Posted on 11/30/2010 8:12:22 AM PST by Dooderbutt
WASHINGTON -- The Senate has rejected a GOP bid to ban the practice of larding spending bills with earmarks -- those pet projects that lawmakers love to send home to their states.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
They will need to re-vote in February.
An effort by Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., to place a temporary ban on earmarks was defeated. We’ll have the vote breakdown in this space shortly, but the tally was 39 in favor and 56 against.
http://nation.foxnews.com/earmark-ban/2010/11/30/senate-rejects-earmark-ban-56-39-vote
They don’t need a law to not do it, just don’t do it and don’t vote for anything with earmarks in it.
There are going to be lots of Senate votes over the next two years that go against small-government conservative principles.
These votes are important.
We need to get the ‘Rats and RINOs on record and then run real conservatives against them in 2012.
What possible logic did the RINOs employ to convince themselves disunity on this issue was useful?
The House holds the purse strings, and is now firmly in GOP hands. The GOP should simply resolve to refudiate any bill -— any bill whatsoever -— that contains earmarks. It doesn’t need the old bulls in the senate to do this.
If you are a Senator from a state that contributes more in taxes then it gets back then shouldn’t you be looking to bring home bacon? You represent your state, not the other 49.
Robert Bennett of Utah
Thad Cochran of Mississippi
Susan Collins of Maine
James Inhofe of Oklahoma
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
Richard Shelby of Alabama
Richard Lugar of Indiana
George Voinovich of Ohio
At least two (Bennett and Voinovich) are on their way out. Bennett lost his primary exactly for this stuff.
Who were the anti-earmark rats other than McCaskill?
That huge sigh of relief you are hearing is the Senate Republicans.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __X. FISCAL YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2013 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 or a bill or joint resolution reported by any committee with a report 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.
[Page: S7990]
(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 Years 2011 Through 2013.--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 years 2011 through 2013.
(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.
Grouped By Vote Position
| YEAs ---39 | ||
| Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bayh (D-IN) Bennet (D-CO) Brown (R-MA) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) |
Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kirk (R-IL) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL) |
McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Nelson (D-FL) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Thune (R-SD) Udall (D-CO) Vitter (R-LA) Warner (D-VA) Wicker (R-MS) |
| NAYs ---56 | ||
| Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Bennett (R-UT) Bingaman (D-NM) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) |
Gillibrand (D-NY) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) Manchin (D-WV) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) |
Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Shelby (R-AL) Specter (D-PA) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-NM) Voinovich (R-OH) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR) |
| Not Voting - 5 | |
| Bond (R-MO) Boxer (D-CA) |
Brownback (R-KS) Mikulski (D-MD) |
Easy enough to deal with. If the Senate bill is different than the house bill, then it has to go to conference committee. The house members on the conference can decline to accept the Senate differences where there are earmarks and strike them from the Conference bill. Or, if not there, then the house can refuse to pass the Conference bill.
Inhoufe?????? Anybody understand that??
Wow! Kirk got his first vote right!
RINO HUNT- 2012. Let's find a conservative and get rid of this baggage. Then finally the RINO wing of the Texas GOP will figure it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.