|
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Who Says Obey Must Sign Off on 32,684 Earmarks (besides Obey)?
An article in today's Roll Call ($) appears to resolve the central mystery behind Obey's earmarks antics: why in the world must poor Obey himself review each and every one of this year's 32,684 earmark requests, which in turn forces him to wait to include earmarks in spending bills until they are in conference -- after it's too late to remove any earmarks by amendment?
This is the sentence in the article that explains it all:
Obey, under new House rules, must sign off on every earmark.
I didn't recall reading anything about that, so I asked the reporter in question what rule thrusts such a flatly unreasonable task upon Obey. I was directed to this provision of the new House rules on earmarks, H. Res. 6:
SEC. 404. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK REFORM.
"9. (a) It shall not be in order to consider ... a bill or joint resolution not reported by a committee unless the chairman of each committee of initial referral has caused a list of congressional earmarks ... in the bill (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who submitted a request to the committee for each respective item included in such list) or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks.
OK, so Obey has to make sure any earmarks in a bill and the earmarks' sponsor are listed in the bill. That's not so bad. At least he doesn't actually have to read them.
But wait -- Obey's out there convincing reporters that "under new House rules, [he] must sign off on every earmark." Why would Obey make up this authority out of whole cloth?
Could it be that claiming to have to sign off on each of 32,684 earmarks proves a colorable excuse to wait to include earmarks in spending bills until they are in conference -- and therefore unremovable? And that arrogating such a fictitious authority, excuse me, requirement, gives Obey cover to claim unilateral and final discretion to decide the fate of every last earmark? A tempting thought.
Let's get a reporter on this one.
Posted by Dana Chasin
|