your tax dollars to politically favored recipients.

Thousands of earmarks have been stuffed into the spending bills pending before the lame-duck Congress this month - including $390,101 for honey bee research in Baton Rouge, and $250,000 for a planetarium in Kirksville, Mo.

Pork and Congress have always gone together, but the indiscriminate process for funneling money to projects like these has gone radically, almost absurdly, out of control. In 1991, according to the fiscal watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, Congress made fewer than 600 earmarks; by last year, the number had grown to almost 14,000 - many of them stealthily inserted in bills at the last minute, immune to review or challenge.

Along the way, one member of Congress went to prison for having traded earmarked spending for bribes. Others have directed money to special interests that gave them campaign contributions or hired family members and former aides as lobbyists.

Most members insist that the money they earmark is righteously spent, that they know better than federal, state and local agencies that actually have to set priorities. Yet if members were as proud of this process as they say, all earmarks would have sponsors' names attached. Too often, though, it's impossible to know who authored a provision or whom it's intended to benefit.

Virtually the entire earmark explosion occurred while Republicans controlled Congress, and that wretched excess helped doom the GOP majority. Now come the Democrats, promising to clean things up. There's reason to be wary:

•Many Democrats love earmarks as much as their GOP colleagues. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who's in charge of setting the moral tone for the new House majority, told reporters in March: "There are many earmarks that are very worthy - all of mine, as a matter of fact."


•The man Pelosi has endorsed to be the No. 2 House Democratic leader, Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., got at least $79 million worth of earmarks in the 2006 defense appropriations bill alone, according to a count by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Pelosi told USA TODAY last week she's determined to drag the process into the daylight, a welcome if partial step. In January, she plans to ask Democrats to approve new rules that would require every earmark to have a publicly named sponsor, require sponsors to disclose any financial interest in the earmark, and bar using earmarks to influence votes. An ethics bill she has backed would require a delay before votes on spending bills to allow time to scrutinize earmarks.

But what about completely reversing that rabid, Republican-led earmark explosion? Well, that's not part of Pelosi's playbook.

Even the most determined crusaders concede they'll never eliminate earmarks, but if members of the new Congress wanted to convince the public they're serious about ethics, they could change rules that make earmarks virtually impossible to challenge and pare them back to 1991 levels.

Disclosure alone won't get there. "That works if we have some shame," says Rep. Jeff Flake (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., an earmark critic. "I think we're beyond shame."

Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.