Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced an amendment to the bill to increase the number of national airspace system testing sites from four to 10, an early stage in fulfilling a promise he made to his home state. Oregon has already scoped out land for aerial drone testing, and Wyden said he’d work with the FAA to get the new sites, according to local news reports.

A spokeswoman for Wyden, Jennifer Hoelzer, defended the proposed increase, saying that “none of the testing sites have been designated yet, and our legislation does not designate where they will be.”

Text Size -

+

reset

Erich Zimmermann, a senior policy analyst for the anti-earmark group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said the Wyden maneuver is an earmark by another name.

“It’s clearly going to benefit specific areas, but it’s not necessarily an earmark by their rules, by their definition,” said Zimmermann. “The narrow definition in the bill is an attempt to direct the funds where the senator wishes them to go — a practice we will probably see more of in the earmark moratorium as members do their best to direct funds to areas in their own states or districts.”

Pro-earmark senators agree with Zimmermann’s assertion, saying the ban won’t change behavior — just words. And that’s not a bad thing, they argue.

Landrieu told POLITICO there are several other ways senators can deliver money for special projects besides traditional earmarks, for example through federal programs targeted at certain states. Members can also put in requests, known as “phone-marking” or “letter-marking,” with federal agencies.

“Congress has not abandoned the power of the purse, and we’ll still work with agencies and try to help our constituents get answers to their needs,” said Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who frequently requested earmarks in the past but said he now supports the ban.

Both Alaska senators sent e-mails to their constituents last week letting them know the state will still receive federal money.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) assured voters that “many of the funding sources we rely on in Alaska are formula-driven, not specific earmarks.” Begich said the ban meant he will have to “be creative when it comes to finding ways to fund the priorities of Alaska’s communities.”

How creative lawmakers will have to get will depend on the specifics of the new rules. For now, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said he will circulate a definition of “earmark,” but he hasn’t yet.

Obama said he will veto any bill that arrives at his desk with an earmark. But when asked, the White House did not respond to questions about how the president plans to define the term.

Senate Republicans adopted the House GOP conference’s clear definition of an earmark, which includes exceptions for a “statutory or administrative-formula-driven or competitive award process,” a window for plenty of wiggle room.