(no subject)
You may start hearing within the next day or so about how the "Democratic Congress" voted down an election year moratorium on earmarks. The "earmark moratorium" was an amendment to Joint Resolution 70, otherwise known as the budget for 2009.
Here is the text in full according to The Thomas Library:
SA 4347. Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Corker, Mr. Burr, Mr. Graham, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Inhofe) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 70, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009 and including appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. FISCAL YEAR 2009 EARMARK MORATORIUM.
(a) Bills and Joint Resolutions.--
(1) POINT OF ORDER.--It shall not be in order to--
(A) consider a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee that includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit; or
(B) a Senate bill or joint resolution not reported by committee that includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(2) RETURN TO THE CALENDAR.--If a point of order is sustained under this subsection, the bill or joint resolution shall be returned to the calendar until compliance with this subsection has been achieved.
(b) Conference Report.--
(1) POINT OF ORDER.--It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference if the report includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(2) RETURN TO THE CALENDAR.--If a point of order is sustained under this subsection, the conference report shall be returned to the calendar.
(c) Floor Amendment.--It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a bill or joint resolution if the amendment contains an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(d) Amendment Between the Houses.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--It shall not be in order to consider an amendment between the Houses if that amendment includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(2) RETURN TO THE CALENDAR.--If a point of order is sustained under this subsection, the amendment between the Houses shall be returned to the calendar until compliance with this subsection has been achieved.
(e) Waiver.--Any Senator may move to waive any or all points of order under this section by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(f) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section--
(1) the term ``earmark'' means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
(2) the term ``limited tax benefit'' means any revenue provision that--
(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision; and
(3) the term ``limited tariff benefit'' means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
(g) Fiscal Year 2009.--The point of order under this section shall only apply to legislation providing or authorizing discretionary budget authority, credit authority or other spending authority, providing a federal tax deduction, credit, or exclusion, or modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule in fiscal year 2009.
(h) Application.--This rule shall not apply to any authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if such authorization is not specifically targeted to a State, locality or congressional district.
It looks to be an interesting, if patently useless, piece of legislation. Basically the thing is election year pandering at its worst. Nothing in the legislation actually speaks to the common practice of earmarking. Rather it chooses to address the issue with a "moratorium" for a single election cycle, and would risk 2009 operations in order to get it.
Don't believe me? Then check out the voting record. You'll be hearing a lot about how the "Democratic" Congress wouldn't let this one through, but an actual examination of the vote shows the amendment being defeated by a vote of 29 to 71 against. If you parse it down even further, you'll see five Democrats and one Independent actually voted for it. Among them were Obama, Clinton, Bayh, and Feingold who all appear to be headed for big elections next year. The GOP weren't that much better. Voting against the bill were GOP Senators with either secure spots (Brownback, Cochran, Warner, etc) or ones without a snowball's chance in Georgia (ie: David "it's on the nightstand" Vitters).
So in other words, you're going to hear a lot about this but it would appear to have been what the call a non-starter from its inception. Welcome to another election cycle.
Here is the text in full according to The Thomas Library:
SA 4347. Mr. DeMINT (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Corker, Mr. Burr, Mr. Graham, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Inhofe) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 70, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2009 and including appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 and 2010 through 2013; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. FISCAL YEAR 2009 EARMARK MORATORIUM.
(a) Bills and Joint Resolutions.--
(1) POINT OF ORDER.--It shall not be in order to--
(A) consider a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee that includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit; or
(B) a Senate bill or joint resolution not reported by committee that includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(2) RETURN TO THE CALENDAR.--If a point of order is sustained under this subsection, the bill or joint resolution shall be returned to the calendar until compliance with this subsection has been achieved.
(b) Conference Report.--
(1) POINT OF ORDER.--It shall not be in order to vote on the adoption of a report of a committee of conference if the report includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(2) RETURN TO THE CALENDAR.--If a point of order is sustained under this subsection, the conference report shall be returned to the calendar.
(c) Floor Amendment.--It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a bill or joint resolution if the amendment contains an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(d) Amendment Between the Houses.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--It shall not be in order to consider an amendment between the Houses if that amendment includes an earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit.
(2) RETURN TO THE CALENDAR.--If a point of order is sustained under this subsection, the amendment between the Houses shall be returned to the calendar until compliance with this subsection has been achieved.
(e) Waiver.--Any Senator may move to waive any or all points of order under this section by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(f) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section--
(1) the term ``earmark'' means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process;
(2) the term ``limited tax benefit'' means any revenue provision that--
(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision; and
(3) the term ``limited tariff benefit'' means a provision modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that benefits 10 or fewer entities.
(g) Fiscal Year 2009.--The point of order under this section shall only apply to legislation providing or authorizing discretionary budget authority, credit authority or other spending authority, providing a federal tax deduction, credit, or exclusion, or modifying the Harmonized Tariff Schedule in fiscal year 2009.
(h) Application.--This rule shall not apply to any authorization of appropriations to a Federal entity if such authorization is not specifically targeted to a State, locality or congressional district.
It looks to be an interesting, if patently useless, piece of legislation. Basically the thing is election year pandering at its worst. Nothing in the legislation actually speaks to the common practice of earmarking. Rather it chooses to address the issue with a "moratorium" for a single election cycle, and would risk 2009 operations in order to get it.
Don't believe me? Then check out the voting record. You'll be hearing a lot about how the "Democratic" Congress wouldn't let this one through, but an actual examination of the vote shows the amendment being defeated by a vote of 29 to 71 against. If you parse it down even further, you'll see five Democrats and one Independent actually voted for it. Among them were Obama, Clinton, Bayh, and Feingold who all appear to be headed for big elections next year. The GOP weren't that much better. Voting against the bill were GOP Senators with either secure spots (Brownback, Cochran, Warner, etc) or ones without a snowball's chance in Georgia (ie: David "it's on the nightstand" Vitters).
So in other words, you're going to hear a lot about this but it would appear to have been what the call a non-starter from its inception. Welcome to another election cycle.