Here's how bad it is.

In the first week of May, Congress passed a 1,665-page behemoth of a bill to fund federal programs for the fiscal year that started last September. And the House and Senate haven't even considered a budget resolution for the fiscal year starting in September.

Of course, that 1,665-page monster was a "must pass" piece of legislation. If it wasn't enacted, huge parts of the federal government would shut down.

And so members of Congress were deprived of their right to make decisions about how – and if – individual programs should be funded.

And anytime you have a 1,665-page bill, crazy things happen.

Take the case of a CFPB study on its use of the exemption it has to leave small financial institutions out of its rules.

The study was outlined in the House Appropriations Committee report on the Financial Services Appropriations bill – "The Committee directs the Bureau to report to [congressional committees] within 120 days of enactment of this Act, on how it has used its authority under section 1022 in rulemakings to exempt certain classes, any plans to revisit previous rulemakings to more carefully tailor or grant exemptions to rules that have been especially burdensome, and the process for the Bureau to consider exemptions to community institutions in future rulemakings."

Fine. It's right there in print. Except that bill never was enacted, so the report is not required.

Jump ahead to the 1,665 page disaster that Congress passed the first week of May.

The report on that bill states, "Where the House or Senate has directed the submission of a report, that report is to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of both the House of Representatives and the Senate."

Sounds like the report is required, right?

But another section of the report requires the CFPB to prepare a detailed report on its budget.

Then it states, "All other directive report language regarding the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is not adopted."

What?

Is the report required or not?

When contacted, folks on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees agreed – it's not required.

Now, granted, that's a minor detail. But how many confusing things like it were there in this 1,665 page bill?

Anyway, CUNA doesn't have to worry about a lapse in funding because it's not subject to the appropriations process, right?

Not yet, at least.

Want to make Washington work better? Bring back earmarks. Earmarks were specific projects for which funding was included in appropriations bills. Also called "pork."

For a long time, these projects were hidden in appropriations bills and it took intrepid reporters hours and hours to find them.

Then, in the spirit of good government, Congress decided that individual earmarks should be spelled out in appropriations bills, with the requester specified.

Then, after a few major scandals, congressional Republicans banned them altogether.

That was a mistake. Earmarks were the coin of realm on Capitol Hill.

Are you a few votes short on a piece of legislation? Find some House member who's on the fence, offer them funding for a transportation project and you'll be surprised at how fast that bill will pass.

Granted, some members represented the interests of big campaign contributors, but in most cases, they were used for local projects. After all, members of Congress love ground-breaking ceremonies.

Former House Appropriations Committee staff director Jim Dyer was up front about the practice.

"What grew under the Gingrich era – but not so much under the Gingrich era as under the [Dennis] Hastert era – was the notion that we would use earmarked funds as a big reward, if you will, for help in other areas," he told the University of Virginia's Miller Center, a public policy center. "Hastert was actively a part of it himself. He got a lot himself. They all did. I worked with [Tom] Delay on a whole bunch of issues, trying to get earmarks in support of trade votes and things like that."

Yeah, it smells a bit. On the other hand, Congress needs all the help it can get in getting things done and a few libraries here and there might help.

David Baumann is a Correspondent-at-Large for CU Times. He can be reached at [email protected].