From Tapscott: Put another way - it's all a charade. Here's an initial list of changes found thus far in the text (and I expect much more to come later today):
- The Senate-passed bill required committee and conference reports to list all earmarks, and required the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction to prepare and distribute the list of earmarks. However, the new bill allows the Majority Leader, not the Senate parliamentarian, to unilaterally decide whether or not a bill or conference report complies with the earmark disclosure requirements.
- The Senate-passed bill prohibited the consideration of any bills, joint resolutions, etc. prior to the disclosure of earmarks. The new bill only prohibits a vote on a motion to proceed to these bills. Thus, under the language in the new bill, the Senate could merely proceed to a bill by consent in the middle of the night without being required to disclose all earmarks.
- The Senate-passed bill prohibited the consideration of a conference report if it did not disclose all earmarks. The new bill only prohibits a vote on the adoption of the conference report if it does not list earmarks as required.
- The Senate-passed bill prohibited the inclusion of an earmark based on a Member's vote on a matter. The new bill eliminates that prohibition.
- The Senate-passed bill prohibited Members from promoting earmarks that benefited them, their family, their staff, or their staff's family. The new bill only prohibits earmarks that would "only" affect those parties. Under this new language, you would be able to earmark a new mansion for me as long as that mansion also increased the property value of my neighbors.
Per his usual skill, N.Z. Bear has a link to the text of the Reid/Pelosi bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment