House Curbs Earmarks, Senate Balks

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

WASHINGTON—House lawmakers said Wednesday they have banned earmarks inserted into legislation to benefit for-profit companies.

The move comes amid increasing attention to earmarks, through which lawmakers dictate in detail how funds are to be spent. Lawmakers have used earmarks to benefit favored companies and their districts.

The ban was rejected by the Senate, so it was unclear how effective it would prove to be.

It would prohibit House members from requesting such earmarks in spending bills. The ban wasn't voted on by the House, but was simply agreed to by Rep. David Obey (D., Wis.) and Rep. Norm Dicks (D., Wash.), who control the process for adopting House spending bills.

When House and Senate lawmakers meet to iron out differences in their versions of spending legislation, the final bills could still include earmarks benefiting for-profit entities.

The House measure is primarily aimed at the Department of Defense. Businesses would still be able to compete for federal contracts, but the Pentagon would determine who wins the bids, not lawmakers.

In a joint statement, Messrs. Obey and Dicks said that had the ban been in effect last year, there would have been 1,000 fewer earmarks.

Mr. Obey is the chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee and Mr. Dicks is the incoming chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. Dicks is succeeding that panel's longtime chairman, Jack Murtha (D., Pa.), who died last month. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said the move would limit the influence of corporate lobbyists on members of Congress.

The move comes as House Republicans are set to convene a meeting Thursday to consider their policy on earmarks. Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) has strongly advocated that the party agree to give up earmarks altogether.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...1293781988.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not nearly enough but it's a start. If it actually materializes in any meaningful way. And that, I'm afraid, is a big IF.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Not nearly enough but it's a start. If it actually materializes in any meaningful way. And that, I'm afraid, is a big IF.

Both those guys are honorable, and I am sure they will do everything to keep their word. However, I have watched Obey on the floor of the House, after being castigated by the Speaker. Not a pretty sight.

Edited March 12, 2010 by Lone Ranger