« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Today in Washington – November 30, 2010

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  November 30th, 2010 at 11:30 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

They just don’t get it here in Washington, DC.  The Senate voted today for business as usual — against an amendment by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to ban earmarking by Senators.  The vote was conducted under a suspension of the Senate’s rules, yet it garnered only 39 votes in favor of an earmark ban for the whole Senate.  They love pork on Capitol Hill. 

The Senate has already conducted three votes today on the food safety bill and the bill ended up passing by a vote of 73-25.  Now that the Senate has dispensed with the food safety bill, the Senate needs to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund the government into mid to late December.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has a few issues that he may attempt to bring up as motions to reconsider cloture votes to fill time until the Senate receives a CR from the House.  The House has 22 suspension votes scheduled for today and work on the controversial Claims Resolution Act of 2010, HR 4783. 

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has a piece today at Big Government arguing that the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 needs more study before it is sent to the President for his signature.  

I urge my colleagues to consider what the Claims Settlement Act truly presents before voting on the bill this week. This legislation includes over a billion dollars to settle the Pigford II discrimination claims with black farmers. Unfortunately, Pigford is rife with fraudulent claims and to settle before an investigation can take place does the American taxpayer a disservice. Justice should be served to those who experienced discrimination, but settlement funds should only go to those wronged.

The Senate beat down an effort to ban earmarking for the whole Senate.  This follows the Senate and House Republican conferences voting to swear off earmarking for 2011 and 2012 earlier this month.  The 39-56 voteto defeat the Coburn-McCaskill Amendment on the food safety bill under a suspension of the rules shows the current state of play on earmark reform in the Senate.  Five Senators missed the vote including Bond (R-MO), Boxer (D-CA), Brownback (R-KS), Mikulski (D-MD) and Shaheen (D-NH). 

Republicans voting against an earmark ban for the full Senate and voting against Senator Coburn were the following: 

  1. Robert Bennett (R-UT);
  2. Thad Cochran (R-MS);
  3. Susan Collins (R-ME);
  4. Jim Inhofe (R-OK);
  5. Richard Lugar (R-IN);
  6. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK);
  7. Richard Shelby (R-AL); and,
  8. George Voinovich (R-OH). 

Democrats voting for the Senate-wide ban on earmarking  were the following: 

  1. Evan Bayh (D-IN);
  2. Michael Bennet (D-CO);
  3. Russ Feingold (D-WI); 
  4. Claire McCaskill (D-MO);
  5. Bill Nelson (D-FL);
  6. Mark Udall (D-CO); and,
  7. Mark Warner (D-VA).

This vote shows that the Senate as a whole is not yet close to banning earmarks.  Expect this fight to continue into next year.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Brian Darling

    Senator Tom Coburn’s food safety alternative amendment was defeated by a 36-62 vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00256 ).
    The Coburn Amendment would have lowered the cost of this bill estimated by Coburn to be $1.4 billion over 4 years and would have allowed a more free market approach to food safety. Coburn wanted the FDA to focus on bad actors rather than regulating companies who have had no problems.

  • acat

    for hanging bells on themselves.

    Makes it much easier for us to know who to primary. (or, in the case of Utah’s Bob Bennett, yet another proof the good citizens were right to sack him)

    Mew

    • Adjoran

      And his 98 LIFETIME ACU rating . . .

      When you’re finished purging everyone who ever voted in a way you don’t like, how many do you expect to be left?

      • acat

        … all that and a bag of chips.

        The thing is, the ratings are at best based on what someone else thinks is important, not necessarily what I think is important. I agree Imhofe is right a lot of the time – but not *all* of the time, and this – given the Tea Party movement – is a bad thing for him to be wrong on.

        Just because someone has a good ACU rating doesn’t mean they’re fiscally conservative, eh?

        Mew

  • Menlo

    I see the house is scheduled to vote on the senate-approved bill to lower the volume of television commercials.

    It’s nice to know they are taking care of the most urgent priorities.

  • Adjoran

    Yes, they do. And banning earmarks wouldn’t change that one bit. It would only give more discretion to the Executive branch in how funds are spent.

    Most of those voting for the ban are doing so for political reasons, not because it is a meaningful step in controlling spending. They realize that the ignorant are entertained by clever posturing, so they do the dance.

    The important question will be “what are you willing to cut?” not “how should the spending be structured?”

  • Old_Dominion

    that looks good and feels good, but literally does nothing to reduce government spending. Even if we ignore that earmarks represent only tiny fraction of a percentage of our overall budget, the money that would be saved will just be redirected elsewhere. This effectively cedes some legislative control to the executive branch. Given who will be running the House and who is in the White House, it strikes me as a net negative.

    • Scope

      the amount of money being spent. It has more to do with the fact that earmarks can be used as bribes to vote on bills that the member may not have otherwise voted for or against. They are also used to buy votes back home in the members districts, which can make it harder to primary some waywards.

      • Scope

        of the argument that the monies will just be directed by the Executive branch. Why appropriate the money to begin with.

        • cwilson

          Earmarks are not:

          Ok, the total HUD budget is $97B, and 250k of that amount must go to X, and 27M must go to Y, and 19.5M must go to Z…

          It’s more like:

          To perform all of its core duties, HUD requires $78B dollars, and that’s what we are appropriating for them. Then, in addition, Leeza Mikulneski got $19.5M extra for Z, Bill Nelson got $27M extra for Y. Also, Harry Reid got $15.2M attached to the HUD bill to fund a DOE program located in downtown Searchlight, NV, and Claire McCaskill got $128M to fund a road project managed by the DOT…

          That is, the earmarks are (a) not even germane to the budget bill to which they are supposedly attached, and (b) even if they ARE germane to the nominally funded Department, their budgetary amounts are OVER and ABOVE the baseline department budget.

          So…just don’t appropriate the extra $15.2M, $128M, $27M, 250k, etc. Just appropriate the baseline $78B “needed” by the HUD’s core functions.

          Then, sure, the HUD secretary has broad discretionary power to allocate that $78B as they see fit — JUST AS THEY DO, TODAY. If the actual allocation doesn’t match the justification presented to the Committee when the HUD bill was drafted…that’s what Congressional Hearings are for.

  • indyjohn

    Evan Bayh (D) voted FOR the earmark ban, and Dick Lugar (R) voted AGAINST the earmark ban. I may be wrong, but this seems to mean that Lugar is farther left than Bayh, or at least is more of an orthodox Washingtonian, We have here more evidence that Lugar is slowly losing his mind.
    If any of the executives from the Indiana Republican Party read this website, please allow me to offer this heartfelt plea: PLEASE DO SOMETHING TO RID US OF THIS FOOL!! Sending him angry emails is a waste of time. He and his staff don’t care about the opinions of people like me. They think that they are bulletproof. I am so frustrated by Lugar’s arrogance and silliness that I want to put my fist through a wall. He must be primaried. HELP!!

    • ajshea

      Now is the time to vet candidates to primary Lugar in two years. He is no conservative and no friend of conservatives.

      And keep the Republican Party out of the primary races!

      • ajshea

        n/t