|
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Senate GOP Battling Themselves Over Earmarks
Looks like reforms that would bring increased transparency to earmarking in the U.S. Senate will have to wait a little longer. The Senate Republican caucus postponed a vote yesterday on a package of recommendations developed by five GOP senators earlier this year that would increase disclosure of earmark requests and accessibility of earmark language in legislation. The Hill reports:
The conference was scheduled Wednesday to vote on reforms that were first proposed in April by a GOP task force to make the process of inserting pet projects into appropriations bills more transparent. But due to the heavy business awaiting Senate action before the Fourth of July recess, and since some members wanted more time to review the recommendations, the meeting was delayed until next month at the earliest.
The earmark reform debate continues to divide the GOP caucus as Republican appropriators have voiced concerns about some of the reforms proposed by the five-member task force. Indeed many believe the delayed vote was not due to the main reason cited in press reports - a heavy legislative calendar - but because Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is an appropriator and is particularly sensitive to reforms that would curb earmarking.
Even if the GOP adopts the recommendations as written, it will still require a Senate rule change to implement some of the reforms, such as requiring that earmark language appear in the text of legislation and not in accompanying bill reports. It is nice to see transparency reforms continue in the debate in Congress, and people like Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) should be commended for keeping this issue alive. But increasing access to information about earmarking should really be done in a comprehensive way that links earmark information with bill text and background materials and other online information about Congress. This system should be put online in a central place, be searchable, downloadable, and easily understood by average citizens, and the information must be available before Congress considers legislation - not after.
Posted by Adam Hughes
|