As Congress toils through the process of establishing self-regulation of lobbying and ethics issues, most proposals continue to overlook budget process reform that is critically needed to address corruption and open the process in Washington. Despite new legislation recently introduced that to some extent addresses the role of the budget process in the larger reform picture, no proposal gets all the parts right, nor does any go far enough to truly have a significant impact. Since we last reported on congressional efforts to respond to the fallout of the Jack Abramoff scandals, a few new bills have been introduced that contain positive proposals to bring more transparency to the legislative process, particularly concerning budget earmarks. Sens. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Trent Lott (R-MS), Sen. Barrack Obama (D-IL), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have introduced proposals to outlaw the inclusion of extraneous provisions in conference reports, open up conference committee procedures, and curtail the appropriations of funds for unauthorized programs or projects. The resolution cosponsored by Lott and Feinstein (S. Res 365) would do three things. First, it would establish a 60-vote point of order against any provisions or language in conference reports that has not been separately approved by either chamber. Second, it would require all bills, amendments, and conference reports (both appropriations and authorizations) to include a separate list of all earmarks in the measure, the identity of the member who proposed the earmark, and an explanation of the essential government purpose of the earmark. The resolution would also require members to file requests for earmarks with the Secretary of the Senate and have those requests printed in the Congressional Record. Finally, it would require all conference reports to be available to members and the public on the Internet at least 24 hours in advance of consideration of the report. Unfortunately, the 24-hours waiting period in the resolution is too short to allow for full analysis of long and complex conference reports, and deliberations and details of conference committees will remain largely hidden under the Lott/Feinstein resolution. Obama's bill (S. 2179) would resolve this by opening conference committee deliberations. It would establish the sense of the Senate that all conference committees be open meetings of all conferees that are publicly available or televised; that adequate notice of such meetings be given, and that members be allowed to engage in full debate of pertinent matters. In addition, S. 2179 would require one representative of the majority and minority parties to sign a pledge that all Senate conferees had the chance to vote on all amendments and other proposition of the committee; that any motions to instruct conferees have been considered and publicly voted on in the conference; and that the minority was offered the chance to submit minority views for the joint statement of the managers. Finally, Obama's bill would require a list of all earmarks in bills to be available to members and the public (via the Internet) at least 72 hours before consideration; the bill would include a waiver for this requirement with approval of two-thirds of the Senate. Both the Obama and Lott/Feinstein bills have merit. The extended wait period before consideration in Obama's would allow for thorough analysis of the earmarks in bills while not excessively slowing down the work of the Senate. Also making materials available on the Internet, not simply in the Congressional Record, is crucial to creating transparency for the process. The Lott/Feinstein bill would limit the ability of powerful members of the House and Senate who can insert provisions agreed to during back-room deals without the knowledge or approval of either full chamber. McCain's bill (S. 2265) goes further than either the Lott/Feinstein or Obama legislation, allowing senators to raise a point of order on the floor against any earmark in an appropriations bill, unless the earmark has been authorized in separate legislation. Sixty senators would then be required to support the earmark, or it would be stripped from the appropriation bill and the level of funding allotted to the bill would be reduced. McCain would also require entities receiving federal earmarked funds to disclose any lobbying expenditures they made during the previous year. McCain's requirement to remove not only the earmark, but also to lower the generic funding in appropriations bills is truly unique among this year's budget process reform proposals, in that it would actually lower the level of spending if earmarks are removed. McCain's proposals would transfer some power from the appropriations committees to the authorizing committees by exempting authorized earmarks from a point of order, which if enacted would likely create tension between the chairs of appropriation and authorizing committees. No one single proposal is ideal and a combination of the three would do the most good in the current political environment on Capitol Hill. OMB Watch supports Lott/Feinstein bill's requirement that all bills, amendments, and conference reports for both appropriations and authorizations include a list of earmarks, the requesting Member's identity, and an explanation of the essential government purpose of the earmark. However, we believe that the waiting period should be extended from 24 to 72 hours, as Obama proposes, and the definition of earmark should be expanded to include spending and authorizations, as well as "limited tax benefits," as proposed by Rep. David Obey (D-WI). Finally, members should be required to disclose who has requested the earmark, and, if a lobbyist, on whose behalf the request is being made, and all earmark disclosure information should be made available in a free, searchable database that includes current and past years.