This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Nov. 30, 2010 - WASHINGTON - The Senate on Tuesday defeated an amendment -- whose most outspoken Democratic proponent was U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. -- that would have imposed a three-year moratorium on congressional earmarks to spending bills.
The 39-56 vote against the amendment, offered by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to a food safety bill, fell far short of the 67 votes that would have been required to suspend Senate rules and approve it. However, earmark opponents indicated afterward that the test vote -- with 10 more senators supporting the earmark ban than had backed a similar measure in March -- may encourage future efforts to limit earmarks.
"I don't think it's the right way to spend public money," McCaskill said during the debate on the amendment. "In my state, some of the projects that have received earmarked funds are wonderful. ... It's the way in which the money is expended that is the problem." She contended that "earmarking is about who you are. It's about what committee you sit on. It's about who you know."
McCaskill was not available for comment immediately after the vote, but a spokeswoman, Maria Speiser, told the Beacon that the senator "is committed to making sure that this is not the last time that the Senate votes on banning earmarks. This is an amendment she hopes to revive in the new Congress."
Among the Senate Democrats who voted against the earmark moratorium was U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the deputy Senate majority leader and a member of the Appropriations Committee, which has the most influence in tacking earmarks onto spending bills.
"I have an important responsibility to the state of Illinois and the people I represent to direct federal dollars into projects critically important for our state and our future," he said. Contending that "there is full disclosure in my office of every single request for an appropriation," he added: "This kind of transparency is virtually unprecedented."
New Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican who was just sworn into office Monday, voted for the ban.
Earlier this month, Senate Republicans adopted a voluntary two-year moratorium on earmarks, beginning in the Congress that convenes in early January. But eight Republican senators voted against the earmark ban on Tuesday, and U.S. Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo. -- who did not vote on the amendment Tuesday -- has been a vocal supporter of the earmark process.
"Eliminating earmarks is the cheapest way in town to paint oneself as a fiscal conservative," Bond said in a statement after the vote. Aides said he missed the vote because he had a long-scheduled commitment for Tuesday morning and was unable to change it in time for the vote, which originally had been scheduled to occur Monday night.
Bond, a member of the Appropriations Committee, has added dozens of Missouri-related earmarks to FY 2011 spending bills -- none of which has yet received final approval. It is not yet clear whether the final spending package approved by Congress for this fiscal year will include those and other earmarks.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a sponsor of the Coburn amendment who has fought earmarks for years, described earmarking as a "corrupt practice" and a "bipartisan disease" that involves senators from both parties. In his speech, McCain contended that earmarks invite corruption, encourage lobbyists who focus on getting earmarks, encourage higher spending (by getting legislators to support bloated spending bills because they contain their earmarks), and distort budget priorities.
On the opposing side, U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hi., the self-proclaimed "No. 1 earmarks guy" who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, argued the total value of earmarks is lower than it used to be, and the process by which they are approved is much more transparent because of reforms Democrats put into place in recent years. "The internet makes all earmark requests available to the press and the public," Inouye said. "Where is the so-called corruption? Where are the 'secret' deals?"
McCaskill scoffed at such arguments and contended that -- despite the requirements that earmarks be listed on publicly available sites -- the process remains fundamentally unfair. "If we are brutally honest with the American people, we will tell them that that is a process we just don't want them to see," she said. "If this is such a fair process, if this is something we should be proud of, then I want someone to come to this floor and explain to me how they decide who gets the money."
Since the Nov. 2 election, support is growing to restrain or end earmarking, which accounts for about $16 billion a year in spending -- less than half of 1 percent of the total budget. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who supports earmarks, said that opponents who claim that slashing earmarks would help trim the budget are wrong. "It's like saying: The best way to lose weight is to shave."
While McCaskill's future focus is on offering an earmark moratorium in the next Congress, which starts in early January, some Republicans would like to strip earmarks from pending appropriations bills for fiscal 2011.
According to a Politico report, incoming House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, recently warned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that he would not accept any earmarks in the 2011 appropriations bills. But Democrats, who will lose control of the House in the new Congress, still control a majority in the current lame-duck session, and the Senate remains under Democratic control.