|
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Authorization Earmark an Oxymoron?
Though President Bush signed the ethics and lobbying bill several weeks ago, some conservative critics now contend that the bill is conspicuously lacking, since it applies only to earmarks in appropriations -- and not authorization -- bills.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says he reads the new earmark rules — and that the Senate Parliamentarian will back up his reading of the rules — to not ban Members from including new earmarks into authorization bills during conference talks with the House.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), replies that he had intended the bill to cover both appropriations and authorization bills. But in a Sept. 24 letter to DeMint, Reid informed DeMint that because of a second provision — also written by DeMint that was added to the bill, which does not explicitly include authorization bills in the ban — the provisions only will apply to appropriations measures.
When earmark abuse occurs, it involves the unjustified use of taxpayer money — not the setting of authorization levels. It is appropriate to require full disclosure of all items that involve specific member-requested projects, including authorizations, but only those items that actually spend taxpayer money should be subject to the extraordinary procedure of allowing a point of order to strike a provision that is within the scope of conference from a conference report.
Is an authorization earmark an oxymoron?
Posted by Dana Chasin
|