Misblog

When senate republicans offered an amendment¹ to provide broader and greater transparency of "earmark" (aka pork spending) usage (S. 1) democrats responded by stalling. Their "stall" is intended to give them time to kill ("table" in legislative parlance) the legislation.

The efforts by senate republicans to provide greater and broader transparency of earmark usage are welcomed. The senate democrats stalling tactics are not.

We need broad and great transparency of "earmark" usage, easily accessible by the public.

SEC. 103. EARMARKS.
The Standing Rules of the Senate are amended by adding at the end the following:

RULE XLIV

earmarks

1. In this rule--

(1) the term `earmark' means a provision that specifies the identity of a non-Federal entity to receive assistance and the amount of the assistance; and

(2) the term `assistance' means budget authority, contract authority, loan authority, and other expenditures, and tax expenditures or other revenue items.

2. It shall not be in order to consider any Senate bill or Senate amendment or conference report on any bill, including an appropriations bill, a revenue bill, and an authorizing bill, unless a list of--

(1) all earmarks in such measure;

(2) an identification of the Member or Members who proposed the earmark; and

(3) an explanation of the essential governmental purpose for the earmark;

is available along with any joint statement of managers associated with the measure to all Members and made available on the Internet to the general public for at least 48 hours before its consideration.

Web: Senate Democrats stall pork-reform vote

-----notes-----

1. Amendment 11 broadens earmarks to include limited tax benefit, or a limited tariff benefit.

Of course one wonders why republicans waited to become the minority before expressing concern about who receives the limited favors of Congress.

Technorati Tags: earmarks, pork spending, senate

Post change log:

• added earmark section 103 from S. 1 legislation, DeMints amendment 11 to amendment 3 which amends S. 1, and note 1; Jan 12, 2007, 21:19