News
May 16 2008
A fish story: McCaskill can't throw back earmark
The Senate was on the verge of passing the final version of the farm bill this morning. More than $280 billion over five years for food and nutrition programs, crop subsidies and more.
After months of haggling, the end was finally in sight.
"Mr. President?" said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Uh oh.
"I would like to raise a point of order."
Something was fishy.
Indeed. She wanted to kill a provision that gave $170 million to salmon fishermen in California, Oregon and Washington whose communities had suffered because their Pacific Ocean fishing areas had been closed.
But the money was part of what’s known on Capitol Hill as an "air-dropped earmark." It was added without any hearings or debate after the House and Senate versions of the farm bill went to conference for lawmakers to settle on a final bill.
McCaskill objected because, besides being air-dropped, the money had nothing to do with farming and violated ethics reform rules adopted in January 2007.
The ethics bill was the first bill the new Democratic-led Senate – and McCaskill as a freshman lawmaker – had voted on.
"The practice of putting projects in bills during conference without input from either the House or the Senate must stop," McCaskill said later. "It shouldn’t matter whose projects they are."
Did we mention that the author of the salmon earmark was Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House and the most powerful woman in the galaxy?
If McCaskill were successful, the Pelosi earmark would be stripped from the nearly 700-page bill. The Senate would vote on the salmon-less version, then send that back to the House, which had already approved what it assumed was the final bill.
Sen. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat in charge of the legislation, objected. So the Senate voted on whether to overrule McCaskill. Sixty votes were needed. Harkin squeaked by with 62.
The Senate then passed the farm bill with McCaskill voting "aye."
Aides said that she never objected to the bill itself, but felt she needed to attempt to uphold the reforms that the Senate said it would follow, but often doesn’t.
"Obviously there are political risks with making a stand like this," said McCaskill Spokeswoman Adrianne Marsh. "Today may present some obstacles in the future. But people will understand where she’s coming from and that she’s been consistent."
After months of haggling, the end was finally in sight.
"Mr. President?" said Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Uh oh.
"I would like to raise a point of order."
Something was fishy.
Indeed. She wanted to kill a provision that gave $170 million to salmon fishermen in California, Oregon and Washington whose communities had suffered because their Pacific Ocean fishing areas had been closed.
But the money was part of what’s known on Capitol Hill as an "air-dropped earmark." It was added without any hearings or debate after the House and Senate versions of the farm bill went to conference for lawmakers to settle on a final bill.
McCaskill objected because, besides being air-dropped, the money had nothing to do with farming and violated ethics reform rules adopted in January 2007.
The ethics bill was the first bill the new Democratic-led Senate – and McCaskill as a freshman lawmaker – had voted on.
"The practice of putting projects in bills during conference without input from either the House or the Senate must stop," McCaskill said later. "It shouldn’t matter whose projects they are."
Did we mention that the author of the salmon earmark was Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House and the most powerful woman in the galaxy?
If McCaskill were successful, the Pelosi earmark would be stripped from the nearly 700-page bill. The Senate would vote on the salmon-less version, then send that back to the House, which had already approved what it assumed was the final bill.
Sen. Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat in charge of the legislation, objected. So the Senate voted on whether to overrule McCaskill. Sixty votes were needed. Harkin squeaked by with 62.
The Senate then passed the farm bill with McCaskill voting "aye."
Aides said that she never objected to the bill itself, but felt she needed to attempt to uphold the reforms that the Senate said it would follow, but often doesn’t.
"Obviously there are political risks with making a stand like this," said McCaskill Spokeswoman Adrianne Marsh. "Today may present some obstacles in the future. But people will understand where she’s coming from and that she’s been consistent."
