Monday, February 20, 2006
McCain Wants $10 Million Pork Project
Does Sen. John McCain have a pork barrel problem?
McCain, the Republican nemesis of pork barrel projects, is the force behind a bill that would direct $2 million annually over five years to establish a center at a specified law school to honor a renowned jurist from his home state of Arizona, according to the New York Times.
The measure could be constrused as a classic case of lawmakers' trying to funnel money directly to a home-state institution for a project that should find financing elsewhere. But McCain and his supporters see it differently.
Senior aides to McCain say that he is pursuing the money for the center -- a tribute to the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist -- in the open, transparent way that such special spending pleas should be handled and that he does not consider the proposal an earmark, the type of measure he is attacking in new legislation. Others are not so sure, reported the Times.
"If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one," said Pete Sepp, a vice president at the National Taxpayers Union, who is an ally of McCain in the fight for new rules.
According to the Times, McCain and Sen. Jon Kyl are seeking the money through a free-standing bill introduced in December, an approach that McCain's aides call a far cry from what he finds most objectionable: furtive efforts to slip through last-minute spending projects without prior Congressional scrutiny.
"You can have an issue with what the Rehnquist bill says, but it has gone through exactly the process that should be followed," said Pablo Chavez, general counsel to McCain. "It doesn't have the marks of an earmark."
In their push to rein in the explosion of spending on pet projects, McCain and others are concentrating on those tucked into the final versions of voluminous spending bills without first being approved as policy in a separate measure known as an authorization bill. The earmark bill he has introduced would allow lawmakers new avenues to strip those provisions from legislation and would require new disclosure of such requests and their sponsors.
Some others, mainly outside watchdog groups, take a broader view of what constitutes an earmark, defining it as any provision added to a larger measure in an effort to force spending on a specific project, particularly if the spending is not sought by the relevant federal agency.
Keith Ashdown, vice president for policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said he considered the Rehnquist Center initiative an "earmark in training." Should the proposal advance as a separate bill, Ashdown told the Times, his group will have no objection. But if it is folded into broader legislation, then it could meet the earmark test.
Does Sen. John McCain have a pork barrel problem?
McCain, the Republican nemesis of pork barrel projects, is the force behind a bill that would direct $2 million annually over five years to establish a center at a specified law school to honor a renowned jurist from his home state of Arizona, according to the New York Times.
The measure could be constrused as a classic case of lawmakers' trying to funnel money directly to a home-state institution for a project that should find financing elsewhere. But McCain and his supporters see it differently.
Senior aides to McCain say that he is pursuing the money for the center -- a tribute to the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist -- in the open, transparent way that such special spending pleas should be handled and that he does not consider the proposal an earmark, the type of measure he is attacking in new legislation. Others are not so sure, reported the Times.
"If it doesn't meet the technical term of earmark, it would probably meet the public idea of one," said Pete Sepp, a vice president at the National Taxpayers Union, who is an ally of McCain in the fight for new rules.
According to the Times, McCain and Sen. Jon Kyl are seeking the money through a free-standing bill introduced in December, an approach that McCain's aides call a far cry from what he finds most objectionable: furtive efforts to slip through last-minute spending projects without prior Congressional scrutiny.
"You can have an issue with what the Rehnquist bill says, but it has gone through exactly the process that should be followed," said Pablo Chavez, general counsel to McCain. "It doesn't have the marks of an earmark."
In their push to rein in the explosion of spending on pet projects, McCain and others are concentrating on those tucked into the final versions of voluminous spending bills without first being approved as policy in a separate measure known as an authorization bill. The earmark bill he has introduced would allow lawmakers new avenues to strip those provisions from legislation and would require new disclosure of such requests and their sponsors.
Some others, mainly outside watchdog groups, take a broader view of what constitutes an earmark, defining it as any provision added to a larger measure in an effort to force spending on a specific project, particularly if the spending is not sought by the relevant federal agency.
Keith Ashdown, vice president for policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said he considered the Rehnquist Center initiative an "earmark in training." Should the proposal advance as a separate bill, Ashdown told the Times, his group will have no objection. But if it is folded into broader legislation, then it could meet the earmark test.
