By Douglas Bloomfield
The wave of reform sweeping Capitol Hill is long overdue, but Congress must take care not to let its broom sweep too far in the wrong direction.
As I wrote a few weeks back, prohibiting outside groups like pro-Israel lobbies and Jewish federations from sponsoring missions to Israel for lawmakers and staff will be a great loss.
But that won’t do as much damage to the pro-Israel cause as another move being pushed by reformers on both sides of the aisle — the removal of all spending “earmarks.”
There has been great abuse of earmarks, which are Congressional mandates on spending by the executive branch. Since Republicans took control of both chambers 11 years ago, earmarks have proliferated tenfold.
Most earmarks are inserted behind closed doors and hung like ornaments on must-pass spending bills just before adjournment as favors to big contributors or constituents.
Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.) said Congressional leaders use earmarks to buy the loyalty of their rank-and-file, promising or withholding federal dollars for pet projects in member’s districts.
But some earmarks play a positive role. A total ban, as proposed by reformers like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), would be tossing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.
Such a ban could have a particularly harmful effect on Israel since U.S. aid to the Jewish state has been protected for years by earmarks.
The trick for Congress will be to eliminate the pork-laden special interest earmarks that produce billions in waste every year, while not surrendering the ability for lawmakers to use earmarks to shape policy. That will require a level of nuance and sophistication that has been missing on Capitol Hill.
Congress vs. White House
This is not a partisan issue. Every administration resents Congress meddling in government and has tried to eliminate all foreign aid earmarks.
Without Congressional earmarks designating the amount — and terms — of aid for Israel, an administration would be able to withhold any or all as pressure or punishment over policy differences.
Earmarks are the best example of why Congress must be the highest priority for pro-Israel lobbying — and of why attempts to put executive branch lobbying at the forefront are foolish, self-destructive and stupid.
Earmarks are one of Congress’ most important tools in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East. They are the result of lobbying by the pro-Israel community, and the reason why Congress must continue to be the central focus of Jewish community political activism.
The secret of the Jewish community’s success in building and sustaining pro-Israel American policy is that the real lobbyists are members of Congress. Earmarks are critical tools in their arsenal.
The sordid DeLay-Abramoff saga reveals how deeply big-money interests and far-right ideological groups have reshaped lobbying in Washington.
Congress must move cautiously toward reform, careful to avoid the temptation to do the easy thing by giving the big-money lobbyists — their bread and butter — a pass, while enacting regulations that could hurt issue advocacy groups and impair Congress’s ability to affect foreign policy.
Norman Ornstein, the American Enterprise Institute’s congressional expert, said, “Almost always these reform efforts wind up with unintended consequences. This could be a great opportunity for the administration to expand executive power, and if they do it with the right timing they probably could succeed, at least for a while.”
Successive administrations, with some success, have tried for years to end earmarking in foreign aid bills. Most of the remaining earmarks are for the Middle East, and Israel is the prime beneficiary.
This year’s bill states: ”not less than $2,280,000,000 [in military aid] shall be available for grants only for Israel” plus another $240,000,000 in grant economic assistance as a cash transfer.
In a unique benefit for Israel, it can spend at least $595 million on defense purchases in Israel. Aid for Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon also is earmarked, but they get smaller amounts and more restrictions.
Imagine what would happen if there were no more earmarks and Israel just had to depend on the good intentions of the administration.
Look for the Bush administration to use this reform debate as a way to press for a total ban on foreign aid earmarks. Presidents historically opposed earmarking in the name of flexibility.
A 2004 administration report on foreign aid complained that earmarks “often get in the way of allocating aid selectively.” A ban would be one more way to diminish Congressional influence.
A top priority for pro-Israel lobbyists in the reform debate must be to protect Congress’s ability to set the levels and terms of aid for Israel and its peace partners. It’s not as exciting as an invitation to the White House Chanukah party but it’s a lot more important.
Douglas M. Bloomfield is a Washington, D.C.-based syndicated columnist and a former chief lobbyist for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Loading ...