In stimulus bills, earmarks by any other name

Righting wrongs, rewarding service
The provision involving the Medicare regulation for three hospitals demonstrates how easily complexity gets lost in the political wrangling.

The amendment was inserted by Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., in the House Ways and Means Committee. The three hospitals that would benefit are in or near the districts of Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., who sit on the Ways and Means Committee. The president of the Connecticut hospital is also president of the National Association of Long Term Hospitals, which has lobbied for the change.

“Would this be considered an earmark?” Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., pressed Stark at the committee meeting.

“We get information from members about hospitals in their district that are affected,” answered Stark, chairman of the health subcommittee. “We try and always have tried, as far as I can remember the last 25 years, to accommodate the requirements of hospitals in members’ district in so far that we think it’s good policy.”

“Whether you could ascribe an earmark to the member who brought it to us or not,” said Stark, “is up to the person who wants to raise the issue or not.”

Larson spokeswoman Emily Barocas said the measure fixes a mistake in a previous law that unintentionally excluded the three hospitals. The Stark amendment means additional Medicare funding for the hospitals. Association officials and aides to Pomeroy did not return calls.

Stark has also drawn scrutiny for another provision, first reported by The Associated Press, that would reverse a $134 million Medicare cut for hospice care. The National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization has fought against the measure, spending $1 million last year and employing 10 outside lobbyists, according to public records compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

One of those lobbyists was once a top aide to Stark and the Ways and Means Committee. The hospice organization confirmed that he worked on the Medicare provision for the bill. Stark's office said neither the congressman nor the committee had contact with the former aide and lobbyist.

“I don’t think there was undue influence — this provision has been vetted and studied,” said Jon Keyserling, the organization’s vice president for public policy. “Someone has to step up and speak for patients and families who are going to be denied services if this rate cut was allowed to go into effect.”

Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, hasn’t said that Filipino veterans’ compensation would stimulate the economy. The matter is more one of fulfilling a moral obligation made generations ago.

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt enlisted about 470,000 residents of the Philippines, at the time a U.S. commonwealth, to fight the Japanese. Many were captured or killed in the war, including in the Bataan Death March. The president promised compensation, but it was revoked by Congress in 1946.

Since then, Filipino veterans — now aged 85 to 98 — have fought to restore it, and Inouye has been a big supporter. “The nation made a solemn promise,” he said. “This is not the America I know and love.” Under the Senate bill, Filipino vets who are U.S. citizens would get $15,000; noncitizens would get $9,000.

Washington’s new parlor game
Fear of having their handiwork labeled an “earmark” has led some drafters to some awkward circumlocutions. Take this wording from the section of the Senate Appropriations Committee report on $2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers:

“The committee has granted extraordinary discretion to the administration in determining how the funds provided in this act should be expended. … The committee is not recommending funding for specific projects in this act. However, the committee has had extensive consultation with the Corps concerning how the funds provided under this heading could be used in broad program categories.”

Such cryptic language has spawned a Washington parlor game: What do the appropriators  actually mean?  For example, the House bill gives a priority for higher education repairs to institutions “affected by a Gulf hurricane disaster.” Is that Tulane University in New Orleans? The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston?

Clever drafting could give Democrats enough cover to say they met the president’s goal, said Keith Ashdown of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.

“I think it’s been watered down enough that it gives the administration deniability that they can meet that pledge,” said Ashdown, whose group advocates for better disclosure of congressional earmarks. “They can say there are no earmarks in this legislation, but when you look at the details of each provision, the reality becomes murkier.”

The Democrats have backed down on some provisions. Amid criticism, House Democrats pulled $200 million for Washington’s National Mall and a provision extending Medicaid to family planning. Senate Democrats dropped $75 million for programs to help smokers quit and $400 million to fight HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Senators also voted to kill a tax break that would have allowed Hollywood studios to write off production costs for movies and TV shows.

The tempest over earmarking has made for some ironic moments. Take the case of Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, who put out a statement bashing Democrats for projects he deemed questionable.

“I have never been shy about seeking projects in those bills for my constituents,” Young exclaimed, “but we have specific vehicles for that and this bill is not it.”

Young, of course, is the former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. In 2005, he teamed up with former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens to snag one of the most infamous earmarks ever:  $223 million for a project that became known as the “Bridge to Nowhere."

More from msnbc.com Decking the hall? Watch out for dangers Palin draws hundreds at Iowa book signing Images: Picturing climate change   Slideshow: The making of SpaceShipTwo Giving back for the holiday season? Tell us how On Twitter: Breaking news updates | Weird and wild

MORE FROM CAPITOL HILL

Capitol Hill Section Front

Reid tasks 10 senators to find public option fix   Senate to confront abortion in health debate Low turnout predicted for Mass. Senate vote Senate votes on Medicare in Saturday session Timber program becomes vast entitlement Deals cut on health bill may be at peril Baucus defends nominating girlfriend for post Senate preserves long-term care program Fed chief, under assault, defends his record Congress worries over Obama's Pakistan plan Capitol Hill Section Front   Add Capitol Hill headlines to your news reader: